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: What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ? (Read 6107 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

for AAC in 32Khz specifically.
I want to encode my music in AAC format at about the half size of a 128Kbts CBR song and even Quicktime in TVBR mode ruins some songs at low bit rate.I use -TVBR 30 -resample 32000 , which creates a file at about 5?% the size of a 128kb CBR track.

Btw , Nero AAC destroys the songs at very low bit rates ,  Quicktime is far superior.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #1 –
Low-pass filter.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: WWWaves on
Btw , Nero AAC destroys the songs at very low bit rates ,  Quicktime is far superior.


Random guess:  you're using HE on an LC only decoder.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #3 –
What do you mean by "ruins"?  Did you expect to cut the size in half with no change at all?

In addition to playing with the low pass, you could specify mono.  (guessing that's an option with AAC, it is with mp3 and vorbis).  I don't do AAC at all, but from what I recall in published tests, some encoders do well at 64k vbr without any special settings.
 

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: WWWaves on
Btw , Nero AAC destroys the songs at very low bit rates ,  Quicktime is far superior.


Random guess:  you're using HE on an LC only decoder.


I've listened to some tracks both on my PC and on my cell phone and Nero makes hi-hats sound awful among other audible quantization errors.
i used for Nero quality 35 and for Quicktime tvbr 30 both at 32khz.HUGE difference , try it.Nero produces slightly bigger files than QT but still the quality is very bad.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: WWWaves on
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: WWWaves on
Btw , Nero AAC destroys the songs at very low bit rates ,  Quicktime is far superior.


Random guess:  you're using HE on an LC only decoder.


I've listened to some tracks both on my PC and on my cell phone and Nero makes hi-hats sound awful among other audible quantization errors.
i used for Nero quality 35 and for Quicktime tvbr 30 both at 32khz.HUGE difference , try it.Nero produces slightly bigger files than QT but still the quality is very bad.



Much less random guess:  you're using HE on an LC only decoder.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #6 –
(I don't use AAC or low bitrates.)

Quote
... about the half size of a 128kbps CBR
In case you don't know, half the size means half the bitrate.  And, for best results, use VBR.

You can approximate file size (any format) with the following formula:
File Size in MB = (Bitrate in kbps x Playing Time in minutes) / 140

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #7 –
Nero -q 0.35 produces LC-AAC...

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Nero -q 0.35 produces LC-AAC...


Yes, but at ~100kbps AAC-LC should be nearly transparent, so its likely that hes doing more then just -q 0.35.

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #9 –
-q 0.35 at 32kHz is closer to ~70 kbps.

For me, Quicktime --tvbr 30 (32kHz) is better than Nero -q 0.35 (32kHz). Tested with this sample: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ost&id=6530

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #10 –
A hi-hat sound usually consists of lots of high frequency noise which is quite chalenging to encode. Even lowpassing at 15.?kHz (what resampling to 32kHz implies) alone will generally degrade the sound (provided you have ears and equipment capable of transporting content over 16kHz).

So what do you expect?

What filter is best to apply to a song to make it easier to encode ?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
For me, Quicktime --tvbr 30 (32kHz) is better than Nero -q 0.35 (32kHz). Tested with this sample: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ost&id=6530

Sorry for replying to 6 month old post.

I just tried this at sampling rate 32000, -q2(Best/Highest).
QuickTime LC encoder produces noise-like annoying error/artifact at 0:03 on the right channel. This was found on --tvbr 36, 45, 54.
Interestingly, --tvbr 30 (which is rounded into 27) doesn't seem to suffer from this.