If my math is right, that works out to about 49 kbps. An mp3 would have to be significantly higher bitrate to give equivalent quality. Of course, if you are transcoding to mp3 then to even maintain nearly the same quality would require a fairly high bitrate.
@califauna, that does not work that way.You are asking for a linear quality scale, when lossy codecs use different tools that produce different types of quality degradation.
With that premise, HE-AAC is an extension of LC-AAC which roughly requires half the bitrate. So 64kbps HE-AAC (v1) would roughly be similar to 128kbps LC-AAC, and 48kbps HE-AAC (v1) would roughly be silimar to LC-AAC 96kbps which is roughly similar to 128kbps MP3.
@jensend: My way to express it wasn't the best either, as it seems. I just wanted the OP to understand that there is no strict answer to that question.
About the values... Yes, probably my assumption is wrong, now that I tested Winamp's latest fraunhofer codec with the values IgorC mentioned.Maybe i was more used to HE-AAC v2, or really LC-AAC has come a long way in low bitrates, because the LC one sounds fine, while the HE-AAC has clearly a problem.
I imagine an up-to-date v2-capable HE-AAC encoder will just avoid parametric stereo at this bitrate unless you force its use. Others would know a good deal more about this.
Rough estimation (considering high quality AAC and MP3 encoders).HE-AAC 48 kbps ~ LC-AAC 64 kbps ~ MP3 96 kbps
Quote from: IgorC on 02 August, 2013, 11:26:11 AMRough estimation (considering high quality AAC and MP3 encoders).HE-AAC 48 kbps ~ LC-AAC 64 kbps ~ MP3 96 kbpsDoesn't this mean that Fh AAC's vbr modes 2 and 3 are about the same quality? (~64 SBR vs. ~96 LC)Maybe the main difference between vbr3 and vbr2 is just trading file size for encoding & decoding speed / playback time?
This 2003 paper shows 48kbps HE-AAC barely edging out 64kbps LC.