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: Transcoding ~192kbps AAC to 160kbps AC3 (Read 5039 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Transcoding ~192kbps AAC to 160kbps AC3

What kind of quality loss would you expect?

Transcoding ~192kbps AAC to 160kbps AC3

Reply #1 –
I think not much loss for casual listening based on some brief personal tests I did a while back. 256k AAC transcoded cleanly to AAC, MP3, OGG etc.. even 192k was ok, but i only tested 1 sample at 192k. 128k had obvious audible artifacts (listening back to back) - that's what i'd want to avoid.

I think AAC 256k + makes a decent transcoding source and you have the bonus that it is a recognised standard with an ever growing HW support. This is also true to some extent for very high bitrate mp3 (256~320k).

Just try a few tracks and see and I think you will be pleasantly surprised...

Transcoding ~192kbps AAC to 160kbps AC3

Reply #2 –
If I recall correctly, AC3 is rather inefficient by modern codec standards.
If I had to guess, you'd have a quite noticeable amount of quality loss by going from 192 kbps AAC to 160 kbps AC3.

Honestly, if you're creating a DVD, you'd be a lot better off finding a lossless audio source or using either 448 kbps AC3 or uncompressed PCM.  If you're not, I suspect you'd get better quality from mp3, AAC, ogg vorbis, musepack, or perhaps wma around 160 kbps, not to mention just leaving the audio alone and not transcoding.