![]() However, when it comes to the higher bit rates to me if you are using the LAME MP3 Encoder to make your MP3s it is basically a wash between AAC and MP3. However, when I researched how metadata is stored in AAC files (due to an issue I had with a music management program that would have trouble with the metadata on AAC files so I wanted to find out how AAC metadata is actually stored) all I could find was that the metadata in AAC files is stored in the form of atoms.that's it (this was a few years ago, so that might not be the case now).Ĭomparing AAC to MP3, AAC is supposed to have better sound quality than MP3 at the lower bit rates. With MP3 the defacto metadata standard is well documented on the Internet. In short, there is absolutely no difference when playing back the two formats.Ĭlick to expand.Metadata is one of the main reasons I avoid the AAC format (which I think is related when it comes to ALAC). This was on an old Dell P3 running Windows XP, using the cheapest USB S/PDIF interface available at the time (M-Audio?) For the hell of it, we tested both RCA and TOSLINK into the Audio Precision - also no difference. ![]() Everything came back exactly the same, bit for bit. I tested dumping the raw PCM to a file through a software loopback driver, and finally through a S/PDIF interface into an Audio Precision audio analyzer. I tested the files, going from WAV->FLAC->WAV for data integrity. All measurable audio characteristics were exactly the same (THD/IMD/spectral histogram, dynamic range, etc.) This was over ten years ago, I think FLAC was still in beta, and even then, when captured and analyzed coming out of a S/PDIF stream on an, for the time, old machine:ģ. I don't know about AIFF, but when I did audio testing for a living, I did a bunch of comparisons between WAV and FLAC.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |