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: How far will AAC plus go? (Read 88251 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #50 –
Quote
But is HE-AAC really a hifi-format like mp3 at higher bit rates can be? If it's optimized for streaming I guess avoiding stuttering is prioritized to transparency, isn't it?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=325885"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Huh? No, normal HE-AAC is meant to be used over a reliable channel. There are some versions with error resiliency (as used by DRM), but the entire solution is hardly designed up front for that, and those variations of AAC are not generally used. (The same applies to MP3)

Since HE-AAC incorporates LC-AAC, a HE-AAC solution will scale from the lowest to the highest bitrates, and is extremely efficient all over that range...

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #51 –
How's aacPlus supposed to be at higher bitrates? I know it's regarded as useless or wasting but is it as good as plain vanilla aac for example or worse?

The reason I ask this is that my favourite internet radio Radio Free Colorado recently experimented with 96kbps aacPlus (in addition to 320kbps MP3!). Didn't hear it though. Normally they stream aacPlus at 64kbps.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #52 –
Quote
How's aacPlus supposed to be at higher bitrates? I know it's regarded as useless or wasting but is it as good as plain vanilla aac for example or worse?

The reason I ask this is that my favourite internet radio Radio Free Colorado recently experimented with 96kbps aacPlus (in addition to 320kbps MP3!). Didn't hear it though. Normally they stream aacPlus at 64kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328653"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In the general case it will be worse than normal AAC.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #53 –
Do all currently available aac-capable mobile phones
only support LC AAC?

I'm particularly interested in the Sony Ericsson W800...
Wanna buy a monkey?

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #54 –
I've read W800's white paper, and it says LC-AAC only.

Anyway, what's the difference between Main Profile (MP), Low Complexity (LC), and Scalable Sampling Rate (SSR)...?
And how do you encode an AAC w/ any of those profiles aside from LC?
I just came across those from reading W800's white paper.
Well, I know LC, but I don't know what's in it (as in why is it called LC).

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #55 –
if i didnt get it wrong lc devices such as the k750i/w800i can play he streams, the extra info just wont be processed. and its my understanding that the so-called aacplus v2 is he-aac with ps. is that correct? has anyone tried playing back an aacplus v2 48kbps ps stream on one of those two se phones?

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #56 –
Quote
I've read W800's white paper, and it says LC-AAC only.

Anyway, what's the difference between Main Profile (MP), Low Complexity (LC), and Scalable Sampling Rate (SSR)...?
And how do you encode an AAC w/ any of those profiles aside from LC?
I just came across those from reading W800's white paper.
Well, I know LC, but I don't know what's in it (as in why is it called LC).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328799"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You Don't Know To Know And You Don't Want To Use Anything Besides LC

(Note that HE-AAC/aacPlus is a LC-compatible)

If you do want to know, use the search, audiocoding wiki, or google

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #57 –
Quote
Anyway, what's the difference between Main Profile (MP), Low Complexity (LC), and Scalable Sampling Rate (SSR)...?
And how do you encode an AAC w/ any of those profiles aside from LC?
[...]
Well, I know LC, but I don't know what's in it (as in why is it called LC).[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please read [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36391&view=findpost&p=321059]post #8[/url] in this very same thread. Sometimes it is annoying to write twice the same.

SSR (Scalable Sample Rate) is designed for streaming through variable bandwith channel. Most of us will never use this profile, including you.

HE-AAC v2 (including HE-AAC and AAC LC) is the standard for 3GPP release 6 compliant mobile devices, but it is not yet a consolidated standard in the market. Give it some time.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #58 –
So the difference between LC and MP is LTP (Long Term Prediction).

Why would you not want to use this feature, besides hardware compatibility reasons?
Is there no encoder that implements it properly? Is there very little to gain from it?

I mean, surely it exists for a reason.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #59 –
Quote
So the difference between LC and MP is LTP (Long Term Prediction).

Why would you not want to use this feature, besides hardware compatibility reasons?
Is there no encoder that implements it properly? Is there very little to gain from it?

I mean, surely it exists for a reason. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328843"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Main profile is implemented in all encoders IIRC unless otherwise especified. LTP adds complexity and the compression ratio is not improved that much. This is the main reason why AAC LC profile is used instead AAC Main.

IMHO, with a good PAM controlling the configuration of the tools used in compression, LTP could be very useful for heavy tonal parts of the compressed sound, allowing a huge gain in quality/bitrate. Same states for TNS with sounds with high dynamic range. Maybe commercial AAC encoder developers could give more details about this, based on real test.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #60 –
Quote
So the difference between LC and MP is LTP (Long Term Prediction).


No, no, no, no!

LTP is a *different* profile from LC and Main.

