Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice. (Read 2677 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

We all know 24bit HiRes files are much more enjoyable than regular 16bit FLAC.

Bit depths matters. If it does not then 8bit FLAC files should perform as like 16 bit. Which is not. Even a 8bit FLAC provides poor quality than a regular 16bit AAC.

I need to convert 24bit (HiRes) FLAC to a lossy filetype.

I was using AAC (Qaac q127). Which is good If the source is 16bit FLAC.

But when I convert 24bit FLAC to AAC. I found a huge difference. The music losses its brightness, reverb, wideness & overall depth. Also some stereo instruments are not enjoyable anymore.

I don't know the technical stuffs of a codec but If a file loses it's bit depth. (Source 24 which cuts to Lossy 16).
Then It must lose the quality.

AAC provides 16bit audio quality.
But WMA Professional has 24bit.

So if my source is 24bit 96hz. and I convert it to AAC 16bit 44.1hz. The music will lose the quality.

But if my source is 24bit 96hz.. and I convert it to WMA 24bit 96hz. Which is still lossy I know but will the file have superior quality than AAC(which is 16bit)?


Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #1 –
Quote from: MiGamer5 on
We all know 24bit HiRes files are much more enjoyable than regular 16bit FLAC.

Seriously? You can immediately tell the difference?

Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #2 –
Quote from: synclagz on
Quote from: MiGamer5 on
We all know 24bit HiRes files are much more enjoyable than regular 16bit FLAC.

Seriously? You can immediately tell the difference?
Yes I can when I play those files on mobile which comes with Dolby Atmos.
But when I play those files on PC. I can't tell the difference because I don't have an external DAC attached to my PC.
And built-in realtek audio is not good enough.

Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #3 –
Quote from: MiGamer5 on
We all know 24bit HiRes files are much more enjoyable than regular 16bit FLAC.
We all do? I know they are not.

Quote from: MiGamer5 on
Bit depths matters. If it does not then 8bit FLAC files should perform as like 16 bit. Which is not.
Yes, it matters, but only to a point. That point is at about 16 bits. That's why 8 bit does not perform as 16 bit, but that doesn't mean that 24 bit performs noticeably different from 16 bit.

Quote from: MiGamer5 on
But when I convert 24bit FLAC to AAC. I found a huge difference. The music losses its brightness, reverb, wideness & overall depth. Also some stereo instruments are not enjoyable anymore.
Can you post some samples and ABX log proving that you can actually distinguish them? (You know, TOS 8 and all that :-) )

Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #4 –
Quote from: MiGamer5 on
But when I convert 24bit FLAC to AAC. I found a huge difference. The music losses its brightness, reverb, wideness & overall depth. Also some stereo instruments are not enjoyable anymore.

If you hear some difference, probably you're using some sketchy software that is applying effects in one case but not the other.  Try something reputable like foobar and they'll probably sound similar. 

Quote from: MiGamer5 on
I don't know the technical stuffs of a codec but If a file loses it's bit depth. (Source 24 which cuts to Lossy 16).

Lossy formats like AAC don't have a bit depth, so it is incorrect to say that they are 24 or 16 bit.  The concept simply does not apply.

Quote from: MiGamer5 on
But if my source is 24bit 96hz.. and I convert it to WMA 24bit 96hz. Which is still lossy I know but will the file have superior quality than AAC(which is 16bit)?

WMA Pro is a dead format, so rather than waste your time with that I would troubleshoot whatever is wrong with your playback in the first place.  You mentioned a phone with Dolby Atmos, so probably all kinds of special effects being applied to your music.  Try without that and see if the problem goes away.

Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #5 –
I would swear this topic looks like trolling.

Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #6 –
The only advantage to 24 bit over 16 bit is it's harder to hear the noise floor, if you ever hear it at all... it doesn't really help fidelity otherwise. AAC and WMA are both lossy codecs that will limit bit precision to significantly reduce file size, but that part of the reduction is very transparent. What matters most is how good the encoder is.

LC-AAC was great for moderate bit rates for a while. But improvements with the best encoders haven't been made in years, especially for higher bit rates. With how things were left with the tunings, it's like you either have a lot of center channel spectra including noise substitution to satisfy listeners at moderate and lower bit rates and apparently satisfy spectrograms as well (since the Apple encoder retains a lot of inaudible high frequencies at 320 kbps) at the cost of some stereo fidelity, or you have somewhat better stereo fidelity at the cost of not retaining certain higher frequencies at all (like FDK or FhG).

384 kbps sounds like a good number for WMA. But have you tried FDK at 352 kbps?

Re: AAC(16bit) vs WMA(24bit lossy).. Need some help and advice.

Reply #7 –
I highly doubt that LC-AAC won't sound transparent at those high bitrates. I'm also skeptical that WMA Pro will perform better than LC-AAC.