Hello everybody. I have a short question. Is there any test, any ABX that says that @ high bitrates (>320kbs), MPC is better that AAC? Or OGG is Better than AAC? Everybody are saying that for example MCP>AAC. Whay about the hight bitrates. Can someone tell me that one of them is better. I ask this because i want to choose a format. I'd like AAC (mp4). I Encode everything at high bitrates. So who is better at bitrates higher than 320? Thanx a lot
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html In THESE tests - Vorbis aoTuV is tied to Musepack at first place, Lame MP3 is tied to iTunes AAC at second place, WMA Standard is in third place and Atrac3 gets last place.
Thanx...BUT: The question was: So who is better at BITRATES HIGHER (or equal) THAN 320? This test is @ 128 kbs. So thant's not the point. I'm not encoding @ 128kbs, so... Thanx anyway.
at >320kbps, they all sound the same to me. mainly cause my speakers are crappy ones. you should find the threshold of which sounds better with your equipment, headphones are good for audio comparisons. if you just want to archive go lossless. for space saving i use latest vorbis at Q7 or Q8
Ok, thanx a lot for the answers. So, in conclusion, you don't know any test that can tell me witch is better. I think about choosing mp4 over mpc,ogg (at high bitrates) because, in my opinion, this is the future. It has great quality, is allready implemented, it is suported by almost any players,etc, etc. For example, a few days ago i have installed on my pc, the latest Nero Media Player. And, surprise: OGG NOT SUPPORTED!!!!, MPC NOT SUPPORTED!!! (i know, is a stupid player, but ....) So Shiroh, if you don't have a high fidelity equipament at home, how did you choose ogg? because someone told you so? Look, i have encoded one track @ cca 400kbs. To me aac=ogg=mpc AT THIS BITRATE. Then why should i choose ogg or mpc since aac is now the most supported and developed encoder? For arhive i'm not chooseing anything. I'll go .wav->dvd. SIMPLE. thanx all for replies
i chose vorbis rather than mp3 cause it sounds better at low bitrate, 96kbps. and the name vorbis is really cool for archive you can go lossless, like flac. i kinda tried wav(cd) to mp3 to wav to flac. do another one with vorbis. and compare ratio. nice test huh be fair, use same bitrate no matter vbr or cbr
first of all: i don't give a damn about size. second of all: i don't give a damn about how the format's name sound like. I AM TALKING ABOUT HIGH BITRATES!!!!! that means HIGHER than 320 or EQUAL. shiroh, i see that you are a senior member, so i think that you ca understand that i'm not talkning about 96 kbs. 96 kbs is innacceptable for me with any encoder. including OGG. you wrote 2 posts, and all you do is tell me how the things are gion at 96k. 96k sucks men. 96 k is for internet radio stations not for audition. wake up. i understand that you choosed ogg rather than mp3 because it sound better @ THAT bitrate. BUT i'm not talking about THAT bitrate. I think my question was very simple. And i'll never choose one format because it sounds good @ 96kbs. i'm talking about serious stuff. if you are looking a few cm upper than your post you'll see that i'm not choosing flac because the difference between wav is too small for me to arhive in flac. are you blind? i told you everything you wanna know: i'm not interesed in small bitrates and i'm not interessed in flac. i wanna know if there is anby test where i could see witch is better ogg aac mpc @ high bitrates. bye
size doesn't matter, maybe for men anyway, getting back to business, I don't think that a higher then 320 bitrate helps you in any way. I mean, the human ear can't make the difference at higher bitrates as far as I know, no matter what home-entertainment system you have. So I guess there's no need for a higher bit rate. Also for internet radio, you can find radio stations that are broadcasting on the internet at 320 kbs so 96 is not a must. Also AAC files usually have DRM protection, that's why the new software that is developed is using this format as an encoder, at least in my opinion. And about those tools, I didn't find such tools, but i saw (don't remember the URL) some graphic charts that made a comparison between different formats.
