AAC or MP3?

[admin_exported]

Hey everyone, what's up?

Anyway, I got two tracks today, one was a 256kbs MP3 and one was a 256kbs AAC. I could not hear a single difference! I know AAC is 'meant to be better' but I just couldn't find it, is it my ears? What are your opinions? I would love to know!

 

[idc]

Google and you will get a veritable plethora of comparisons, from which there is no definitive 'better' format. In the case you mention, both are at the same bit rate, so any difference is surely going to be minimal? However, from my experience, the more detailed a setup is the more likely you are to hear a difference. There are also people with 'golden ears' who hear differences better than others. I tested the wife with different bit rates and she got almost all correct. I did less well.

However, until recently I would have left it at that. But I now listen to most of my music through Spotify because to me it sounds fantastic. It often sounds better than Apple lossless. Yet the music on Spotify is streamed at an equivalent of 160kbps and for premium 320kbps. Having searched around for a reason I think it is due to the means Spotify use to compress its music files for streaming - Ogg Vorbis. Just like MP3 and AAC, if you google it you find loads of comparisons, which are unconclusive as to which is definitively the best.

So, in the end as you say, 'is it my ears?'. The answer is yes. To me Ogg Vorbis sounds the best, followed by Apple Lossless, followed by AAC and last is MP3. But that is to my ears and it is not definitive. You would think that it should be objective, comparing one format to another, but that would not appear to be the case. It actually appears to be subjective.

Which format is better is also not going to be definitive to anyone else, no matter how forceful they put forward their argument that such and such is better. In any case, since hearing Ogg Vorbis on Spotify I am less impressed with bit rate and more impressed with how well the album was recorded in the first place. That makes way more difference, to my ears. Oh and what kit you use.

 

[Anonymous]

As you move up to a higher bitrate the differences become less and less. AAC is designed to be better than mp3 at lower bitrates like 128kbps or even 96kbps - of course who in their right mind would ever do that if they are into music! I have compared them at lower bitrates and I can tell a difference. I will say, that I can also tell a difference when I set my ripping software to go for maximum quality and 320kbps. I often struggle to tell a difference between 320kbps+ AAC and lossless but can almost always tell a difference between Apple Lossless and 320kbps mp3.

It really does also come down to your system though. I used to listen to my ripped music mostly through my Monsoon computer speakers and could hardly tell a difference between lossly and Apple Lossless or FLAC. Playing it through my real stereo however, and the differnce is night and day. So the short answer is yes, AAC is marginally better than mp3 and that difference is most noticable at lower bitrates but they are both still lossy and therefor compromised formats so the difference isn't huge.

 

[idc]

mcd0234:

...I often struggle to tell a difference between 320kbps+ AAC and lossless but can almost always tell a difference between Apple Lossless and 320kbps mp3......

With my itunes lossless ranges from 1156 down to 317kbps. I would guess that the struggle to differentiate between the two is when the bit rates get closer.

 

[Anonymous]

At higher bit rates the difference is minimal. On occasion when I have not had the 'original' cd to compare I have found that MP3 downloads appear to sound more transparent than AAC at the same bit rate! This might be a characteristic of the compression however.

 

[idc]

oeurf:At higher bit rates the difference is minimal.

No doubt that the majority opinion on the forum is that lossless is lossless no matter what the format is. That makes sense. Anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference between FLAC, Apple lossless etc is usually treated with scepticism. That is not just here, it is also elsewhere on the web.

oeurf: On occasion when I have not had the 'original' cd to compare I have found that MP3 downloads appear to sound more transparent than AAC at the same bit rate! This might be a characteristic of the compression however.

But go lower down the bit rate ladder and there does appear to be more difference to the sound between formats. Without a doubt it is a characteristic of the compression. MP3, AAC and Ogg Vorbis compress in different ways (I have no idea how that works, but I have read enough to know that is true) and now I have had a chance to listen to all three, for me Ogg Vorbis sounds the fullest, most dynamic and detailed. That is not to say it is THE best, only it is the best for me.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:mcd0234:

...I often struggle to tell a difference between 320kbps+ AAC and lossless but can almost always tell a difference between Apple Lossless and 320kbps mp3......

With my itunes lossless ranges from 1156 down to 317kbps. I would guess that the struggle to differentiate between the two is when the bit rates get closer.
There is no audible difference between lossless at 1156 and lossless at 317. If it is lossless, then the original PCM file is reconstructed before playback...So the point is moot.

 

[professorhat]

Gfel:There is no audible difference between lossless at 1156 and lossless at 317. If it is lossless, then the original PCM file is reconstructed before playback...So the point is moot.

I think the point is, if a lossless version of a track has a bitrate of 317 Kbps, then the 320 Kbps AAC version won't have had to throw away much (if any) detail, thus the lossless and AAC version will sound very similar. However, if a lossless track has a bitrate of 1156 Kbps, then there should be a greater difference between this and the 320 Kbps AAC version since clearly more information has been discarded to achieve that bitrate.

 

[idc]

professorhat:

Gfel:There is no audible difference between lossless at 1156 and lossless at 317. If it is lossless, then the original PCM file is reconstructed before playback...So the point is moot.

I think the point is, if a lossless version of a track has a bitrate of 317 Kbps, then the 320 Kbps AAC version won't have had to throw away much (if any) detail, thus the lossless and AAC version will sound very similar. However, if a lossless track has a bitrate of 1156 Kbps, then there should be a greater difference between this and the 320 Kbps AAC version since clearly more information has been discarded to achieve that bitrate.

That is certainly what I was guessing at professorhat. I think that Gfel is arguing that the comparison should be between format and not bit rate. In which case we agree.