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: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac (Read 11073 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Markuza97 on
I can hear the noise it creates very easily on normal volume.
Really? I have to apply 20 dB of gain before hearing rectangular or triangle and even more for shaped.

Maybe I listen too quiet? ;-)

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #26 –
Quote from: GhostEMP on
I personally can’t ever hear a difference even between lossy & lossless formats on my own no matter which systems I use, not to mention hi-res material.

Surely you must be able to hear a difference between lossless and some lossy audio files (especially once the bit rate drops below a certain standard on the lossy file), right? ; NOTE: ill just use MP3 in my example below.

because with lossy files once the bit rate goes below a certain standard even the average person (assuming their hearing is around average or so) should be able to more obviously notice the difference. I just assume this really goes without saying as it's common knowledge that I doubt anyone would question (even though the point where things become obvious might vary a bit from person-to-person but I think that point is almost surely a bitrate below MP3 @ v5.

because I could understand if the common person can't tell the difference (or at least can't easily tell the difference) between say FLAC (lossless) and MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) (or higher) but once you start to drop under MP3 v5(130kbps) a fair amount, once you reach a certain level the sound quality drop becomes more obvious on any random music you play.

just speaking for myself, which I suspect will be a good ball park figure for the average person... playing with some MP3's a while ago (and even a moment ago on my Klipsch Pro-Media PC speakers (which are above average computer speakers)) I noticed it's easy to spot difference between v8 (85kbps) vs v7 (100kbps) as this is the point where it becomes easy for me to tell them apart without ABXing as just playing the song for a few seconds you can easily notice the lack of clarity in the overall sound that v7 has but is missing on the v8 file. I can say that with confidence/no hesitation. even in the past (I think about 10 years ago now) I have ABXed v5 (FLAC vs MP3 @ v5) but it took effort and was not easy.

but if someone could not hear the v7 file and then switch to the v8 shortly after, I would not be surprised if some random people out there would not even notice it if all they had was the v8 file as it's still not outright 'bad' as that v8 setting and, from what I can tell, some people are not that picky on this sort of stuff and would still easily consider v8 'good enough' and maybe even the lowest setting of v9(65kbps) (at least that's the lowest option for LAME in Foobar2000 as Foobar2000 is what I use for my general music listening/conversion on PC), especially if ones hearing might be below average or worse then this would become even more true.

so with that said... I don't think it's a stretch to claim that MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) is easily 'good enough' for most people since I think it's safe to say that they won't be able to easily notice any differences on random songs when just sitting back and enjoying the music straight up. because when people listen to music in general, unless there is something obviously wrong in the sound, then they will enjoy it and move on.

but with all of that said, to account for all ages (and taking efficiency into effect to)... unless one does not mind gambling (or their hearing might be a bit suspect or they are real tight for storage space etc), I figure as a general rule with MP3 is don't use a setting any lower in quality to v5 (130kbps) since that should still be easily good enough/safe enough for most people. so in other words... just about everyone should use a setting between v5-v0 nowadays, especially with storage space being no where near as tight as it once was. but personally I suggest v5, but if one wants to play it safe on sound quality without efficiency going out the window, use v2(190kbps) and forget about it. even if someone is hard up for storage space and has to use MP3, v7(100kbps) is THE lowest I would personally consider for MP3 just because any lower than that, you can see a obvious lack of clarity in the overall sound on my Klipsch Pro-Media speakers on any random song as the overall sound quality takes too much of a hit for me (although it's not like it's total crap though either). or to put it another way... someone who's up there in age I doubt would complain even with MP3 @ v9(65kbps) since their hearing is likely to be at least a fair amount worse than the common person since I would imagine most people have decent hearing a good portion of their life. but eventually, even that has to drop below a certain standard to where hearing finer details will start to take a hit etc.

