Kanye to The banner

1 - 20 of 92 Posts
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
for erryone that copped the physical, you should be able to DL the 320 version for free on your email :tash:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,866 Posts
urbex said:
No it's not.
Not that you can hear the difference anyways.
Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
Vinyl said:
Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.
well, at least you didn't bring up rotational valodensity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,801 Posts
Vinyl said:
Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,631 Posts
Vinyl said:
256 aac is better than 320 mp3
No... 256 AAC < 320 MP3... but 256 AAC > 256 MP3...

tbh... AAC only sounds significantly better than MP3 at lower bit rates...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,866 Posts
D Wo said:
No... 256 AAC < 320 MP3... but 256 AAC > 256 MP3...

tbh... AAC only sounds significantly better than MP3 at lower bit rates...
Vinyl said:
Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.
Either way, it's hard to truly tell a difference :dno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Oddly, the version made available to people who preordered is the original version. It's missing the extra 808 line that the iTunes version has and is apparently in the album version.
 
1 - 20 of 92 Posts
Top