mp3 lame and acc which is better?

Atrac3plus Hi-SP (352kbps) or Atrac DSP Type-R (292kbps). These are older encoders but are still superior to Lame or Acc.

 

The thing to bear in mind with any 'lossy' codec is while most of the time we will approach a state of 'transparency' - that's to say our ears are fooled into believing everything is still there you'll encounter the odd track that on either which you detect the odd artifact.
Personal view is while in the early days the superiority at low bit rates of Aac over Mp3 even with joint stereo engaged really stood out with modern mp3 codecs such as Lame 3.99 v5 it's now very close and much will depend on whither you find the small improvements in Hf extension in high bite rate Aac preferable to the overall tidiness of the Lame in either -vo or 320 CBR especially when encoded 'slow'.
I did compare track by track the AF Presto disc in 320 Lame and 320 FDK Aac in dbPoweramp and personally just preferred the Lame.
Of course you and your ears may be different.

 

I love that codec too. It's a crying shame the technology is effectively obsolete

 

The only real advantage I could see to MP3 is that it works on a lot more stuff than AAC. At 256kbps, I really doubt I can hear a difference, but I would use AAC because it's more efficient at equivalent bitrate. The "iTunes Plus" encoder (256k AAC VBR) is transparent to me with most music. Others it seems like FLAC is a fuller sound, depends on the music I guess.

 

By the way, if you use the command line encoder in dBpoweramp, there is a way to set it up so that it will use iTunes to encode the AAC tracks which are VBR, unlike FDK AAC which is CBR at 256k in dBpoweramp.

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthr...unes-with-dMC-to-make-AAC-ALAC-AIFF-MP3-files

 

Just curious: what does this mean? Cannot choose vbr higher than 192? In which app? Aac in general?

 

It depends upon the program that you choose. I just got J River Media Center and it will rip CDs and I can use the AAC codec to do variable bit rate above 192 kbps. Between 192 and 256 kbps, you'll be hard pressed to hear the differences unless you have high end audio components. I would recommend that you choose 256 kbps CBR with AAC.

You're better off with LAME 3.99 V0 variable bit rate compared to AAC because it's much more popular.

What kind of software are you using to rip and encode your music library? If you want a free solution, then use Exact Audio Copy and download the plug-ins for AAC and LAME 3.99 MP3 along with FLAC. You'll be responsible for managing the metadata using another program. If you want a one solution, then purchase J River Media Center. It's less than $50.00 USD and it'll save you a lot of extra steps.

 

I can hear the difference with even mid-fi components, and in the car. I suggest one do their own tests to see if they can tell. It's probably not a good idea to just say that no one can tell. Everyone's different.

Agreed. I once did a shootout between 320 kbps done with a LAME encoder and put it up against the usual AAC 256 kbps. I like the mp3 more. It wasn't perfect, but I found the ACC to be flat, as in lacking depth, thereby having the effect of boosting the top end a bit, and the sound stage was unfocused. All I got with the mp3 was a narrowing of the stereo width.

I don't like AAC because not too much hardware uses it. It's hard to find a software encoder and decoder. Well, I have two, but, you know, it's not universal like mp3. Hell, I can even play wma lossless in the car!

 

Glad to see it's not just ME! I've tried to go with AAC on several occasions, after reading here how the codec is more advanced, more efficient, yada yada...and came out preferring good old LAME mp3 every single time. Yes it's all lossy, but I just found LAME to sound better, fuller, smoother, and less grating than AAC.

I use -V2 on my iThingys mostly, occasionally -V0, and 320k CBR is damn near CD quality to my ears. Love my LAME. YMMV.

 

Now, AAC does get much better at its highest bit-rate. Once you get up into the 400+ range, I start finding it hard to tell it from the CD. AAC 256 kbps just isn't good enough.

I once started a thread, or posted years ago, about my preference for 320 mp3. It went ignored, as if I was crazy. No, I just don't drink the iTunes AAC Kool-aid.