Gunnar Van Vliet, self-described Mac user and music lover, wanted to know how good AAC was in comparison to MP3, and finally to see if it could come close to standard CD. So, Van Vliet encoded the same track in iTunes using 96, 128, 160 and 192 kbps AAC and MP3, and one AIFF for reference. The track is from the Kansas City Soundtrack – “I Surrender Dear.” It’s a very well recorded live in the studio jazz piece and it’s a track that Van Vliet says he knows very well. It features a solo saxophone and trumpet which are clearly localized in the mix and very closely resemble the real instruments.
The usual caveats of testing apply. This is an unscientific test and it’s not double blind, but Van Vliet thinks that this test can be of use if you’re trying to compare something to a known reference. Van Vliet’s system consists of Yamaha RX-595 receiver, CDX-490 cd player, and Energy Veritas 2.1 speakers. He describes the system as “well balanced and revealing.” Van Vliet told RecordStoreReview.com, “I’ve compared it to many other systems over the years and it never disappoints.”
Van Vliet’s test results:
128 kbps MP3 – Flat, compressed sound/dynamics. Rolled treble (quite bad). One dimensional, plodding bass.
– Tonal Accuracy – 5/10
– Imaging/Soundstage – 5/10
– Naturality – 4/10
– Musicality – 4/10
– Total – 18/40
128 kbps AAC – Rolled treble, but not too bad. Light bass especially in transients/impact. Compressed dynamics. Surprisingly musical.
– Tonal Accuracy – 7/10
– Imaging/Soundstage – 6/10
– Naturality – 6/10
– Musicality – 8/10
– Total – 27/40
AIFF: Beautiful sparkle to piano keys. Generally filled with much more life and atmosphere on a tactile level. Far more musically involving. This is the reference piece, so it naturally gets a perfect 40/40 score.
On the whole, there weren’t any surprises. Van Vliet’s observations echo what most people have said about AAC vs. MP3. AAC is higher quality at the same bit rate, so you can use a smaller file to achieve the same quality as MP3 which is a good thing for portable and computer users. Ultimately, both formats still sound pretty bad in their practical ranges compared to CD.
Also, Van Vliet didn’t test 256 or 320 kbps because it’s impractical for most users to use these encodings. The Apple Music Store uses 128 kbps, and Van Vliet suggests that if you have room for 320 kbps and you care about sound that much you’ll probably use AIFF or just play the CDs themselves.
Full article and results using 96, 128, 160 and 192 kbps AAC and MP3 here.
> Trevor : “But 128Mbps is just too little data for good sounding AAC in any music style”.
I think I missed the a quantum leap or two. I’m still at the kbps age
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
OK. I work in a computer department in a store that sells alot of high end audio gear. I got into a fight with some audiophiles telling me that there was an obvious difference, and that 128 aac would be unlistenable! so I conducted a little test. Using their recommendation, I ripped diana Krall live in paris into 128 AAC in itunes and burned it onto a cd. Then I took my fellow computer department workers up to our best sound room and played both the file on cd and the original disk. This part actually suprized the hell out of me. They all Prefered the ripped song to the original! I did this test with people from various departments, the odd time some one picked the cd, but every one agreed that AAC was the best compressed format they had heard. So, I was ready for the real test. My store has 3 sales people that I would consider truly good at understanding music. I took them in to the room one by one, thinking that I was going to laugh in their faces. Each one nailed the test within 20 seconds of the song. Frustrated, I even tried to trick the third one by playing the same cd twice, hoping he would pick one over the other. He didn’t fall for it. Now before the audiophiles start saying “I told you so” and the mac geeks like me say that I could have ripped on different disks or slower speeds or a million technical reasons why my test was flawed, here are some conclusions that all the testors agreed with
1.) this was an extreem situation. The sound system I tested on was over $25,000 cnd. The audio guys all agreed that aac was pretty darn good for what it was, and that if the test were done in the average home sound system, car system or discman (or ipod) the difference would be pretty hard to identify. So, us guys who listen to music while on their computers or driving to work probably won’t hear a difference.
2.)we used a great live cd with vocals and real instruments. Remember that most music now a days is heavly synthesized. (which explains why every one in the computer department failed…they all listen to technoish type stuff) if you listen to rap or pop, you are going to have an even harder time telling the difference between a ripped or real cd
When the audio guys explained to me the difference and I sat and listened,to be honest, yes I can hear the difference. BUT: let’s be honest. music is **for most people** and I stress most people, not taken in with the lights off and dead silence. music is something we listen to in the car, during dinner conversations, while concentrating on work, or hanging out with friends. While there are people who can sit and pick out flaws in music, most people enjoy finding the good things; the beat, the poetic verses, and most importantly how music makes us feel. I will continue to rip my cds in itunes, fill my ipod with hours of enjoyment, and make my girlfriend mixes of my favorite tunes. For me the quality is perfect for my needs…although I now realize that there are people that can tell a difference. One thing that really impressed me with the guys I work with is that no one bothered mentioning looking at sound waves or other purist hogwash…of course the damn wave is different. Their gripe was the experience was not as good, and when you spend thousands of dollars to get the best sound possible you want the best sound possible. but they all agree that sound room listening is only one way of listening to music, one that AAC should not apply for (which of course was never it’s intent) For the way most people listen to music though, the many advantages of a portable, flexible, and simple to use format, itunes and AAC are fantastic. Now if only I could buy music from apple here in canda
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Cheeraz
sorry, read the second post first word limit
where are these mac waveform tools
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
To MathBozo,
What the hell are you talking about? You do realize, there is amplitude information in the Fourier transform?
“CD quality” is already limiting. In transferring analog sources (even language tapes, if you’re a speech pathologist there’s as much information in voice as music) to the digital domain, it pays to work 24 or 32 bits, not 16 bits. Then “dither down” to 16 bits mastering a CD, getting effectively 19 bits. Sounds better.
Ok, not everyone masters CDs. However, if people can hear this, people can hear the differences in compression schemes.
I have the same reaction to wine snobs that some people have to audiophiles, but I’ve seen some of them match up 12 wines blind after a two hour wait. Cut through the psychological pretensions, some people’s hearing is better trained than others. If yours isn’t, don’t argue, just relax, and revel in the fact that audio-wise, you’re a cheap date.
Anyone can train themselves in minutes to recognize differences in imaging. Listen to the music, and try to precisely identify the locations of various instruments.