Nonreality;410827 Wrote:
> It's a nightmare for you to listen to but you still use AAC?
I think you might have misread me. I said that music training makes it
a nightmare to listen to off-key vocals, etc. I also said that I can
hear compression artifacts in any lossy encoding at any rate I've tri
i do 256kbps mp3s, lame 3.96.1 and higher, at -q1
i don't believe i could reliably tell the difference between them, and
a CD, in a proper double blind test, and i'd be willing to bet most
people here couldn't either.
in fact, if the mp3s were just a wee bit louder than the cds, i bet
they'd pic
Nonreality;410415 Wrote:
> From my experience and readings on hydrogenaudio.org what you are saying
> is true up to about 160kbs. When you get into the higher bit rates you
> really can't tell any difference between mp3, ogg or aac. There may be
> differences in size but it's really not much at
Nonreality;410414 Wrote:
> Of course, of course. I'm sure no one here would think that you would
> use any of those other lowly formats. Just think of the humiliation if
> that wasn't so. :)
It would be awful! I can't bare to think about it.
--
Ron F.
*Squeezebox setup:* wireless SB3 -> CI
It's a nightmare for you to listen to but you still use AAC?
--
Nonreality
-IF THE RULE YOU FOLLOWED BROUGHT YOU TO THIS, OF WHAT USE IS THE RULE.-
HTTP://www.last.fm/user/nonreality
Nonreality's Profile: http://forums.s
probedb;410513 Wrote:
> To you at least.
>
> Am currently at -V3 with LAME and can't tell the difference with the
> source for most tracks.
To you at least. :)
I can hear the compression artifacts in any MP3 or AAC bitrate (even
320). Too many years of music training, I suppose. Makes it a nig
pfarrell;410419 Wrote:
> Its the ten to one compression that sounds terrible.
>
To you at least.
Am currently at -V3 with LAME and can't tell the difference with the
source for most tracks.
--
probedb
Paul.
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
--
Nonreality wrote:
> A 256 mp3 is going to sound every bit as good as a 256 aac or ogg.
A flac file, lossless and all that, is only about 700kbs. So any 256kbs
is not all that compressed.
Its the ten to one compression that sounds terrible.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
_
samlw;72226 Wrote:
> I think high-bitrate MP3 is the way I will have to go. In my experience,
> AAC sounds better and compresses better than MP3 at a given bitrate. So
> I have a personal preference for AAC over MP3.
>From my experience and readings on hydrogenaudio.org what you are
saying is tru
Ron F.;410166 Wrote:
> My own library is in FLAC of course.
Of course, of course. I'm sure no one here would think that you would
use any of those other lowly formats. Just think of the humiliation if
that wasn't so. :)
--
Nonreality
-IF THE RULE YOU FOLLOWED BROUGHT YOU TO THIS, OF WHAT U
I believe Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis for its streams, so there's a
potential larger use for Vorbis in the future.
--
DoomWolf
DoomWolf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8839
View this thread: http://f
In fact, I was simply wondering. Never thought there were no reasons.
Also, it could well be that, back then, with the grand majority of AAC
music being DRMed, SD thought useless to implement it natively.
The market, in this regard, has changed significantly.
--
gorman
-
gorman;410221 Wrote:
> I wonder what's the reasoning behind keeping Vorbis native and
> transcoding AAC. While I don't use AAC at all and use Vorbis for
> portable needs... I don't doubt that the market would far prefer the
> opposite solution.
Some idle speculation:
• Perhaps the AAC/AAC+ decode
I wonder what's the reasoning behind keeping Vorbis native and
transcoding AAC. While I don't use AAC at all and use Vorbis for
portable needs... I don't doubt that the market would far prefer the
opposite solution.
--
gorman
-
ianr;410151 Wrote:
>
> Now that AACPlus is the defacto for iTunes purchases, has there been
> any thought given to implementing either native support or at the very
> least FF/RW functionality for these files?
>
SC 7.3.3 will come with AAC/AAC+ support out of the box, using
server-side transc
Where I use AAC and AAC+ is not in my own library, but streaming
internet radio stations to my SB3. My own library is in FLAC of course.
--
Ron F.
*Squeezebox setup:* wireless SB3 -> CI Audio VDA.2 DAC + VAC.1 PSU
*Main rig:* NAD 7600 + NAD 2600A -> Phase Tech PC-6.5 speakers
*Headphone rig:*
Support for various music encoding formats is one of SqueezeCenters
strengths. Because SC is extensible Plugins can make it support any
type of file. Unfortunately most NAS systems don't have the processing
power to handle plugins and transcoding. This is why I created
VortexBox to allow the playi
Hi,
Now that AACPlus is the defacto for iTunes purchases, has there been
any thought given to implementing either native support or at the very
least FF/RW functionality for these files?
I really don't want to transcode the files to mp3 (quality loss) or
flac (takes up additional space and no SQ
However, I want to store the music uncompressed... (And no, I don't
want to install extra software modules like LAME to convert my
uncompressed music to "high quality MP3!")
Then you don't want AAC anyway. And if you've encoded your music
with AAC, then you've compressed it. AAC is a compres
Hi,
Are there plans to add native AAC support to the Squeezebox? Not the
DRM version - just plain AAC. I bought my Squeezebox expecting to be
able to have a central music library accessible by both iTunes and the
Squeezebox via SlimServer. However, I want to store the music
uncompressed. So this
20 matches
Mail list logo
