OK hold on a minute. I sense some inaccurate reporting here.... time for me to step in...
if one is comparing m4a to mp3, we have apples and oranges here. Comparing by rate numbers doesn't take into consideration the efficiency of m4a. It's not just for 'audiophiles' - that's a misconception. It's an improvement across the board, that can be used flexibly for many applications. 1. m4a codecs come in flavors. What m4a *codec* are you using? "Low Complexity or LC" creates the smallest, most compatible files. 2. m4a LC can use half the bit rate compared to mp3 for the same quality: 64k m4a LC compares or betters quality of 128k mp3 3. when it comes to converting, copying from one lossy format to another will ALWAYS degrade the audio, as opposed to WAV or AIF I've been working with audio compression for the web since the mid-90s, and have been in personal contact with one of the guys that invented the algorithms ... btw the Fraunhofer institute holds the patents on both mp3 and m4a .... sqb On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami < bra...@hindu.org> wrote: > We have had this m4a vs mp3 discussion in house for years… the m4a man > typically is an audiophile that uses settings that are entirely unnecessary > for average listener (we do a lot of voice)… sure, if it were orchestral > music… but it's not. I go ahead and produce an MP3 file of the same file > with a *smaller* file size than the m4a file(s) and no one can tell the > difference. > > BR > Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA - mixstream.org _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
