| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
An interesting comment was posted here yesterday by Perry The Cynic:
“Every song is pristinely encoded and some sound better than CDs.—I believe AAC may sound better than MP3, but I doubt it sounds better than the uncompressed file from the CD.”Note the “pristine” and the “some.” Jobs is not lying. You’re assuming that the AAC is generated from CD-quality data. In that case, obviously, you’re right. But if you take a 96KHz, 32 bit studio master file and generate both CD data and AAC from them, then AAC can in some cases be better (i.e., better match the original experience). AAC supports (up to) 96KHz samples, while CD forcibly downsamples to 44.1KHz. For data that has sharp transients (say, percussion) the AAC may do better at matching the original sound. It’s still true that most tracks will sound worse in AAC/128 than CD, if only because most were probably generated from CD data.
Very cool info. Thanks Perry.