p.s. but on Opus I don't mind using 64kbps as I would still consider that to be easily more higher quality than lower quality in the overall sound as that easily wipes the floor with MP3 @ v9 (to put it of similar bit rate). hell, I am willing to bet that Opus @ 64kbps is better than MP3 @ v7(100kbps). if I am wrong here, I can't be off by much since I know Opus @ 64kbps is definitely better than MP3 @ v8(85kbps) as I doubt anyone around here would question that as I would assume that's common knowledge especially given I think it was said that Opus @ 80kbps is similar to MP3 @ v5(130kbps). but in my opinion... even Opus @ 64kbps is competitive with MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) as I think I can safely say that, even if Opus @ 64kbps is worse, it's not obvious.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)... MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in proper order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #27 –
Quote from: ThaCrip on

Surely you must be able to hear a difference between lossless and some lossy audio files (especially once the bit rate drops below a certain standard on the lossy file), right? ; NOTE: ill just use MP3 in my example below.

I do but that’s only when an MP3 file goes below 128kbps, then the difference becomes obvious. But anything past 128kbps and I can’t hear any obvious, clear difference. Same deal with AAC.
I thought it was 128kbps that was where MP3 began to sound different.

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #28 –
Quote from: GhostEMP on
I do but that’s only when an MP3 file goes below 128kbps, then the difference becomes obvious. But anything past 128kbps and I can’t hear any obvious, clear difference. Same deal with AAC.
I thought it was 128kbps that was where MP3 began to sound different.

Put it this way... if someone is happy with MP3 @ v5(130kbps average) they will be happy with AAC-LC @ 96kbps (TVBR or CVBR) given the listening tests around here.

p.s. although it seems CVBR might have a tiny advantage over TVBR in sound quality even though, on average, the bit rate is a little higher on CVBR which probably accounts for the tiny difference occasionally where as TVBR tends to give one a bit more efficient use of bit rate but at a potential risk the bit rate could drop a bit too low once in a while, which CVBR helps cure. with that said, keep in mind we are not talking any major differences as I doubt the common person would notice the difference between TVBR/CVBR on any random bunch of music. I just suggest CVBR since when running @ 96kbps, which is already the minimum of the good bit rate range, it helps ensure the bit rates don't go too low. but one could opt for saving a little storage space by going with TVBR. I could not really fault a person either way. but I would say as a general rule... someone more concerned with sound quality, use CVBR. someone who's not really concerned much, use TVBR and get the small bonus of storage space savings.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)... MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in proper order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #29 –
What's the best AAC encoder?. is dolby pulse codec better than apple aac

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #30 –
Quote from: ldfermyn on
What's the best AAC encoder?. is dolby pulse codec better than apple aac

Assuming your referring to standard AAC (i.e. AAC-LC), the last I knew it's Apple AAC and I doubt that's changed since from what I have heard there have not been any changes in relation to sound quality in probably at least 10+ years now.

that's what I use on Foobar2000 when making AAC (.m4a) files (i.e. https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=115883.msg962088#msg962088 )
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)... MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in proper order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #31 –
Quote from: ThaCrip on
Quote from: ldfermyn on
What's the best AAC encoder?. is dolby pulse codec better than apple aac

Assuming your referring to standard AAC (i.e. AAC-LC), the last I knew it's Apple AAC and I doubt that's changed since from what I have heard there have not been any changes in relation to sound quality in probably at least 10+ years now.

that's what I use on Foobar2000 when making AAC (.m4a) files (i.e. https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=115883.msg962088#msg962088 )

The thing is Apple's encoder is the best only when going for efficiency i.e 96 or 128 kbps. If someone is encoding at 320 kbps then it hardly matters.
 

Re: Best way to convert HD audio (24-Bit / 96 KHz) into mp3 /aac

Reply #32 –
Quote from: pr0m3th3u5 on
The thing is Apple's encoder is the best only when going for efficiency i.e 96 or 128 kbps. If someone is encoding at 320 kbps then it hardly matters.

Agreed. but it kind of defeats the point in using lossy encoders if the bitrate is not efficient, which pretty much boils down to 96kbps or 128kbps (or so).

sure, I realize that MicroSD cards are really big and really cheap nowadays (i.e. 128GB for about $20). but still, it's the thought of it ;)
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)... MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in proper order on AGPTEK-U3.