|
320 mp3 vs 192 mp4
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jonG21 |
| These are beatport.com downloading options....similar quality or will you get better quality with one of the two options? |
|
|
| raaven |
to my knowledge a 192Kbps mp4 is equivalent to around a 250Kbps mp3.
but I could very well be wrong. |
|
|
| djkoolaide |
Actually, I've heard that 192k MP4 is equal to 320k MP3.
But I could be wrong too, so.. :p |
|
|
| dinoXpress |
it all depends on the starting source.
if its ripped from a cd, u cant get past cd quality (around 135).
i believe |
|
|
| tvmann |
The bp 320K MP3s sound great to me. I've never used the MP4s.
Anyone concerned about MP3 quality sould get some good software like Exact Audio Copy with the LAME encoder and rip your own CDs at different bit rates. And see if you can tell the difference between the different MP3 files and the original WAV file. |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
because the compression an an MPEG 2-AAC(not officially called mp4) is completely different from an MPEG 2-layer 3(mp3), there is really no comparison chart. I mean, where you see websites compare them is strictly using humans to say... 'now which do you think sounds better?'
this was taken from apples website:
| quote: |
In numerous comparison tests, AAC comes out on top. Check out these impressive results:
AAC compressed audio at 128 kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be “indistinguishable” from the original uncompressed audio source.*
AAC compressed audio at 96 kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 kbps. AAC at 128 kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 kbps.*
AAC was the only Internet audio codec evaluated in the range “Excellent” at 64 kbps for all of the audio items tested in EBU listening tests.*
|
hope that was some help. |
|
|
| SgtFoo |
| If you must download..... chose between whichever meets your needs. If your cd/mp3-player doesn't support vbr... get the 320. if you're burning them to cd, then get the 320 for utmost quality. You won't be able to audibly hear the difference unless you play it in a great-sounding nightclub. I would suggest... if it's feasible for you... to get the wavs sent to you on CDs, by beatport.... that's the best quality you can get. |
|
|
| las3rjock |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0729
because the compression an an MPEG 2-AAC(not officially called mp4) is completely different from an MPEG 2-layer 3(mp3), there is really no comparison chart. I mean, where you see websites compare them is strictly using humans to say... 'now which do you think sounds better?' |
Technically, "MP3" is an abbreviation for "MPEG-1, Layer 3". As the name suggests, there is also a Layer 1 and Layer 2 (also described in the MPEG-1 standard), but they sound worse when compared at equal bitrates with Layer 3. The Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) algorithm was first described in the MPEG-2 standard. AAC was extended and improved in the MPEG-4 standard, which is the "MP4" format used by iTunes and Beatport.
Both MP3 and AAC are lossy, perceptual codecs--that is, they achieve compression by discarding bits of the music that the computer thinks people will not hear. Thus, the only real way to measure the performance of these codecs is to have people listen to the same music compressed using each codec and to ask them, "Now which do you think sounds better?" Most codec comparisons are conducted at equal bitrates. I believe there is near consensus that AAC sounds better than MP3 at equal bitrates. Unfortunately, comparisons of codecs at different bitrates tend to be less careful and precise than comparisons at equal bitrates.
To answer the original question, I would probably go with AAC. It is based on a more advanced perceptual model, and it is not hampered by backwards compability to MPEG-1 Layers 1 and 2.
If anyone is interested in reading about the technical details of various codecs (including Sony ATRAC and Dolby 5.1), a good and fairly recent article is Painter and Spanias, "Perceptual coding of digital audio," Proceedings of the IEEE (Apr. 2000) pp. 451-513. (PDF here) That paper references a ITU-R BS.1116-compliant codec comparison by Souledre et al., "Subjective evaluation of state-of-the-art two-channel audio codecs," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Mar. 1998) pp.164-177. |
|
|
| Ste |
| its a shame they dont just offer wav, in this day and age of high speed internet connections who really wouldnt mind waiting 15-20mins for a pure sounding file theyve PAID for? |
|
|
| raaven |
they should offer downloads in flac.
that'd be better than mp3 or mp4.
but yeah...
just wait a few days and get it in wave format on cd from them. |
|
|
| Fëanor |
| quote: | Originally posted by raaven
they should offer downloads in flac.
that'd be better than mp3 or mp4.
but yeah...
just wait a few days and get it in wave format on cd from them. |
That's for sure, it's a looseless algorithm. |
|
|
| tvmann |
I'd prefer a WAV file too for backup and so I can convert it to whatever new improved file format is invented. But really, once you get above a certain bitrate, people cannot tell the difference between the WAV file and a compressed file.
A low bitrate AAC might sound a a little better than a low bitrate MP3, but no semi-serious music collector would use a low-bitrate compressed file. They would use a high bitrate MP3 or AAC/MP4, and to most people those files both sound exactly the same as the WAV. So the only advantage of AAC/MP4 is that the file size can be smaller. |
|
|
|
|
