In Defense of AAC

First of all, let me address what I consider to be a couple of blatant inaccuracies. Lamont states that AAC has a greater quality loss than MP3. Most testing disputes that. The article also contrasts AAC with MP3 by calling AAC a proprietary format. It is no more or less proprietary than MP3. Both are commercial formats.

AAC is part of the MPEG-4 standard. If you search around the web, you'll find a variety of tests. In most of these tests, at 128 kbps or 192 kbps, AAC overtakes standard MP3. MP3 created with a LAME encoder (which is not standard MP3) may overtake both.

But let's be realistic here. All audio formats are compromises. Even the lossless formats touted by Lamont are poor substitutes for hearing music in person; and "Red Book, " "AIFF" and "WAV" can sound flat and lifeless when compared to newer formats such as SACD and DVD-A. So it really comes down to two things: What sounds good enough to you, and how much music do you want to have with you?

The truth is, most consumers are perfectly happy with the sounds of 128 kbps MP3 or AAC files. I have pretty good ears, and usually don't mind listening to these formats. When I encode CDs at home, I choose a higher bit rate, and get improved sound. Listening to my CDs directly is even better, but ripping in a "lossless" format would take up too much room on my iPod. For the ultimate quality, aside from going to a concert, nothing beats SACD and DVD-A. But the consumers have spoken. Those two new formats have simply not sold enough for the music industry to put much effort into. For most people, it doesn't seem to matter much.