8 ms·
Disagree with the author on the technical merits that AAC only sounds marginally better than MP3 at 128kbps and higher. For certain audio shapes, MP3 is a rathe
by LeoNatan25 9y ago
Disagree with the author on the technical merits that AAC only sounds marginally better than MP3 at 128kbps and higher. For certain audio shapes, MP3 is a rather bad™ compression (as is, to some extent JPEG for some image shapes), whereas AAC produces much better results due to different compression mechanics. Much like MPEG4 ASP and MPEG4 AVC and HEVC produce different compression artifacts, with ASP having much worse artifacts.
- pizza234 9y ago> For certain audio shapes, MP3 is a rather bad™ compression (as is, to some extent JPEG for some image shapes), whereas AAC produces much better results due to different compression mechanics. Do you base this assertion on blind testing? I'd really like to know how much of the people that says "MP3 sounds X/Y/Z" actually did one (actually, I'd like all of them to actually do one), because in the blind tests I've participated/seen participating, with a modern encoder and mid/high bitrate (in the average range of 192/224 kbits) users were systematically not able to hear any difference. Of course I found some exceptions; for example, a friend of mine had good hearing on high frequencies, therefore, he could immediately spot 128 kbps CBR mp3s which have a lowpass threshold at ~16 khz.
- LeoNatan25 9y agoI think I fall within that latter category. I have done tests myself, in an environment I feel relaxed in and comfortable, and have been able to hear the difference. I also hear the difference going a step above, with lossless.