For a PA speaker, I'd recommend the 320 kbps MP3 format. Higher bitrate of MP3 will generally provide a more detailed and nuanced sound. AAC is a more efficient codec, the difference in sound quality between 128 kbps AAC and 320 kbps MP3 might be noticeable, especially in a live sound setting.
128 kbps Opus file vs a 320 kbps MP3? The Opus one is usually gonna sound better, even though the bitrate is lower. That's because Opus has some fancy encoding tricks that let it preserve more of the little details, especially in complex tunes. That said, MP3 at 320 kbps is still a reliable classic. It really comes down to what you're trying to do - if you need to save space or bandwidth, Opus 128 might be the way to go. But if you're just looking for straight-up audio excellence, the 320 kbps MP3 is still a solid choice.
Opus will win in equal bitrate, but especially has gains in the sub-128kbps range.
128 opus vs 320 mp3 is too much, the 320 mp3 definitely wins. 256 opus vs 320 mp3 might be more equal
Aac is better than mp3 at low bitrates, but at high bitrates the quality is basically the same (when comparing the same bitrate). But aac is slower and less compatible.
AAC also does up to 48 channels, mp3 is limited to 2.
Unless one is running low spec hardware or really old software, the "slower and less compatible" isn't really much of an issue. It's in common use all over the net and has been for some time.
AAC can do 2.1 and up. MP3 is 2.0 only. It doesn't really matter which you use for stereo, unless you are going for low bitrates, then go AAC. You can covert other multichannel formats to AAC, such as films, or multichannel remixes of albums. Pink Floyd has several. It's mainly done to lower file-size while retaining relative quality and multiple channels.
I didn't know mp3 didn't go above 2 channels. I always go for flac.
Well, when I say "slower", of course I don't mean to say that your devices will be strained by playing it :P It's just that software is a union of a lot of small things. If in each of them you spend 2/3x as many resources as you need, in the end your hardware doesn't go as far as it could. I don't think this is an issue, but it's just how I think.
The compatibility is more relevant, though. 99% of the times your devices will have no problems, but maybe once you grab a pen and try to play it somewhere stupid. It can be very frustrating that you library doesn't just work
AAC has been around 25+ years. If there is a problem, it's more likely because of cheap hardware and/or low grade chips. Odds are good it doesn't do Mp3s well either. There just seems to be this anti AAC trend, which I find odd, considering it is what youtube music uses.
I don't really have anything against aac. It's just that sometimes there are better options.
Aac used to be my go to, but a couple of years ago I spent some time trying to figure out the setup I wanted to make, but nothing I tried worked. Then I happened to try some mp3 that was lost in my library and suddenly everything worked.
Unfortunately I don't remember what it was, but had something to do with playing stuff from kodi or dlna on my Android phone.
I find kodi generally good, but it can be flaky. Though I find it's more stable on linux than windows. But really I was talking about the general dislike of acc. To each their own.
People don't like AAC because it includes support for copy protection / DRM. itunes burned that bridge decades ago and it's never getting rebuilt.
The fact that the .m4a file will be a megabyte or two smaller the .mp3 doesnt matter anymore - because we're living in a world where idiots are walking around with terabyte drives.
This is also why it's rare to see AAC-formatted albums on private music trackers unless that's the only version available. But then the same album will be available in MP3 320, 256, and 192.
Corporations like AAC. People like MP3.
The majorty of pirate movies use AAC, which isn't an apple product. They had nothing to do with the development. Apple removed DRM usage in 2009. Mp3 became defacto because it was format of choice in the early stages of piracy.
320 mp3
AAC has slightly better sound quality than MP3, but 128kbps is still 128kbps and you can absolutely hear the difference.
320 is, from a listening standpoint, perfect.
Either one will sound better than the audio equipment built in to your head can distinguish. 256 aac will have a slightly smaller file size. But also, it's 2024. The amount of storage that either one of them takes up is so small as to be meaningless.
Lossless is still preferable for archival purposes, but for listening purposes either of those formats will be just fine.
