WMA better than AAC?

[applewhore]

No, you didn't misunderstand me, that's exactly what I meant.

good!

With Adobe Photoshop and iTunes both making regular trips to the disk, iTunes gets a belly full while I get an ear full .. or not, as the case may be

I've noticed this before too!

Imagine that, an AppleScript-driven home automation system.

Quick! Someone write one huge AppleScript to manage my life...

oh, yes please!!!


Anyway, from what I understand - I think I'm going to go AIFF at the highest settings...

First of all I have to persuade Roku to ship to Dubai - they don't offer it on their purchase section... I need the digital output!

 

[mindbend]

Another reminder to throw in the mix is that AAC (and other similar "lossy" formats) were never meant to be the cat's meow. They are simply temporary solutions that deliver excellent bang for the buck using today's limited bandwitdh and storage space. If both were infinite, we'd be piping in uncompressed 32-bit 96KHz multi-channel files. AAC is a really good compromise that sounds really good for general listening. To be fair, MP3 and WMA also fit the same bill when done properly.

 

[Giaguara]

I did not add AIFF to the poll very simply because the AIFF files are so big, and all the other formats are compressed. It's not fair to compare them to compressed formats.

 

[applewhore]

I did not add AIFF to the poll very simply because the AIFF files are so big, and all the other formats are compressed. It's not fair to compare them to compressed formats.

Fair enough, giaguara...

Perhaps I misunderstood the original thread title...

I read "What is the best digital format (including, but not solely, AAC and WMA)?"

I agree it doesn't say quite that!!!

 

[octane]

Someone may have said this earlier [can't be bothered to read back through my own thread ]

But when either / any format is bumped up to maximum quality, it's going to have to be a well-tuned ear to spot the difference.

So maybe the problem should be tackled in the opposite direction: when bandwidth is low.

So compare lower bit-rate sound files.

If the compression algorithm is going to show itself, it's going to be here somewhere...

 

[fryke]

Well, that's not so simple. To me, it seems that MP3 'gets good' at 160 kbps. From 160 to 256 kbps I can't tell a difference. 320 kbps seems to give me something. With AAC, the sweet spot seems to be different. 128 to ~240 kbps for me. So I could say that I prefer AAC to MP3, because I can live with lower bandwidth in AAC.

WMA files: I haven't encoded anything to WMA myself. So I can't really compare it to AAC/MP3 on an audio level. I sure can on a political one.

Now getting a little off-topic, but not completely... Politically, it becomes even more important when we're talking audio AND video. QuickTime (Sorenson) is just as closed as Windows Media. Apple has done a really good step by adopting MPEG (1, 2 and 4). I sure wish the media sites (I mean CNN, news.com etc.) would adopt MPEG-4 instead of Windows Media and Real. Because then it wouldn't even matter whether viewers use WMP, Real One or QuickTime (or any open source media players). I don't quite understand why MPEG-4 hasn't reached the important sites yet. (Microsoft pressure?)

Here's a chance, Apple! Get one _big_ news site to adopt the open standard! Let's say: CNN. They could even stream live their TV broadcast. Such a service could even generate money (the ads are in there, too, of course, but business people might even pay for the service).

 

[octane]

Now getting a little off-topic, but not completely...

Do it!

I started the thread, but I don't mind if we include video in this little debate.

Anyone else mind?

I've looked around the Windows Media site and I think the video is terrible.

I remember going there to have a poke around with the Windows Media Player. I attempted to watch the trailer for The Last Samurai .. in a word: crap.

Over broadband [and yes, I altered the settings within the application] the screen was about the size of a seasonal postage stamp. The audio was bitty and video was streaked and blurred.

Terrible...

 

[Giaguara]

And, well - also the music counts. If you have opera or classical music or e.g. Apocalyptica, you DO hear the difference.

If you have commercial pop or top-40 kind of things that have the best listened before the date thing, I think in most cases the difference is not that big.

 

[Arden]

I always thought the big issue was comparing different formats at the same encoding settings, like 128 kbps to 128 kbps, much like we do Macs vs. PC's. A 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4, despite being a PC, will always beat the pants off a 33 Mhz 680X0 Mac, but it gets relevant when the Macs get up to 3 Ghz (or close, at least). And likewise, a 192 kbps WMA will always sound better than a 32 kbps AAC, but the real test comes when they're both at 128, 160, etc.

 

[Giaguara]

Or maybe as the total size of the file? Lets say the same piece of music where you can hear the difference made so that every file is as big, e.g. 5 mb.

 

[Arden]

Well, that would get stacked against AAC, because they make better-sounding, smaller files for the same bit rate compared to MP3, WMA, etc. To get the same file size, you'd have to increase the bit rate for AAC's, which would already make it sound better... hmm, maybe it's not so stacked... but still, it's like comparing cars in terms of gas mileage only, or tank size, instead of everything, including quality, performance, etc.

 

[Randman]

Off the track but thankks Gia, I thought I was one of the few who enjoyed Apocalyptica (though the last album was a tad disappointing, imho).

 

[fryke]

gia: files encoded at 160 kbps will be the same size, whatever format is used. 160kbps is bandwidth, and as long as the songs have the same length (and most songs do when you compare the same songs ;-)), the size of the resulting files will be the same. VBR (variable bitrate) will change this a bit, of course, but not much.

 

[Cat]

[Off-topic]Giaguara & Randman: Apocalyptica are great! I especially enjoyed their (first?) album where they play Metalllica.[/Off-topic]

Back to encodings ... notwithstanding comments to the contrary, I still think that with average hearing capabilities and standard headphones this discussion is completely non-sensical. WMA, AAC and MP3 are all definitely "good enough" at >160 kbps and are all completely inferior to live music or CD music played on _good_ HiFi equipment. I must really concentrate to hear any difference between WMA, AAC and MP3 on my stereo, while the difference with a CD is immediately clear. With average headphones I do not think you would hear any difference in normal use: e.g. sitting in a train, touring on your bike, taking a walk, etc. with all the ambient noise etc.
We are talking about human-perceived differences here, not about technical differences in encoding. The theoretical "technical superiority" is different from the experienced quality of the sound. If we are going to discuss technical details of encoding, I'll be the first in the fray arguing about how hearing works in your head: there's a lot of error correction and filtering going on in your ear and brain.