AAC
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Normalfags mostly use/associate lossy MP3s with their music, while neckbeards use 320kbps MP3s or FLAC. But why is is that AAC/M4A isn’t well known at all, considering that it’s newer and less lossy than MP3?
>>60850713
It's well known enough to most, because it used to be (idk if this is how it is now) that people bitched about it not working on any of their MP3 players.
I'd also say that it's lesser known, like the other formats out there (APE, ALAC, OGG) because it either doesn't sound as memorable as MP3 is, or people aren't as format savvy as you'd think. There are some people i've met who still don't know that .doc is for Word.
>>60850713
Because the AAC/M4A isn't a radical improvement compared to MP3. Only at lower bitrates there's a difference (e.g. 128kbps). Also some may prefer the psychoacoustic model of MP3, especially produced using the LAME encoder.
Another reason could be that the M4A encoders aren't really good. The free ones like FAAC are quite average t b h.
considering iTunes has their songs in AAC I'd say it's pretty well known m8
>>60850713
>>60850795
>>60850904
>>60850956
Most people on /mu/ don't even know about AAC, they fucking complain with iTunes leaks saying "WHAT ONLY 256KBPS?!" it makes me want to kill myself and them
>>60851098
it's funny because 256kbps aac vbr is actually p good
>>60851155
it is in fact it's better than 320mp3
fucking teenagers on this board
>>60851098
>saying "WHAT ONLY 256KBPS
yeah, that's totally stupid. a 256kbps aac should sound almost the same as 320kbps mp3 (because better algorithm).
plus: anything above 192kbps is usually transparent, so nobody can tell the difference between 256 and 320 anyway.
>>60851177
>it is in fact it's better than 320mp3
no, they're about the same. aac has a more complex algorithm so it can cover that quality difference to 320kbps using lower bitrate.
>>60851098
most people on /mu/ are lazy and aren't willing to look into how format quality works, I wouldn't worry about it.
v0 mp3 is the patrician codec
>>60851449
anyone who knows a bit about audio formats and encoding will pick v0 instead of 320.
I only collect itunes plus quality files
>>60851449
>not opus
T b h s m h f a m
Probably because they don't work on many devices. You're fine if you have an ipod or ipad or iphone. But, try playing one on an android or anything non apple, odds are it isn't gonna work.
>>60851876
Oh fucking come on AAC is incredibly common.
The only thing that couldn't play AAC for me was the old ass 2010 flip phone I had.
>>60851722
why wasting time with obscure codecs? how many devices could play opus?
>>60851911
last time I checked my phone doesn't play AAC
>>60852425
what kind of phone do you have
>>60851876
I have a samshit phallic-xy s5 and it plays anything I ask it to, aac, alac, flac, whatever...
>>60852539
older android
>>60852640
im seeing something that appears to indicate that android models from earlier than 2010 may not have the ability to play aac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history
but i dunno for sure. either way, aac definitely isn't some cryptic audio format; it's just relatively new
