m4a (FAAC CLI) vs. mp3

[Mcmac]

so what is better?
is the m4a same as AAC?
and I heard that AAC 128 kbps is better quality than mp3 192 kbps... is it true?

[LtData]

Re: m4a (FAAC CLI) vs. mp3

I wouldn't stretch it THAT far, but AAC 160 probably sounds as good or mabye a bit better than mp3 192kbps.
See here for the differences between m4a and aac: http://www.dbpoweramp.com/spoons-aud...de-formats.htm

[xoas]

Re: m4a (FAAC CLI) vs. mp3

For more on AAC, if you are interested, see:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=AAC

Statements regarding whether a particular format is the same or better than another format at the same or some other bitrate need should be suspect. With respect to AAC at 128 kbs (or even at 160 kbs) being equivalent to mp3 at 192 kbs, there are some other factors to consider:
a) There are some listeners for whom mp3 at 128 kbs (or even more so at 160 kbs) sounds the same as mp3 at 192 kbs., for whom AAC/m4a at 128 kbs (likewise even more so at 160 kbs) sounds the same as AAC at 192 kbs. and for whom there is no real difference for these listeners between either format;
b) comparisons between formats should be based upon either the latest and/or the best versions of the particular codecs for those formats and then these should be revised as codecs are updated (comparing older or inferior versions of AAC/m4a with the latest Lame codec, or vice versa would be unfair, likewise comparisons of formats done two (or even one) year ago may no longer be valid if one or both format codecs have been updated/improved);
c) in a recent "golden ears" test (a listening test involving a single listener and hence a test in part of that listener's powers of discernment), mp3 at 192 kbs appeared to somewhat outperform AAC at the same bitrate (although the difference between the 2 was within the statistical margin margin of error);
d) in a multi-listener test comparing formats at 128 kbs., AAC appeared to outperform mp3 (although the overall difference appeared to be within the margin of error), but not so much that you would expect AAC at 128 kbs to be equal to mp3 at 160 or 192 kbs.

(The listening test referred to in c. is described here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465

The test referred to in d is described here:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html )

So my recommendation is that you do some comparisons and see which formats and which bitrates are best for you rather than rely on word of mouth.

Best wishes,
Bill

[Mcmac]

Re: m4a (FAAC CLI) vs. mp3

thanks all
i think I will use 128kbps AAC, but i'm not sure

[Tomb]

Re: m4a (FAAC CLI) vs. mp3

thanks all
i think I will use 128kbps AAC, but i'm not sure

Why don't you rip some tracks using both mp3 and AAC then decide for yourself which one sounds better rather than asking someone who has a different setup to you which one sounds better etc. If you want to test further download winabx and run some blind tests.

[gameplaya15143]

Re: m4a (FAAC CLI) vs. mp3

i have tested this.... faac can NOT beat lame below 128kbps; in my tests at 128kbps, aac encoded by faac had extremely audable artifacts (i disabled the lowpass filter for both lame and faac), lame mp3 easily won

m4a = mp4 the container for mpeg4 stuffs

aac encoders that can beat lame below 128kbps are nero and psytel
even so, these arent that much better, might as well just stick with mp3