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: In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3? (Read 15639 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

I was wondering what is generally considered the equivalent of the CBR 320 MP3 setting in AAC world? In terms of the highest setting over which you shouldn't go and pass into self-parody waters?

Should it be a constant bitrate AAC file, with a 320 rate, or is there a q setting? I.e. if you were to write the article on AAC that corresponds to LAME's on Hydrogenaudio Wiki, what would you consider the archiving setting?

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Sylph on
I was wondering what is generally considered the equivalent of the CBR 320 MP3 setting in AAC world? In terms of the highest setting over which you shouldn't go and pass into self-parody waters?


I would say that CBR320 mp3 is a long way past that mark. Most samples reach transparency in the ~200 kbps region or are "killer samples" that often produce artefacts even at 320 kbps.  If I was to write such an article I would leave out CBR completely and hope that the readers never find out about it and therefore never use it. If you care for quality use VBR, if you care for filesize use ABR.

To relate to your actual question, Nero is supposed to release the next version of their encoder in the coming weeks/days. As soon as this happens the forum will be flooded by people listening to it and comparing it to the latest lame version. You might find some useful info then.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #2 –
In the next weeks or days? I didn't know that!

But I should underline that it's not just Nero... Is CBR 320 (.mp3) equal to iTunes AAC 320 kbps?

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Sylph on
In the next weeks or days? I didn't know that!

But I should underline that it's not just Nero... Is CBR 320 (.mp3) equal to iTunes AAC 320 kbps?


They're both terrible choices so in that sense they're equivalent.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #4 –
Yes, both terrible. Both sound like crap...

Back to serious. Sylph: I've recently participated in a tightly controlled blind test (using Stax headphones) of two AAC coders at 256 kb (one CBR, one VBR) using the most critical items the test conductor could find. I think all these items are uploaded on HA. Only one item was not transparent (in the sense that, when concentrating, you could almost always distinguish it from the hidden reference). Can't tell you which item that was, though.

So, in my opinion, 256 kb - CBR or VBR - is exactly what you're looking for: "the highest setting over which you shouldn't go and pass into self-parody waters." Assuming, of course, you're using the latest version of your encoder of choice.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
They're both terrible choices so in that sense they're equivalent.


Anyway...

Thank you, Chris! Apple's iTunes stores started offering the 256 kbps AAC in 2007 saying in a press release that such files audio quality is "indistinguishable from the original recording". I don't think they took that setting just like that in a sea of other possibilities.

Do you use AAC or MP3 and which settings are your preferred ones?

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #6 –
The 256 ~ 320k trend is just an excuse for not tuning the encoder to its potential or a 'selling point' to the masses ("we finally have cd audio - its basically as good as lossless so no need for it").

Dibrom said the 'new' encoders (aac, vorbis, mpc) don't need more than 170..200k in typical situation to be transparent. Frank Klemm said that AAC could in theory be transparent using less bits than MPC -standard (like around 130k) , providing it was heavily tuned which was harder to do than MPC.

I still trust MPC 175k over brute force 320k mp3.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Do you use AAC or MP3 and which settings are your preferred ones?

I prefer AAC at 128 kb for "casual listening" (I found even very critical items to be close to transparency) and FLAC for CD rips. I have to note, though, that I prefer AAC over MP3 because I'm an AAC developer

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #8 –
 That's why you know so much? Would it be indiscreet to ask which AAC "version" (FhG, Nero...)?

Before I read this, I found your earlier post where you were talking about a preferred 256 kb/s setting.

And that reminds me - the FhG encoder in MAGIX software has the 256 as the highest available bitrate even though it can go up to 500+. I don't know why they didn't include the 320 as the upper limit.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #9 –
Christian's location should be a dead giveaway

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: benski on
Christian's location should be a dead giveaway


  If it's FhG, I'm going to scream! 'Cause I'm looking for their AAC and I've only found one software which rips to that, the above-mentioned one. And I need another one with full support. Don't ask why.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #11 –
Why?

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Sylph on
If it's FhG, I'm going to scream!

*covering my ears*

Yes, I know of the technical (i.e. signal processing) advantages AAC has over MP3, and I would also like to see "my latest encoder creation" in some more low-budget CD rippers or audio editors or so. Especially because I've done considerable encoder tuning over the last 2 years.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

In AAC world: the equivalent of CBR 320 MP3?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Quote from: Sylph on
If it's FhG, I'm going to scream!

*covering my ears*


 

Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Yes, I know of the technical (i.e. signal processing) advantages AAC has over MP3, and I would also like to see "my latest encoder creation" in some more low-budget CD rippers or audio editors or so. Especially because I've done considerable encoder tuning over the last 2 years.


Which just illustrates all the more reasons for why one would want to test and use that specific version of the codec. I know you've mentioned in another discussion we had that Fraunhofer does not give away its codec for testing, the only possible way to get it, the path to try, might be if you work for a research institute of a university or something and to ask Fraunhofer to send it for testing/research purposes.