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: He-AAC vs LC-ACC (Read 16731 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

He-AAC vs LC-ACC
I am new to world of mp players. I have a new ZUNE and my 5 kids have iPod, creative Zen and others.

I have read through this forum but can not find a real defintive answer?

In trying to do it right the first time I researched the web and found an article by Stefan Meltzer of Coding Technologies. In that article they tested many encoding formats and it appeared to me that HE-ACC v2 audio codec was the encoder of choice. Here I read other than that.

On another forum some members made light of the report.
However on another forum, after I had ripped large part of my CD’s to WinAmp MP4/aaacPLUS HE-AAC High Bitrate Encoder; I was told that (LC-AAC Encoder v1.26) offered better quality than (MP4/aaacPLUS (HE-AAC) High Bitrate Encoder. I am ripping both at 160 Bitrate.

Which of these is better? This is driving me nuts trying to figure out.
Frankly I ripped for testing both encoders at same Bitrate of 160 and of 10 friends and family I asked could not honestly tell a difference.
I hope I can get a definitive answer.
Thanks in advance, Mike

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #1 –
Well, well, welcome.
You will quickly find that asking "which is better" won't give you any answers because most people have their own favourite format, encoder, bitrate, encoding options, etc.
I myself prefer Vorbis so I can't discuss AAC very much, I don't know it all that well.
However, you mentioned:

Frankly I ripped for testing both encoders at same Bitrate of 160 and of 10 friends and family I asked could not honestly tell a difference.

I assume you couldn't tell the difference either, correct?
Now if that it the case, why ask the question?
If it looks, sounds and smells like dog, it's probably a dog.
If you can't tell the difference, then, as far as you are concerned, there IS no difference between the output of the two encoders.

Hope this helps,
MW

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #2 –
Hi OldSurfer,

I can't offer you any advice on the specific encoders, but as far as I understand, there is much of a muchness between all lossy formats.

The thing with getting all technical is that at the end of the day it doesn't make any difference if you know there is a technical difference if you can't actually hear a difference.

As for 'doing it right' the first time, you are in good company here at Hydrogen Audio, most people want that!

Having just typed this and read the other response, you have your answer I think

All the best
FLAC + Foobar2000 // AAC + iPhone

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #3 –
Using HE-AAC at bitrates of more than around 80 kbit/s has proven being rather pointless, since usually there's no need to reproduce high frequencies in these cases. The latest multiformat test at 48 kbit/s made obvious that the high anchor, iTunes LC-AAC @ 96 kbit/s, was transparent for lots of listeners. That's why Nero's encoder automatically switches to LC-AAC as soon as a quality level is used which is common to result in an average bitrate of more than 80 kbit/s.

Quality is most likely to be worse if HE-AAC is used at 160 kbit/s. SBR, the technique behind HE-AAC, doesn't exactly reconstruct high frequencies, but guesses them based on the ones slightly below instead. This causes errors compared to the source signal which possibly introduce audible artifacts. In the best possible case LC-AAC and HE-AAC @ 160 kbit/s are indistinguishable from each other, but in theory the latter is likely to deliver worse results. In addition to this it's important to mention that HE-AAC seriously eats batteries of your Zune player, a lot more than its LC-AAC counterpart. This is an example for an older decoder's performance:

https://datatype.helixcommunity.org/2005/aacfixptdec

As you can see here, the processing power needed to decode HE-AAC is comparably high in these examples. Of course these figures don't apply to every single decoder out there; the performance needed to deal with SBR can drastically vary from chip to chip, dependant on their design.

To summarize things: You sacrifice both quality and battery life for a technique that's useless at these bitrates.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #4 –
As others have said, HE-AAC is only good for bitrates of 80kbps or less.  At bitrates of 96kbps and above, you are just better off using LC-AAC.

Now, as far as getting HE-AAC files on your portables, you are out of luck.  Devices like the Zune and iPod can playback HE-AAC files but they won't playback the high efficiency portion.  A HE-AAC file is made up of two different files, you have the HE portion and LC portion.  So a 80kbps HE-AAC file being played back on a Zune or iPod will have the same sound quality as a 80kbps LC-AAC file.

