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+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps (Read 14739 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Whats your choice guys quality-wise? sure AAC will save some bandwidth, but can it compete with an average 192kbps (abr) MP3 stream?

Thanks in advance for any help, couldnt find listening tests for 64kbps AAC compared to MP3 @ 192 abr

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #1
128 LC-AAC (i-Tunes) is almost equal to 128 kbps LAME MP3 (last listening test). Extrapolating from that it is to be expected that 64 kbps HE-AAC will be significantly worse than LAME MP3 at 192 kbps. If that is also true for you, can only be decided by yourself.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."


AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #3
hmm interesting. whats the bitrate of AAC at this test Garf? thanks for the replies



AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #6
Quote
A multiformat test at 48 kbps is planned after Gabriel finishes his test.


hmm nice , although Lame the last time I personally tested it, had seirous problems below 90kbps

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #7
Quote
Quote
A multiformat test at 48 kbps is planned after Gabriel finishes his test.


hmm nice , although Lame the last time I personally tested it, had seirous problems below 90kbps
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=370377"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I am not going to test LAME at 48 kbps, but encoders such as HE-AAC and Vorbis. LAME might be used as high anchor. Then you can compare how HE-AAC performs when compared to a high-bitrate MP3.

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #8
ok,

But btw, why so low? Last days I heard frequently about encoding at 48kbp/s.

I would personally liked more a test on 96kbits, on which lame(and its wide audience) coud contend.

Anyway, just chitchatting


AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #10
Quote
Because we just had a test at 128 kbps and and difference between 128 kbps and 96 kbps isn't very big.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=370395"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe OGG and AAC are still fair at 96 kbps but not LAME.
For me it will be intresting public test at 80-96 kbps for folowing reasons :
1) Perfomance of HE and LC AAC
2) Ogg and AAC still good
3) 96 is the highest bitrate when I can spot in blind test many samples. at 112 I already can spot only few samples. At 128 only "problematic" samples. 

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #11
@ stelios : When you say "record streaming radio", what do you mean? Record FM/AM/Satellite , record Internet stream, create a stream for an internet radio...?

Only in the first scenario i find your question reasonable, and if you are for quality, 192 abr will be better.

For the second scenario... from what are you going to transcode? i feel not much sense i transcoding a 128kbps CBR mp3 stream to 192kbps ABR mp3. This is still the most used bitrate. Yet, transcoding to aac+ if the original is 192kbps, would be worse than having the original stream intact. So... null vote in this case.

For the third scenario... what is your expected audience, and your streaming server? i don't see it too reasonable to use 192 ABR, although sure it would be of better quality than most others. AAC+ would suit quite better here, if the streaming server allows it.


@ jazzymelody : different tests have different goals, yet, the common goal in audio tests is find the (best?) quality of the tested contenders, having (usually) some common parameters (bitrate in our cases).

Sure, a 48kbps test cannot answer any questions related to the performance of 96kbps. Yet, doing it will do anwer some questions. For this round, the performance of codecs at these low bitrates is what we're checking. Your test's goal seems only to be if lame is good enough at 96kbps, yet... to what will you compare it?

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #12
@[JAZ]
sorry; i meant recording an internet radio stream, because I have the option to rip from either aac+ @ 64k stream or a seperate mp3 @ 192k (abr) stream

guess i'll go with the mp3 option!

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #13
Hello again, basically that was the article that made me think about the 2 options:

The skinny new audio format that will replace MP3s—and revolutionize Internet radio. (@slate.com)

Quoting the article:

Quote
It's a given that fat broadband lines are the future of online media. But right now, for Internet radio, the future is about slimming down—creating skinny little streams of data that don't eat up too much bandwidth. The key is a new and better audio compression format called aacPlus, or sometimes HE-AAC, which has been chosen by the industry committee that standardized MP3 13 years ago (the Motion Picture Experts Group). If you've tried to listen to online stations, you know they sound grainy if they're streamed at any less than 128 kilobits per second—maybe 96 kbps if you're not fussy. That makes a broadband connection a must. But aacPlus sounds nearly as good as a CD, even when it's compressed enough to play through a dialup line. Don't take my word for it—see the results of the European Broadcasting Union's listener tests, in which aacPlus was deemed the "clear winner" at a dialup-friendly 48 kbps.

AacPlus has been around for a while—it's what XM satellite radio has used from the outset—but recently it's been gaining ground. Future digital music players will support the format just as surely as they do MP3, but you don't have to wait—you can listen to it right now. Install the free Winamp player, which added aacPlus support a few months ago. Then click through the channels on the Tuner2 Web site, which all stream aacPlus sound at 48 kbps or less. I've spent a week comparing them to the higher bandwidth stations served by the big three of Net radio—Yahoo, AOL, and MSN—and only Yahoo's 96 kbps premium subscription channels sound as good. For a tour, skip Tuner2's glut of techno stations and instead try Groove Salad for laid-back electro-lounge music, Radio Paradise for classic rock, and Sky.FM's Mostly Classical channel. (If you're on a Mac or other non-Windows computer, install the free VLC player instead of Winamp.)

It seems crazy until you try it, but Mostly Classical proves that aacPlus can sound great at 24 kbps. At 48 kbps, it's almost as crisp as a CD. At 128 kbps, it can deliver 5.1 channel surround sound. AacPlus works by combining three technologies, each of which shrinks the size of an audio signal. The first is AAC, the Advanced Audio Coding technique that Apple licensed from Dolby for iTunes. AAC analyzes the sound and throws away any data it knows human ears won't be able to hear, which is a lot. Then, aacPlus adds Spectral Band Replication, which strips out all of the music's high frequencies and replaces them with a tiny bit of analytical data. AacPlus players reconstruct the highs as a mathematical function of what's left. As a final space-saving trick, aacPlus tracks are recorded in parametric stereo. Instead of a left and a right channel, one channel is the sum of the left and right signals (L+R), and the other is their difference (L-R). This takes up less bandwidth, and the player can easily flip the two channels back to the original left and right. (Bonus trivia: This is how FM stereo broadcasts work.)


Your feedback on this?
Thanks!

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #14
Quote
As a final space-saving trick, aacPlus tracks are recorded in parametric stereo. Instead of a left and a right channel, one channel is the sum of the left and right signals (L+R), and the other is their difference (L-R).

Means that the author has no technical knowledge about audio compression.

Quote
If you've tried to listen to online stations, you know they sound grainy if they're streamed at any less than 128 kilobits per second—maybe 96 kbps if you're not fussy.

and
Quote
It seems crazy until you try it, but Mostly Classical proves that aacPlus can sound great at 24 kbps. At 48 kbps, it's almost as crisp as a CD.

Are contradicting each other.

AAC+ @ 64kbps or MP3 @ 192Kbps

Reply #15
I think he's referring to MP3 at 96 or 128.

In any case, while aacPlus does sound great for the bitrate, but it's not even close to transparent. It's easy to ABX on most samples. But I suppose for internet radio, 64kbps (not so much 48) is a pretty good choice.