[Ti] transcoding MP3 to AAC

[John McDaniel]

On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 03:11  PM, steve crandall wrote:

> Both are lossy formats and transcoding will sound worse than either (I 
> was involved in AAC development)..  If you are just listening with 
> Apple's speakers there shouldn't be too much of a difference with 128 
> kbps or higher on each, but you'll notice a serious difference if you 
> are using better speakers or headphones.  Particular problem areas 
> will be some harmonics ..  higher formants in singing, stringed 
> instruments, some organ music, flutes  -- will be particularly bad.

You could probably add to that any musical instrument with plenty of 
transient content with associated low level decay: plucked 
classical/acoustic guitar, acoustic piano, ethnic percussion, banjo, 
harp, etc. And reverb tails will likely suffer as well.

Depends upon what kind of music you listen to. Sometimes the high 
frequency content & complex harmonics of a jazz ride cymbal is enough 
to make you dizzy; lots of phasey "swirling" in the decoded output.

> MP3 at 96 kbps is reasonably equivalent to MP3 @ 128 -> AAC at 128 or 
> above ...

Is there a typo in that line somewhere?

j mcd

--
John McDaniel      johnmcd at one.net
Sonic Arts Digital Audio Services, Inc.