yay!

aac is just RIPE to play 10-15 minute live jams.

Well, I could have told them it was the best -- I've listened to my iTMS purchases with a critical ear, and while I'm no professional audiophile I've been consistently astonished how much better AAC sounds than MP3 at the same or even slightly higher bitrates -- you have to really get up pretty high in MP3 bitrates (256k or above) before you start rivalling 128k AAC IMHO.

finally, some ammo to shell at those "everything in the world has to be free and if it does not play ogg vorbis" then its c*** linux crowd over at slashdot.

not that it matters to the linux crowd since they don't BUY anything anyways.

This comparison doesn't include the major competitor to AAC. What good is it and what does it mean... AAC isn't good enough to compare (I doubt it), but why is this getting so much coverage (it's on every Mac website) when it is so incomplete. I want a real test comparison with the MAJOR competitors...

it was a comparison between different AAC encoders specificially, there are places on the web that compare different formats. And AAC performs respectably. Do some google searches (most of these were done a couple months ago or more)

This is a perfectly valid article, and is interesting on it's own for those that want to use AAC, it's best to know what the best tool is for that format. (There are hundreds of reviews like this for MP3, and what the best tool is for that)

AAC is perfectly fine for non-critical listening sessions, and my JBL Creatures reveal spaciousness and crisp detail even at 'only' 128 kbps! Future iterations will give ATRAC a run for its money!
--
http://homepage.mac.com/johnhood

Nice job, Troll. first post and everything! you should be really proud of yourself!!

do you always go around mac web sites looking for some reason to step up and bash Apple?

and since you asked, the point was to compare different AAC encoders, not to compare different types of encodings. or was it that you didn't even know there were different encoders, and that their quality differs?

what does it mean? it means that all the people who have been complaining that Apple's AAC encoding isn't as good as other's no longer have anything to complain about.

and what was that you said? oh yeah - "AAC isn't good enough to compare (I doubt it)". that says to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. any common idiot knows that AAC is at least as good, if not better, then other formats out there. and like someone already posted, there's been a ton of comparions already done between the formats, and they're pretty easy to find.

you should really try having a clue before you blindly bash Apple and blinldy promote Micro$oft.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14497

IT'S LIKELY that the multi-million OS experiment currently known as Longhorn will also run on Xbox 2s, posing a serious question for Intel in the future. Whither?
Sources claim that Microsoft is shoehorning screenshots of the GUI into the public domain, only to bring out something completely different when the day is much nearer.

Yet if Microsoft decides that Longhorn runs not only on future Xboxes but on the Power PC platform as well, there's plenty of room to speculate that the Vole could acquire Apple and dump Intel, without the antitrust forces getting too excited.

Because Linux currently has more market share than Apple.

The Power PC licence Microsoft has could allow it to take designs from IBM to Samsung or other big fabrication centres and play the foundry game to its heart content.

Well, I could have told them it was the ripest -- I've listened to my ripe iTMS purchases with a ripe ear, and while I'm no ripe audiophile I've been consistently astonished how much riper AAC sounds than MP3 at the same or even slightly riper bitrates -- you have to really get up pretty ripe in MP3 bitrates (256k or above) before you start rivalling 128k AAC IMHO.