[Cristi^]

Cu toti stim foarte bine popularul format mp3, calitate acceptabila la dimensiuni mici. Insa stau si ma gandesc, va fi detronat vreodata de catre alt tip de compresie audio. Asa m-am gandit la codecul AAC sau AAC+ o calitate superioara la un bit rate scazut. Puntem avea calitate comparabila de 64 kb/s aac cu 128 kb mp3 deci, melodia aac ar avea jumatate din cea mp3, si totusi mp3-ul prospera in continuare in cele mai multe calculatoare. Pe un CD pot incapea cel putin 300 mel in format AAC si parca iti incanta mai bine auzul decat un mp3..hm parerea mea. Voi ce credeti? Care va fi viitorul AAC si ce dezavantaje are fata de mp3? Consuma mai multe resurse? Va cadea mp3-ul vreodata si care credeti ca va fi succesorul lui? Astept raspunsuri...pareri....opinii

[harald]

Pe de-o parte, formatul .mp3 are ceva ani în spate, e deja consacrat, fiind astăzi prezent pe toate player-ele pentru maşini, de exemplu. Iar pe de altă parte, "dezordinea" din domeniu face ca adoptarea unui alt codec "standard" să se facă fără prea mare entuziasm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media...o#Sound_quality

Some conclusions made by recent studies:

At 32 kbit/s, WMA Standard was noticeably better than LAME MP3, but not better than other modern codecs in a collective, independent test in July 2004.
At 48 kbit/s, WMA 10 Pro was ranked second after Nero HE-AAC and better than WMA 9.2 in an independent listening test organized and supported by Sebastian Mares and Hydrogenaudio Forums in December 2006. This test, however, used CBR for WMA 10 Pro and VBR for the other codecs.
At 64 kbit/s, WMA Pro outperformed Nero HE-AAC in a commissioned, independent listening test performed by the National Software Testing Labs in 2005. Out of 300 participants, "71% of all listeners indicated that WMA Pro was equal to or better than HE AAC."
At 80 kbit/s and 96 kbit/s, WMA had lower quality than HE-AAC, AAC-LC, and Vorbis; near-equivalent quality to MP3, and better quality than MPC in individual tests done in 2005.
At 128 kbit/s, there was a four-way tie between aoTuV Vorbis, LAME MP3, WMA 9 Pro and AAC in a large scale test in January 2006, with each codec sounding close to the uncompressed music file for most listeners.
At 768 kbit/s, WMA 9 Pro delivered full-spectrum response at half the bit rate required for DTS in a comparative test done by EDN in October 2003. The test sample was a 48 kHz, 5.1 channel surround audio track.
Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up-to-date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs.

Dacă ne referim strict la AAC, Fraunhofer îl promovează ca urmaş al .mp3-ului, în condiţiile în care Fraunhofer a creat .mp3-ul, pe vremuri. Dar Fraunhofer a cerut bani pe vremuri pentru .mp3-uri, discreditându-se astfel, exact ca Microsoft.

Ca şi la alte codec-uri, la rate scăzute calitatea pare mai bună decât a .mp3-ului codat la aceeaşi rată. Dar la rate mai ridicate, pe care ascultătorii e preferă totuşi, calitatea e aceeaşi cu a .mp3-ului. If it's not broken, don't fix it!

Şi cea mai importantă problemă: AAC is not backwards compatible with MP3 nor Musicam Layer

Aceasta postare a fost editata de harald: 23 August 2007 - 07:06 AM