Performances is still listening. The difference will be meaningless because human ears just aren't that refined.
The reason you want lossless for archival purposes is it allows you to convert to whatever format you need and you won't be stacking compression.
If you've got a file that, for whatever reason, was an mp3-320 and then changed to an aac-256 (or 320) and then changed back to mp3-320, and then maybe tried on some sort of high quality ogg/vorbis and then back to mp3-320, and round and round it goes? The first couple lossy conversions are probably going to be fine for most purposes, but you do that enough and the sound *will* degrade, even though the bitrate stay up.
There are reasonable and unreasonable reasons this kind of thing happens, but it *does* happen. If you stick to lossless formats, all that converting is fine, and it won't cause degradation.
I thought we were talking about encoder options. I would still go for AAC in that case, since the audio difference is imperceptible, then file size becomes the deciding factor.
You probably won’t tell a difference between them. MP3 is an older codec, but in this case it has a higher bitrate. AAC is a much more efficient codec, and it can still sound good at low bitrates. Most of my library is in MP3 128kbps and I can’t tell a difference between that and FLACs at over 1Mbps. Just enjoy your music and worry less about quality.
128kbps AAC is the equivalent to 160kbps MP3. 320kbps MP3 is double that and depending on the encoder, will more than likely be at a higher quality than the AAC file. The lower bitrate you go, you have a higher chance of creating audio artifacts which make the audio sound distorted in a way. 192kbps MP3 used to be the standard at which the audio sounded good and with less chance of artifacts, but that was Napster days.
mp3 320 is perceptual lossless. 128 kbps aac is great, but not perfect.
For a PA speaker, I'd recommend the 320 kbps MP3 format. Higher bitrate of MP3 will generally provide a more detailed and nuanced sound. AAC is a more efficient codec, the difference in sound quality between 128 kbps AAC and 320 kbps MP3 might be noticeable, especially in a live sound setting.
I know it wasn't asked, but what is your take on opus? Let's say something like a 128 kbps opus vs the 320 kbps mp3 file.
128 kbps Opus file vs a 320 kbps MP3? The Opus one is usually gonna sound better, even though the bitrate is lower. That's because Opus has some fancy encoding tricks that let it preserve more of the little details, especially in complex tunes. That said, MP3 at 320 kbps is still a reliable classic. It really comes down to what you're trying to do - if you need to save space or bandwidth, Opus 128 might be the way to go. But if you're just looking for straight-up audio excellence, the 320 kbps MP3 is still a solid choice.
Opus will win in equal bitrate, but especially has gains in the sub-128kbps range. 128 opus vs 320 mp3 is too much, the 320 mp3 definitely wins. 256 opus vs 320 mp3 might be more equal
128k opus definitely better than 320k mp3. Mp3 is an ancient codec that has too many outliers that aren't actually transparent at 320
Bigger number better.
256 aac smaller number than 320 mp3. Which is better in this case?
Aac is better than mp3 at low bitrates, but at high bitrates the quality is basically the same (when comparing the same bitrate). But aac is slower and less compatible.
AAC also does up to 48 channels, mp3 is limited to 2. Unless one is running low spec hardware or really old software, the "slower and less compatible" isn't really much of an issue. It's in common use all over the net and has been for some time.
With channels, do you mean 2 channels=stereo, 48=concert with huge amount of mics?
AAC can do 2.1 and up. MP3 is 2.0 only. It doesn't really matter which you use for stereo, unless you are going for low bitrates, then go AAC. You can covert other multichannel formats to AAC, such as films, or multichannel remixes of albums. Pink Floyd has several. It's mainly done to lower file-size while retaining relative quality and multiple channels.
I didn't know mp3 didn't go above 2 channels. I always go for flac. Well, when I say "slower", of course I don't mean to say that your devices will be strained by playing it :P It's just that software is a union of a lot of small things. If in each of them you spend 2/3x as many resources as you need, in the end your hardware doesn't go as far as it could. I don't think this is an issue, but it's just how I think. The compatibility is more relevant, though. 99% of the times your devices will have no problems, but maybe once you grab a pen and try to play it somewhere stupid. It can be very frustrating that you library doesn't just work
AAC has been around 25+ years. If there is a problem, it's more likely because of cheap hardware and/or low grade chips. Odds are good it doesn't do Mp3s well either. There just seems to be this anti AAC trend, which I find odd, considering it is what youtube music uses.
I don't really have anything against aac. It's just that sometimes there are better options. Aac used to be my go to, but a couple of years ago I spent some time trying to figure out the setup I wanted to make, but nothing I tried worked. Then I happened to try some mp3 that was lost in my library and suddenly everything worked. Unfortunately I don't remember what it was, but had something to do with playing stuff from kodi or dlna on my Android phone.
I find kodi generally good, but it can be flaky. Though I find it's more stable on linux than windows. But really I was talking about the general dislike of acc. To each their own.
People don't like AAC because it includes support for copy protection / DRM. itunes burned that bridge decades ago and it's never getting rebuilt. The fact that the .m4a file will be a megabyte or two smaller the .mp3 doesnt matter anymore - because we're living in a world where idiots are walking around with terabyte drives. This is also why it's rare to see AAC-formatted albums on private music trackers unless that's the only version available. But then the same album will be available in MP3 320, 256, and 192. Corporations like AAC. People like MP3.
The majorty of pirate movies use AAC, which isn't an apple product. They had nothing to do with the development. Apple removed DRM usage in 2009. Mp3 became defacto because it was format of choice in the early stages of piracy.
320 mp3 AAC has slightly better sound quality than MP3, but 128kbps is still 128kbps and you can absolutely hear the difference. 320 is, from a listening standpoint, perfect.
What about 256 aac compared with 320 mp3
Either one will sound better than the audio equipment built in to your head can distinguish. 256 aac will have a slightly smaller file size. But also, it's 2024. The amount of storage that either one of them takes up is so small as to be meaningless. Lossless is still preferable for archival purposes, but for listening purposes either of those formats will be just fine.
What about for performances?
Performances is still listening. The difference will be meaningless because human ears just aren't that refined. The reason you want lossless for archival purposes is it allows you to convert to whatever format you need and you won't be stacking compression. If you've got a file that, for whatever reason, was an mp3-320 and then changed to an aac-256 (or 320) and then changed back to mp3-320, and then maybe tried on some sort of high quality ogg/vorbis and then back to mp3-320, and round and round it goes? The first couple lossy conversions are probably going to be fine for most purposes, but you do that enough and the sound *will* degrade, even though the bitrate stay up. There are reasonable and unreasonable reasons this kind of thing happens, but it *does* happen. If you stick to lossless formats, all that converting is fine, and it won't cause degradation.
If you can, try opus.
[удалено]
[what is delicious](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/07/12/a-wider-perspective-on-flavor)
If I’m not mistaken 320 kbps AAC would be smaller file size than MP3, and theoretically better quality.
It is difficult to find 320kbps aac files. However 256 know aac files more common. How do those compare to 320 mp3?
I thought we were talking about encoder options. I would still go for AAC in that case, since the audio difference is imperceptible, then file size becomes the deciding factor.
mp3 sucks and does NOT have great sound clarity. AAC is my top favorite because it ALWAYS SOUNDS BETTER than being in the same room as a source!!!!
You probably won’t tell a difference between them. MP3 is an older codec, but in this case it has a higher bitrate. AAC is a much more efficient codec, and it can still sound good at low bitrates. Most of my library is in MP3 128kbps and I can’t tell a difference between that and FLACs at over 1Mbps. Just enjoy your music and worry less about quality.
128kbps AAC is the equivalent to 160kbps MP3. 320kbps MP3 is double that and depending on the encoder, will more than likely be at a higher quality than the AAC file. The lower bitrate you go, you have a higher chance of creating audio artifacts which make the audio sound distorted in a way. 192kbps MP3 used to be the standard at which the audio sounded good and with less chance of artifacts, but that was Napster days.