Why isn't AAC used more often?

[SaltBoy]

And just curious, do any audiophiles know how many kbps is required for an AAC file to have the same quality as an MP3 file?

e.g. 320kbps MP3 = ??? kbps AAC

iTunes always wants to convert my MP3 files to 128 kbps AAC, which I'm a little leery of due to quality issues.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Because AAC sucks.

/thread

- M4H

 

[BrokenVisage]

in before .flac whores

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because AAC sucks.

/thread

- M4H

Care to elaborate? I use AAC for my ipod. What am I missing?

 

[lobbyone]

People like MP3 players not AAC players.

 

[Viper GTS]

MP3 is nearly universal, that's probably the biggest reason.

AAC definitely offers space/quality advantages, and I did actually use it for a while. With HD space as cheap as it is these days though I see no reason to use a lossy format.

I've been FLAC only for quite some time.

Viper GTS

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
MP3 is nearly universal, that's probably the biggest reason.

AAC definitely offers space/quality advantages, and I did actually use it for a while. With HD space as cheap as it is these days though I see no reason to use a lossy format.

I've been FLAC only for quite some time.

Viper GTS

How much does FLAC compare to a CD?

80 Minute CD = 700 megs
80 Minute FLAC = ??? megs

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
How much does FLAC compare to a CD?

80 Minute CD = 700 megs
80 Minute FLAC = ~400-450 megs

YMMV of course.

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
in before .flac whores

:laugh:

- M4H

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because AAC sucks.

/thread

- M4H

Yes, AAC feels WAY to "Appleish" for my tastes.

I would use OGG before I used AAC, and they are both very similar in terms of audio quality v. filesize. At least OGG is open-source.

Not to mention that you can't beat the near universal compatibility of MP3.

 

[vi edit]

At 192kbs or above I really could give a crap. In most of my settings the added quality from a lossless format is lost anyway through the cheap earbuds or low end stereo speakers that I'm pushing it through.

And that's pretty much the case for about 95% of digital music users.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I remember reading a couple of audio-codec comparisons a long time ago. The general opinion was:

WMA is unbeatable for low bandwidth internet-audio - think 32kbps-96kbps.
AAC at 128kbps sounds better than 128kbps MP3 - even in casual listening tests.

In a double-blind listening test, once you are past 192kbps, you can't tell the difference - particularly on multimedia speakers and the cheap headphones you get with your digital music player. I suppose lossless formats only show their mettle when listening to them on quality speakers (NOT computer speaker kits) or headphones.

And to address your original question, lots of people use MP3 because it is universal. You can buy a cheap digital music player for a few bucks on the streets of (insert obscure country) and it will play MP3.

Tell iTunes to shove it up its ass and import your mp3s without converting them. Transcoding a compressed lossy audio file to another lossy codec is dumb.

 

[Schadenfroh]

.MP3 is the standard, everything uses it, none of my car stereos, home audio, or portable music devices play AAC (save my ipod) or FLAC.

I prefer having one format that works on all platforms, so I do not have to re encode for everything.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because AAC sucks.

/thread

- M4H

Care to elaborate? I use AAC for my ipod. What am I missing?

Anything remotely resembling the original sound quality, especially if you're listening to 128Kbps iTunes-encoded AACs, the ability to play it back on players that are worth owning, MP3-capable car decks ... 😛

- M4H

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because AAC sucks.

/thread

- M4H

Care to elaborate? I use AAC for my ipod. What am I missing?

Anything remotely resembling the original sound quality, especially if you're listening to 128Kbps iTunes-encoded AACs, the ability to play it back on players that are worth owning, MP3-capable car decks ... 😛

- M4H

I have a 20GB ipod, so I don't want 320+ kbps files. I did test after test, and could not tell the difference between CD, 128 MP3, 128 AAC, 192 MP3, or 192 AAC. Maybe I have cheap audio equipment, who knows. But I couldn't tell the difference. And I'm a musician, and am pretty picky about my music (or maybe being a musician has ruined my ears).

And with an ipod and a car kit, I don't need an MP3-capable car deck. So I think I've justified AAC for me. 😛

 

[IceBergSLiM]

for the main stream folks mp3 works and is widely supported and available everywhere. they don't care to change it.