. AAC was built in 1997--there is NO excuse for a said intelligent encoder to not exist in 2008. For all I know there could be a successor as we speak (exact same reason I'll wait for Blu-Rays to be replaced by tapestry media.)
I was very impressed by HE-AAC. It performs extremely well for low bit rates, compared to AAC (LC).But according to this listening test (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html) AAC-HE at 64kbps is still inferior to LAME Mp3 at 128kbps.
Yes and with HE-AAC I hear ttsshhhkkkk artifact all the time. There could be serious issues on low volume parts, synth music etc . Maybe it sounds cool for 64k but and 96k LLC is a better option. But is 96k vs 128k space saving really attractive when we are forced to use less compatible codecs ? Even worse is that you can get not bad at all quality with Lame -V6 or even -V7 for outdoor use.
But is 96k vs 128k space saving really attractive when we are forced to use less compatible codecs ?
For video use HE-AAC and mp3 alternatives are attractive for obvious reasons if we don't look at compatibility. Again 96k is too close to Lame -V7, But at 24~80k there is a clear advantage of AAC over Mp3.
No codec can provide CD-quality at 64 kbps. 76 minimum.
Where AAC really starts to stink when it comes to compatibility. So far, Winamp nor WinXP can recognize the metatags and I haven't come across one .mp4/.m4a virtually anywhere, so I wouldn't expect LimeWire/Ares to recognize MP4 files as audio.
If you suffer from a form of Tourettes and genuinely can't help constantly swearing, then I apologise for embarrassing you. If this isn't the case, then can you please stop it. I don't visit this forum to read filth, I come here to learn something. sad.gifCheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif
It's my opinion that AAC is almost useless today, because it is designed to delive acceptable quality at low bitrates and gives little to no improvement in the transparent range. Some people will disagree. But today when we have 8 MBit surround mixes on audio DVD, ain't it a bit stupid to argue about 80 and 96 kBit for stereo?
Let's assume you preserve content for a relatively small group of people (household), or do unpopuar content that's not subject to copyright. Now you pick 64 kBit/s for stereo because you deem the artifacts acceptable for you. But the person next to you might disagree. Is it morally right to assume that the other person should acquire the source, do all the processing and save to standard 192 kBit/s, when it could be done properly only once in the first place?
Quote from: Xpenguin17 on 05 June, 2008, 08:20:10 PMNo codec can provide CD-quality at 64 kbps. 76 minimum.Try not to state opinion as fact (I sometimes do this as well, I have tried not to though). Technically speaking, no lossy encoder can ever achieve CD quality. There are some encoders that can achieve perceived CD quality at 64kbps for some people. Did you ABX the formats often used at low bitrates (HE-AAC as an example) to determine that or did you just make that statement?
Actually, Apple's tagging standards have slowly become the "standard" for AAC. Many other applications (including WinAmp) and portable players can read and write Apple compatible AAC tags.
The popularity of the iPod and iTunes have pushed AAC onto people rather quickly. I can now walk into Best Buy and find 14 out of 21 portable players that will work with AAC, 7 out of 12 standard DVD players, three out of three current generation consoles, and 13 out of 22 car CD decks. All of those numbers are real as I was trying to point out to a friend how popular AAC has come. It is as compatible as mp3 but I would say that it is about as compatible as WMA or slightly less. Now there is a difference between raw AAC and AAC files in a mpeg-4 container. You won't find much compatibility (if any) with raw AAC files but mpeg-4 AAC audio file compatibility has drastically increased over the years. That and Apple's tagging system has gained compatibility. I have a Xbox 360, Wii, 30GB Zune, and a 4GB Creative Zen that will all read Apple AAC tags just fine.
'Dunno why I have never seen an MP4 being shared on the net. I'm usually skeptical about new formats and only conform to popularity and mass-compatibility but since AAC is obviously superior to MP3, I'm willing to move on if their tags can be recognized.
Then GTFO my heterosexual thread.
No, I tested 'em on this picture to see how the bitrate affects the visual trippiness. 32 and 64 so goddamn boring man, just streaks of grey goat shit, 128 was w1n and below 76 is where the phail begins.No but seriously, what the hell do you think I was doing? I directly reported all over this goddamn thread what my experience was with different bitrates. Just as MP3 128 kbps retains (perceived) CD-quality except isolated songs with high-freq cymbals that are better encoded at 192, I found 76 kbps to be equivalent to LAME 128.
Are all scene guys that insecure nowadays?
Quote from: kornchild2002 on 05 June, 2008, 10:37:09 PMActually, Apple's tagging standards have slowly become the "standard" for AAC. Many other applications (including WinAmp) and portable players can read and write Apple compatible AAC tags.2.XX can't, and neither can Windows, unless I missed something.