| Author |
AAC vs MP3 on the K750 |
_Junky
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 12
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-09-21 10:26:38, Arez wrote:
Quote:
| and in the final results aac is only slightly better than mp3 |
|
so?
are you forgeting aac files are way smaller than their mp3 equivalents???
hence if a 128kbs is better, slightly ot not, than a 128kbs, and plus itīs a smaller file, thereīs really no interest using mp3, except for the id tags (k750 doenīt read id tags from aac, yet)
|
|
eerrrrrr.... lol
Doesn't 128 kbps means the file weighs well... 128 kilo bits (or 16 Ko) for each second ? Then a 128 kbps AAC is EXACTLY the same size as a 128 kbps MP3, and only sounds slightly better according to blind tests.
Guess I'll stick to MP3. Maybe AAC is better for lower bitrates (96 or 64 kbps) like wma is, but I don't like low bitrates, I usually use MP3 VBR approx. 192 kbps or ogg.
Anyway, does anyone know if the battery usage is different with different formats ? that might be interesting to know too. |
|
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
most expert agree that aac has the same audio quality as a mp3 50% larger.
So for example, a 128Kbps AAC is as good as a 192Kbps mp3, and a 96Kbps aac as good as a 128Kbps mp3.
Regarding bitrate, you are correct in theory but not in practice. I can tell you this - a FAAC abr AAC track is way smaller (for the same sound quality) as an itunes AAC track of the same bitrate. iTunes is a relatively inefficient codec compared to some others.
So two songs can be the same bitrate and be very different sizes. It's not as simple as you surmise  |
_Junky
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 12
PM |
hmm, thanx for the input max_wedge. I searched some more info about AAC, and it seems that if AAC is only slightly better than MP3, aacPlus v2 might be MUCH better for very low bitrate files (32 or 48kbps). I usually don't like low bitrate and so-called "CD quality", but since I can't buy a new memory stick for my W800i right now, that might be intersting.
so, does k750i/w800i support aacPlus v2 ? or only AAC ? |
DeLa
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From:
PM |
I would like to add to all this:
- it is also between your ears. If you think that you hear some distortion at 128kbps, you need to go to 192kbps even though scientifically speaking one should not be able to hear the difference. If you think you hear it you hear it.
- going from AAC to MP3 (transcoding) will always give some audible distortion
- quality of the headphones is at least as important; the ones includes by SE are pretty good, but as many know Sony's fontopia headphones are by far the best even though they are suspiciously cheap
- it is amazing how different people's norms are; some are ok with aac at 64, others will not go below 192. One has to try for himself and find the balance between space and quality
- the iPod is still the best! Nevertheless if SE could get iTunes licenced the Walkman phone would kill em all. |
_Junky
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 12
PM |
totally agree with Dela, that's why each one should do his own blind tests (foobar2000 allows you to do Blind ABX tests) to see what's best for him.
on some particular sounds, i can hear the difference between 160kbps mp3 and 192kbps, but of course I couldn't tell the difference between 96kbps and 192kbps if I listen to it woth standard earplugs in the subway ^^;
anyway, iPod might be better than SE phones (even if branded "walkman"), but it's not THE best if you compare it with Rio Karma or i-river products (they have better quality sound output, and support ogg format). |
rrojas260
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Valencia, Venezuela
PM, WWW
|
I think that AAC at 80kbps gives good quality to hear at a portable mp3 player such as the W800/K750, at 64kbps i can hear the noticeable lack of high and low sounds.
IMO if you use your w800 at streets, subway, car, etc (noise enviroments) you can use lower bitrates cause your whole atention is not on the song and the external noise reduces quiality aswell. Using it to hear music at work, home, connecting it to hi-fi sound systems may require higher bitrates.
For me its 80kbps in most of the songs and some at 128kbps in my W800. In my pc 198kbps or 320kbps
|
arnarn911
Joined: Oct 04, 2005
Posts: 141
From: Pilipinas
PM |
Does w800 support aac plus (HE)? is battery usage different with different formats ?
|
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
I think the quality of these compressed music depends on a lot of things.
1. quality of source
2. type of music / sound
3. quality of encoder
4. quality of decoder / player
5. quality of sound processor (sound card / amplifier)
6. quality of speakers
7. quality of listener's ears 
I think the last one is the most important factor specially in the case of mp3 / mp4 / ogg vorbis or any format that uses psycho-acoustic methods of picking and eliminating significant / insignificant sounds -- the compression technique used are dependent on the average human brain's perception to sound -- so there's no definite bitrate or compression method that could be considered the best or practical.
Whatever settings you use for a rock song may not necessarily work well for a jazz or an orchestral classical piece. Your settings for your Yanni compilation may be an overkill for your Beastie Boys collection, etc, etc... IMHO
resistance is futile. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I agree blackspot, good point. Many factors contribute. Here's my assessment:
1. quality of source
Use CD where ever possible, however I find dbpoweramp and itunes both transcode from mp3's very well. A good quality 128Kbps mp3 transcoded to 96Kbps aac is very close (of course you cannot go "up". A 128Kbps mp3 ripped to 192Kbps is no better than the original mp3)
2. type of music / sound
Complex music pieces or deep base seem to be the most demanding music to encode (that's a gross generalisation)
3. quality of encoder
DBPoweramp in my view awesome, as good as itunes but smaller file sizes.
4. quality of decoder / player
Well the decoder in this instance is on the K750 (for me anyway) and it seems just as good as itunes on my laptop.
5. quality of sound processor (sound card / amplifier)
Again in this case we are talking the on-chip processor of the K750, seems well and truly up to the job, although could do with more power output.
6. quality of speakers
I am using the earbuds of the HPM-70, or my suround sound system at home. Through the sound system it's shit hot, and amplified!
7. quality of listener's ears
Well, not as good as some, but I can tell difference between about 5-10Kbps variance in bitrates, however I expect some of the higher and lower frequencies don't reach my brain at all  (comes from having enjoyed loud music most of my life)
Note: the poster who asked about aac+; it's not supported by W800  , but is supported by W900. |
Draqula
Joined: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 197
From: Estonia
PM |
Have you read the K750 white paper?
It's available here:
http://developer.sonyericsson[....]ls/phonespecs/p_phonespecs.jsp
and includes on page 39:
Formats Audio
MP3 (192 kbit/s for local playback)
MP4
M4A
3GP(Audio encoded in AAC or AMR)
AMR
WAV
G-MIDI (level 1 with 40 voices polyphony)
I'm not sure what exactly is meant by that. May it be that 192kbit/s is the best that K750 can do and higher bitrates don't give any better sound? |
Tervel
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: US, TX
PM |
Not to deviate much from the subject but has anyone tried AMR-WB on the K750? I had some movies I had encoded using the Nokia Multimedia Converter 2 and they worked fine on my old Moto E1000 but I could not hear sound on my K750. When I re-encoded them without WideBand they worked fine. |
|
|
Posted: 2005-11-07 17:21
/ Nokia = 
