Are you a fan of AAC (Advanced Audio Codec)?

If he "hears" dreadful, then he's imagining things.

 

I only listen to lossy music if that's how it available (podcasts, soundcloud, etc). Really don't care about the format. AAC, mp3...whatever.

 

In audiophile terms it is dreadful. I can hear the difference on my system. I built my headphone system around how it sounds with lossless and high-res. For a headphone system it's a bit expensive. With lossless and high-res that cost is well worth it and I'd spend all that again and more if I started over. But if I listen to lossy music I wonder why they system doesn't sound good where did the musical passion and the special "you are there" sound go. So yes, in audiophile terms I consider lossy to sound dreadful. Lossy soruce knocks about $4000 worth of sound quality from my headphone setup.

 

I found AAC to be fine for Bluetoothing, at least as good as AptX, but did notice an all around improvement when I moved up to a modest 24/192 (96) WiFi dac.

 

I think you’re right. I can’t believe I was allowed to let that sit for two years unchanged

 

Okay. Enjoy your lossy compression artifacts

 

Sorry that you can’t hear the difference

 

OK.

 

Do AAC files encoded with fdk-aac have compatibility issues with iDevices? I have had certain songs freeze up on it and not sure if it's just incompatibility or a corrupted file. I tend to stick with FLAC or MP3 cause everything seems to play them well.

 

Honestly, though, it would be nice to have higher quality lossy audiophiles.

 

I'm about 10 pounds overweight. I, like most audiophiles, could do with some quality lossy.

 

Yes, I am.

 

AAC is much better than MP3 to my ears. I can still hear the difference between AAC and lossless. But at least the artifacts aren't in your face like they are with MP3.

 

LOL. Try keyto. I'm down 15 lbs over the past 2 months now. Five more lbs and I'll probably call it good again.

 

Pretty much agree, although I have an album download that was encoded with LAME 3.98 MP3 206 kbps (VBR) that sounds really very nice. (Pearls Before Swine Live, c. 1971.)

 

It used to be wav, now it's aif...

 

Honestly, for what it is, I've always been impressed with AAC at its respective bitrates. Sounds much warmer and more natural than MP3. Can't stand the washy transients of MP3. But, unless I'm using my iPod or phone on the go for music, I won't play anything except lossless, hi-res or analogue. I've just paid too much for my equipment to use less than pristine sources, unless it's a bootleg or something low-fi to begin with (like a 78 rpm needledrop).

Of course some analogue sources sound worse than lossy digital, so I can't discount the usefulness of AAC. Records have wildly variable quality control, for example, so I'm open to all formats if they fulfill a purpose.

Anyone remember the sound of MiniDisc encoding? Dead, dull, lifeless, digital. AAC is light years better.

 

AAC, in terms of lossy formats at least, is actually fairly good in my opinion. Especially 320kps, I usually choose 320kps AAC as my default "lossy" format since I have to be mindful of space on my iPod


I also have done many blind tests with myself and friends for fun on both my own cans and the mastering labs I got to use in college for projects and every one of us had a hard time choosing which was 320kps AAC And which was lossless

 

LAME makes MP3 bearable, for noisy house parties etc., but not for reference. If I need to make an MP3 for cross-platform compatibility, it's always LAME encoded.

 

AAC is pretty incredible. The sound quality at low bitrates is dumbfounding. Granted, my ears are middle-aged, but in ABX testing I can't tell the difference between 256kb AAC and FLAC.

I've now switched from LAME to AAC for my lossy encoding.

 

I just did an ABX test, comparing a hi-res FLAC to a 192kbps AAC file....using a piece of classical music. And I failed to distinguish.

The FLAC file is 210mb. The aac is less than 10mb.

It's absolutely astounding that the scientists were able to figure out how to throw away that much data and still make the files sound so similar that I can't tell them apart, while listening intently, on headphones.

 

But now (2020) I use flac.

 

Streaming AAC is a greener way of streaming music compared to large lossless and hi-res.

 

My critical listening is done with FLAC files. FLAC is the archive option of choice for me.

However, most casual listening is done with AAC files encoded with Nero AAC 1.5.4 at VBR Q0.80 (325kbps).

Nero allows gapless encoding/decoding for playback with Foobar2000 (with WASAPI output to DAC).

Not sure I can tell the difference anymore, however I would never want my music stored in anything other than a lossless format. This allows you to create fresh lossy copies in whatever format you may require.