qaac cvbr 256 vs lame cbr 320

[nixiejames]

for music, which would you prefer? i'm also interested in knowing which is better in theory.

[KarMa]

Probably the qaac but they are both well above placebo territory for 44.1-48khz stereo audio.

[nixiejames]

i'm guessing you're more into lame vbr -V options. actually, i'm already content with mp3s cbr 128 but i like letting my friends hear my music so what they will hear is also my concern. most of them use itunes and i've read that songs from itunes plus are roughly aac cvbr 256. when it comes to mp3, cbr 320 is best on paper. and so i'm comparing the two.

[magic506]

qaac will always be better than MP3 in my opinion at any bit rate lol.

[magic506]

as much as I despise Apple products they really did perfect a lossy music format.

[Cornucopia]

they didn't perfect that. mpeg did.

mp3 = mpeg 1, layer 3 and/or mpeg 2, layer 3
aac = mpeg 2, non-backwards-compatible, and/or mpeg 4 part 3

All the lossy formats you refer to in use in iTunes ("mp3", "aac", "mp4", "m4a", "m4b") are mpeg technologies.
<edit: they do use lossless ALAC, which IS made by Apple>

Plus, I would posit that there are some other lossy formats that are better for some/many uses (e.g. Opus).

I do agree that AT THE SAME/SIMILAR bitrate AAC will have better quality than MP3, but there is a clear difference when AAC is 96kbps and MP3 is 320 (this time favoring MP3), so a blanket statement like that doesn't hold up.

Note: did you really mean to dig up a 6 year old thread for those posts?


Scott