[trolling—bashing AAC w/ wishful thinking, nonsense, chip on shoulder], From: Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC? / Topic ID: 92413 |
Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules - No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service
  |
[trolling—bashing AAC w/ wishful thinking, nonsense, chip on shoulder], From: Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC? / Topic ID: 92413 |
 Dec 21 2011, 20:41
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 16-November 11 Member No.: 95199  |
128 kbps is not satisfactory in my headphones, neither LAME MP3 nor the famed AAC.
I do find VBR ~192 kbps excellent in either LAME MP3 or the famed AAC. Now, a couple of google searches: "hotel california mp3": About 12,600,000 results (0.26 seconds) "hotel california aac": About 201,000 results (0.20 seconds) Hence, I use LAME MP3. This post has been edited by apodtele: Dec 21 2011, 20:41 |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 21 2011, 21:21
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4341 Joined: 23-June 06 Member No.: 32180 |
QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 21 2011, 19:41)  128 kbps is not satisfactory in my headphones, neither LAME MP3 nor the famed AAC. I do find VBR ~192 kbps excellent in either LAME MP3 or the famed AAC. Now, a couple of google searches: "hotel california mp3": About 12,600,000 results (0.26 seconds) "hotel california aac": About 201,000 results (0.20 seconds) Hence, I use LAME MP3. I must be missing something, because I fail to see how a particular encoder looks more favourable to you due to a greater probability of locating pirated, i.e. already-encoded, music in the format said encoder uses. This post has been edited by db1989: Dec 21 2011, 21:23 |
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2011, 06:04
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 16-November 11 Member No.: 95199 |
QUOTE (fukdup @ Dec 21 2011, 20:58) i would think this means it's got a much more widespread usage. Exactly. The market has spoken and it is not in favor of AAC. AAC improvements are really minor at any reasonable bitrate when the hi-fi quality counts Naturally, nobody cares about AAC. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2011, 06:18
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 468 Joined: 16-February 10 Member No.: 78200 |
QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 21 2011, 23:04) Exactly. The market has spoken and it is not in favor of AAC. AAC improvements are really minor at any reasonable bitrate when the hi-fi quality counts Naturally, nobody cares about AAC. I think we've more than demonstrated that people care about AAC. "The Market:" ...iTunes is the largest retailer of music. Period. That would be "the famed AAC," as you keep referring to it. Stop trolling. This isn't a flame-war and we're not playing "My Codec is Better than Your Codec." -------------------- The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 06:36 |
