Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
> > http://www.listening-tests.info/
> > . And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
> Maybe. But actually: as long as my own platform sup****ts it - I don't
> care, because I don't share.
> > From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top
performers
> > are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
> > usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
> Wasn't it normally said it's below 160?
Whether that's said or not, the tests show that the best LAME and AAC
codecs perform audibly the same down to 128, for most tracks, within the
margins of error (Sebastian Mares's hydrogenaudio tests show error bars,
but soundexpert doesn't seem to display those in a way I can parse).
FWIW, my archiving/home listening is via lossless Flac, and I use
192 VBR LAME MP3s for my iPod...I'm sure AAC files would sound just as
good.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
|