You should only use HE-AAC if you plan on playing the files back on your computer using compatible software and for encoding at low bitrates.  If you want hardware support and plan on encoding at high bitrates (96kbps and above), you should use LC-AAC.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #5 –
Well since your Zune is AAC-LC only, you should probably use that.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #6 –
Junon thank you very much. I felt that as far as hearing being the same (to us anyway) there had to eb something more and you ahve shared that. I noticed excatly what you described with batteries. I have ripped a sleep CD at LC-ACC and it runs all night with battery to spare. I run some of my songs ripped at HE-ACC and the battery does seem to go fast in my car. I thought maybe the car drained differently.
I will use LC-ACC going forward. What is the recommended bitare? I play at home on stereo and in my car with Bose. THANK YOU for helping an amatuer understand. If you should ever need to know how to building a 1,000 unit project i am pretty good at that and will share my 35 years of knowledge as best I can.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Well since your Zune is AAC-LC only, you should probably use that.


I have over 2,000 songs on it that are ripped at MP4/LC-AAC at 160kb on my Zune now?

They play great so I am confused that you would say that unless I am missing something?

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #8 –
Quote from: OldSurfer on
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on

Well since your Zune is AAC-LC only, you should probably use that.


I have over 2,000 songs on it that are ripped at MP4/LC-AAC at 160kb on my Zune now?

They play great so I am confused that you would say that unless I am missing something?


He is stating that the Zune will only effectively playback LC-AAC files.  Hence, you should use that format instead of HE-AAC.  His statement is correct as I tried to explain that in my previous post.

As for the bitrate you should use, it is all up to you.  Recent tests have shown that 128kbps VBR AAC (always use VBR) is pretty damned good.  160kbps VBR AAC might be a little better.  I know many people who use 192kbps VBR AAC and I think that is a waste.  If you are going up to the 192kbps and above bitrates, then you might as well just use the Lame mp3 encoder.  To me, the AAC format was made so that one could achieve perceptual transparency at lower bitrates.  In this case, 128kbps or 160kbps.  I suggest that you setup and blind ABX test in foobar2000 to see which one comes out clearer.  Personally, I use the 128kbps VBR AAC format and bitrate and I am perfectly fine with it.  My files give me that perceptual transparency when I am playing my music back through my stereo system (via Digital coaxil), on my iPod, or in my car via a direct connection to a USB hard drive.  I really like the file sizes as well.  160kbps VBR AAC doesn't take up that much more space than 128kbps VBR but it might be wasted bits if you can't hear the difference.

Download foobar2000 and conduct a blind ABX test.  After all, this is your music with your ears.  Nobody else's ears will be the same as your.  You will be listening to your music, not us.  Trust your own ears and you will be happy.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #9 –
[He is stating that the Zune will only effectively playback LC-AAC files.  Hence, you should use that format instead of HE-AAC.  His statement is correct as I tried to explain that in my previous post.

As for the bitrate you should use, it is all up to you.  Recent tests have shown that 128kbps VBR AAC (always use VBR) is pretty damned good.  160kbps VBR AAC might be a little better. 
[/quote]

At the risk of sounding dumber than mud how do I insure it is VBR? I guess what I am saying is I can not find in WinAmp where it says VBR?

Thanks,

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #10 –
Personally, I use the 128kbps VBR AAC format and bitrate and I am perfectly fine with it.  My files give me that perceptual transparency when I am playing my music back through my stereo system (via Digital coaxil), on my iPod, or in my car via a direct connection to a USB hard drive.  I really like the file sizes as well.  160kbps VBR AAC doesn't take up that much more space than 128kbps VBR but it might be wasted bits if you can't hear the difference.
[/quote]

Which software do you use to rip with as you note above please. Thanks

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #11 –
Quote from: OldSurfer on
Quote

Personally, I use the 128kbps VBR AAC format and bitrate and I am perfectly fine with it.  My files give me that perceptual transparency when I am playing my music back through my stereo system (via Digital coaxil), on my iPod, or in my car via a direct connection to a USB hard drive.  I really like the file sizes as well.  160kbps VBR AAC doesn't take up that much more space than 128kbps VBR but it might be wasted bits if you can't hear the difference.


Which software do you use to rip with as you note above please. Thanks


Most people here are using itunes or nero, which are the two good quality AAC encoders.

