Subject: Re: MP4
From: Dominique Bassal (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Aug 28 2005 - 16:38:35 EDT
Le 05-08-28, à 13:52, couprie.pierre a écrit :
> MP4 is AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) based on MPEG4 norm. It includes
> the DRM system. The problem is this format is young and not defended
> by Windows... but only by Apple... wait and see...
My client is equiped only with Windows / PC. All the MP4 files played
without any problem with the PC version of QuickTime.
Le 05-08-28, à 14:50, Ian Stewart a écrit :
> A few questions-
> -has anyone done, or could anyone do, side-by-side comparisons of a
> few possible high quality formats? I'd be interested to know how,
> e.g., 320k mp3 compares with 320k mp4, and how these might differ from
> 512 or 256. Ideally the tests could be done on a couple of fragments
> of 'representative' electroacoustic works (whatever that means!).
> Since mp3 is still more widely supported than mp4, I am wondering if
> it might be better to go with 512/mp3 than 320/mp4, for example.
I just made three versions of a 3 min EA extract :
- MP4@320 : while still an approximation of the original, it is
liveable over time, and conserves most of the finesse and punch of the
- MP3@320 : is surprisingly dry, agressive and unpleasant on all
textures and contexts; it manages to hide or transform a lot of
details; after a few seconds I feel compelled to stop playback;
- MP4@256 : at 5,4 meg, it is still better than the MP3@320 at 6,8 meg,
but there is too much loss in details;
- there is nothing like the linear 44/16... (except the original
Neither Spark, Peak or Nuendo can export to 512 kbps, in MP3 or MP4.
The MP4@320 is the only one, in my opinion that could permit :
- a long listening session;
- a reasonable "representation" of the original.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST