MP3 @ 128 vs AAC at 96

[onethatcan]

I am about to covert my WMA lossless music files to MP3 at 128 (for playing on my iPod). I was wondering whether going to AAC at 96 would result in quality that is just as good, with the added benefit of saving significant HD space. Have you conducted any tests that would indicate that I should consider AAC at 96? I realize that AAC at 128 is superior to MP3 at 128. Thanks.

Manny

[Spoon]

Re: MP3 @ 128 vs AAC at 96

Should be about the same.

[Auid8or]

Re: MP3 @ 128 vs AAC at 96

I am currently doing extensive research on codecs and their quality ratings. In a comparison of an audio track encoded to AAC @ 96 kbps and also encoded to MP3 @ 128 kbps using the Lame MP3 codec I found that the MP3 @ 128 kbps had a Band witdh of 1100 Hz greater than the AAC @ 96 kbps. I did this using a program and doing a frequency sweep of each track then over lapping both results to compare data.
But if you are doing this for your ipod and listening through head phones then it should not matter.

I am about to covert my WMA lossless music files to MP3 at 128 (for playing on my iPod). I was wondering whether going to AAC at 96 would result in quality that is just as good, with the added benefit of saving significant HD space. Have you conducted any tests that would indicate that I should consider AAC at 96? I realize that AAC at 128 is superior to MP3 at 128. Thanks.

Manny

[Spoon]

Re: MP3 @ 128 vs AAC at 96

Realistically you cannot look at frequency graphs to judge a codecs quality, put it this way I could create a codec that had almost an identical frequency graphs as the original - right upto 22KHz, but it would sound rubbish...

[Auid8or]

Re: MP3 @ 128 vs AAC at 96

Obviously that is true and I undertsand that, but for a quick comparison you can always do the frequency analysis. I have a vast amount of tests that I am going to be conducting to "stress" the codecs as well as performing subjective listener evaluations.

Realistically you cannot look at frequency graphs to judge a codecs quality, put it this way I could create a codec that had almost an identical frequency graphs as the original - right upto 22KHz, but it would sound rubbish...

[Spoons]

Re: MP3 @ 128 vs AAC at 96

and where are you conducting the evaluations and posting the results?

BTW my sister and brother inlaw live in royal oak too.