Joined
·
3,672 Posts
MP3 versus MP4 compression
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
3,672 Posts
Joined
·
778 Posts
I would like to see Apple include AAC and mp4 encoding codecs right into iTunes.
Maybe with an upgrade to iTunes in the future, but I am sure that those codecs are something that Apple wants to hold on to to justify the purchase of Quicktime Pro and so on and so forth!
Maybe with an upgrade to iTunes in the future, but I am sure that those codecs are something that Apple wants to hold on to to justify the purchase of Quicktime Pro and so on and so forth!
Joined
·
3,672 Posts
Joined
·
3,672 Posts
Joined
·
3,672 Posts
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
MP3 vs MP4?
I don't really see a point right now.
It may be as good or even slightly better as well as saving disk space at least in the MB range, but I've spent too much time converting to the current level to bother to do it again for some time to come (It almost feels like going from Record to Tape to CD in the span of a couple of years. I don't wanna re-digitize my CDs AGAIN.
MP4 may be a better standard in the long run, but I'm just too frickin' tired and lazy to bother.
However, it's nice to see that MP3 isn't going to be a stagnant format 10 years from now, since better and more efficient formats are still being developed.
I am still gonna wait awhile.
And now I feel like an old fart, who mutters about "You youngin's have no idea how good you gots it now! When I was your age... {insert absurd but relevant tale of woe here}..."
![]()
I don't really see a point right now.
It may be as good or even slightly better as well as saving disk space at least in the MB range, but I've spent too much time converting to the current level to bother to do it again for some time to come (It almost feels like going from Record to Tape to CD in the span of a couple of years. I don't wanna re-digitize my CDs AGAIN.
MP4 may be a better standard in the long run, but I'm just too frickin' tired and lazy to bother.
However, it's nice to see that MP3 isn't going to be a stagnant format 10 years from now, since better and more efficient formats are still being developed.
I am still gonna wait awhile.
And now I feel like an old fart, who mutters about "You youngin's have no idea how good you gots it now! When I was your age... {insert absurd but relevant tale of woe here}..."
Joined
·
3,672 Posts
OK, what I found was that the qualities appeared in this order, which mysteriously follows the bitrate.... I have the original song on CD, so I based it on how accurately it replicated the real sound on my stereo:
(best)
1. 320kbps; MP4; 7.8 MB
2. 192kbps; MP3; 4.6 MB
3. 128kbps; MP4; 3.1 MB
4. 128kbps; MP3; 3.1 MB (close to a tie)
5. 96kbps; MP4; 2.3 MB (close to a tie)
6. 80kbps; MP4; 1.9 MB
(worst)
I've also noticed that the MP4's reproduction of the cymbal sound isn't as accurate as the MP3's until you get into higher bitrates. This is what I went by to determine that MP3 (#4) beat the MP4 (#5).
btw, nice song choice!
(best)
1. 320kbps; MP4; 7.8 MB
2. 192kbps; MP3; 4.6 MB
3. 128kbps; MP4; 3.1 MB
4. 128kbps; MP3; 3.1 MB (close to a tie)
5. 96kbps; MP4; 2.3 MB (close to a tie)
6. 80kbps; MP4; 1.9 MB
(worst)
I've also noticed that the MP4's reproduction of the cymbal sound isn't as accurate as the MP3's until you get into higher bitrates. This is what I went by to determine that MP3 (#4) beat the MP4 (#5).
btw, nice song choice!
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!