Also, when you quote, do so like this:

Code: [Select]
[quote] text [/quote]


So that you don't break other people's quotes.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #12 –
Thanks Mike. Is WinAmp as good as the two you noted?

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Junon on
Using HE-AAC at bitrates of more than around 80 kbit/s has proven being rather pointless, since usually there's no need to reproduce high frequencies in these cases. The latest multiformat test at 48 kbit/s made obvious that the high anchor, iTunes LC-AAC @ 96 kbit/s, was transparent for lots of listeners. That's why Nero's encoder automatically switches to LC-AAC as soon as a quality level is used which is common to result in an average bitrate of more than 80 kbit/s.

Quality is most likely to be worse if HE-AAC is used at 160 kbit/s. SBR, the technique behind HE-AAC, doesn't exactly reconstruct high frequencies, but guesses them based on the ones slightly below instead. This causes errors compared to the source signal which possibly introduce audible artifacts. In the best possible case LC-AAC and HE-AAC @ 160 kbit/s are indistinguishable from each other, but in theory the latter is likely to deliver worse results. In addition to this it's important to mention that HE-AAC seriously eats batteries of your Zune player, a lot more than its LC-AAC counterpart. This is an example for an older decoder's performance:

https://datatype.helixcommunity.org/2005/aacfixptdec

As you can see here, the processing power needed to decode HE-AAC is comparably high in these examples. Of course these figures don't apply to every single decoder out there; the performance needed to deal with SBR can drastically vary from chip to chip, dependant on their design.

To summarize things: You sacrifice both quality and battery life for a technique that's useless at these bitrates.


Junon I got this back from WinAmp on a Sunday night! In any case I felt I should pass it on. To me it supports what most have been trying to tell me on this and another forum. I thought it was interesting.

Assuming that you ripped the tracks with HE-AAC High Bitrate Encoder @160kbit/s from Winamp your battery life will hardly be shorter because, as far as I know, Zune has no possibility to decode HE-part of AAC encodings @160 kbit/s. It will just decode LC-part using the  same processing power as in case of pure LC-AAC. The difference introduced by HE-part is really small @160 kbit/s (HE-part is a kind of upgrade over LC-part, additional layer; not necessarily useful in all cases).

In any case the above battery drain is easily verified in practice. Just listen one day LC-AAC@160 and another one - HE-AAC@160 and compare battery usage. I foresee no difference due to the above reason.
Serge.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #15 –
Thanks for this information. I wasn't aware of the fact that Zune actually isn't able to decode the SBR part of HE-AAC. The figures provided in the link to the ARM processor data sheet above relate to decoders which actually handle this technique, of course.

But nonetheless, since the Zune player provides sufficient space to encode to bitrates of 96 kbit/s and above there's no reason to go for HE-AAC anyway, hence this drawback of the Zune shouldn't be much of a hassle.

Besides, if you're going to give the Nero AAC encoder a shot, as was suggested above: It offers surprisingly good quality at 96 kbit/s (-q 0.34 in the encoder's command line), which actually sounds transparent to my ears (and others as well, as I already mentioned concerning the iTunes high anchor). Although your computer and the Zune offer sufficient storage space to make low bitrates unnecessary, you might want to take into account that a lot of mobile phones with their usually very limited 512 MB/1 GB/2 GB flash cards often support AAC playback as well. This might become interesting if you thought about buying such a device in the near future. Despite the large 160 kbit/s files the 96 kbit/s ones are very suitable for flash-based portable devices - and if the 96 kbit/s files already sounded transparent to you and the kids, then 160 kbit/s wouldn't provide any benefits at all. A piece of music can't sound better than transparent.

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #16 –
is there a point to use bitrates higher than 160? i couldnt tell the difference between 160 and 200...maybe my ears arent very sensitive...but to me 160 sounds very good

He-AAC vs LC-ACC

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Junon on
Besides, if you're going to give the Nero AAC encoder a shot, as was suggested above: It offers surprisingly good quality at 96 kbit/s (-q 0.34 in the encoder's command line), which actually sounds transparent to my ears (and others as well, as I already mentioned concerning the iTunes high anchor).


Junon when I went to NERO site and read it says the downloaf files are huge, 150 megs plus. Is there a smaller version of NERO to just rip and encode with?