So tell me, /mu/, why do you listen to mp3 and not AAC?
>More sample frequencies (from 8 to 96 kHz) than MP3 (16 to 48 kHz)
>Up to 48 channels (MP3 supports up to two channels in MPEG-1 mode and up to 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
>Arbitrary bit-rates and variable frame length. >Standardized constant bit rate with bit reservoir.
>Higher efficiency and simpler filter bank (rather than MP3's hybrid coding, AAC uses a pure MDCT)
>Higher coding efficiency for stationary signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 1024 or 960 samples, allowing more efficient coding than MP3's 576 sample blocks)
>Higher coding accuracy for transient signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 128 or 120 samples, allowing more accurate coding than MP3's 192 sample blocks)
>Can use Kaiser-Bessel derived window function to eliminate spectral leakage at the expense of widening the main lobe
>Much better handling of audio frequencies above 16 kHz
>More flexible joint stereo (different methods can be used in different frequency ranges)
>Adds additional modules (tools) to increase compression efficiency: TNS, Backwards Prediction, PNS etc... These modules can be combined to constitute different encoding profiles.
Why is your library at 320kbps mp3 when it could be at 256kbps AAC and sound objectively better?
Why listen to CBR at all when VBR exists?
Because I don't care about placebos.
why even listen to music at all?
>>63504641
So do you listen to 128kbps VBR AAC? Objectively speaking that is the lowest bitrate transparent lossy codec available
>>63504619
Don't you have some Steely Dan albums to be listening?
Because the vast majority of people still transcode in MP3.
Most of my rare soulseek downloads are going to be in MP3 if I can't find them in FLAC.
It doesn't matter if it's a superior format if nobody uses it. I certainly wouldn't mind having it over MP3, but unfortunately, MP3 won.
I used to collect 320 and tell myself it made no difference, then one day I finally actually listened to flac
redpill yourselves lads, the sooner the better
I'll widen your main lobe
>>63504619
LAME is better than any AAC encoder. Also IN ANY CASE after a certain limit the differences could not be detected anyway.
>>63504759
There wasn't ever a format war between AAC and mp3, though. AAC was developed by the same team of engineers as the mp3 and was intended to be its successor. AAC is the audio codec used in the television and movie industries as well as on YouTube and by Apple's music services. Also, every digital music player of the modern era plays AAC as well as mp3; it doesn't matter if comparatively few people use it. It saves processing power, hard drive space, and battery life, however, which to me are all important factors in a lossy codec.
>>63504760
Did you actually do a proper ABX test? If not, you were deluded (placebo effect).
>>63504619
for starters im not autistic
Is it rotational velocidensity proof though?
>>63504851
Oh, interesting.
I think there should be more awareness when it comes to people knowing about file format differences. The lack of awareness is partly why MP3 is so common despite clearly being inferior. I've thought the same thing about Vorbis in the past in relation to MP3.
>>63504619
>Up to 48 channels (MP3 supports up to two channels in MPEG-1 mode and up to 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
> 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
> 5.1 channels
>>63505068
Vorbis is a superior file format, but it isn't supported by the types of music software and hardware that 99% of music listeners use.
just get flac you fucking poors
>>63504619
You just copypasted this from the earlier thread you fucking faggot. Make your own pastas.
>unironically using lossy formats
I bet your favorite album lost 80% of its bytes by now. That midbass must sound awful.