AAC LC = basic AAC
AAC Main = AAC with predictors
AAC LTP = AAC with better, different predictors (only MPEG4)

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #61 –
Egad! I noticed I didn't post any controversial opinion in this thread.

This will not do!


It is my opinion that all these low bitrate enhancements are a cruelty of fate, because they are being developed precisely at a time when they are not needed anymore.

If these enhancements were released in the late nineties or early 2000s, they wouldn't be anything short of groundbreaking. Back then, everyone was still on dial-up (great streaming possibilities!) and the most expensive flash-based DAPs had 128~256MB of storage.

These days, most people are on broadband, making streaming a moot point, and you can hardly find a DAP with less than 512Mb. Microdrives handling several gigabytes are being added to cell phones and optical storage is breaking the 50Gb/unit barrier.

Likewise, "spatial audio" (the multichannel version of parametric stereo, another novelty that came too late) would have been great for 1-cd DVD rips in 2003. Nowadays, most people don't even bother to rip DVDs, instead just copying it verbatim to another DVD.


I'm confident these fancy new buzzwords will find their place. SBR and PS are very useful as AM replacement in DRM, and some people more space-conscious than quality-conscious will want them on their DAPs. But for most people and purposes, they are too late, too little.

Regards;

Roberto.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #62 –
Quote
if i didnt get it wrong lc devices such as the k750i/w800i can play he streams, the extra info just wont be processed. and its my understanding that the so-called aacplus v2 is he-aac with ps. is that correct? has anyone tried playing back an aacplus v2 48kbps ps stream on one of those two se phones?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By 'only supports LC-AAC', I meant it'd only play LC-AAC properly.
And HE-AAC'd only get the same treatment as LC-AAC and makes no sense creating them specifically for those SE phones use.

Quote
Please read [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36391&view=findpost&p=321059]post #8[/url] in this very same thread. Sometimes it is annoying to write twice the same.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328827"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

About the LC bit, I actually have read it before; I just forgot I did.

Quote
SSR (Scalable Sample Rate) is designed for streaming through variable bandwith channel. Most of us will never use this profile, including you.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328827"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

'Variable bandwidth channel'?
Like as in what?


Quote
LTP is a *different* profile from LC and Main.

AAC LC = basic AAC
AAC Main = AAC with predictors
AAC LTP = AAC with better, different predictors (only MPEG4)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328884"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm...this and w/ Oki's post some times ago.

AAC LC = MPEG2 AAC + PNS --> (???)
AAC Main ~=  MP3 + TNS + TP or MPEG2 AAC --> (???)
AAC LTP (or MPEG4 AAC) = MPEG2 AAC + LTP + PNS

What is 'basic AAC' anyway?

Btw, from what I've read on Wikipedia (not HA's own Wiki), SSR is introduced by Sony.
That it's somehow similar to its own ATRAC and ATRAC-3 formats.
And that its quality is below the other AAC profile on the same bitrate.
Anyone can confirm this?

Sorry if I'm asking too much...
I just still feel pretty mixed up w/ all these naming conventions...
And much thanks for the replies!

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #63 –
Quote
Quote
So the difference between LC and MP is LTP (Long Term Prediction).

No, no, no, no!

LTP is a *different* profile from LC and Main.

AAC LC = basic AAC
AAC Main = AAC with predictors
AAC LTP = AAC with better, different predictors (only MPEG4)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328884"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am sorry, The information about MPEG4 I provided in post #8 was a little misleading. My post did not cover all the technologies in AAC like CELP, TwinVQ, etc because those are not used that much. I tryed to condensate my post as much as possible but explaining the difference between different AAC profiles was not the main target. I was more focused to the tools.

The profiles are described in ISO/IEC 14496-3, Subpart 1, paragraph 2.1. It is not easy to explain all the different profiles since, for instance, MPEG4 AAC Main is like MPEG2 AAC Main but supports also PNS. Same for MPEG4 AAC LC. It is like MPEG2 AAC LC but also pupports PNS. There are more than 15 different profiles in the original MPEG4 AAC. After 6 admendments there are more than 29 (SBR, PS, etc...) IIRC. Prese refer to the ISO/IEC 14496-3 and its admendments for a complete explanation.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #64 –
Quote
Quote
SSR (Scalable Sample Rate) is designed for streaming through variable bandwith channel. Most of us will never use this profile, including you.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328827"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
'Variable bandwidth channel'?
Like as in what?
It is an hierachical scheme of streams inside one AAC stream. the same stream provides different qualities for different targets. One stream can contain up to 3 streams for 11.025 kHz (Stream 1), 22.05 (Stream 1 and 2) and 44.1 kHz (all 3 Streams) sampling frequency.

Quote
Quote
LTP is a *different* profile from LC and Main.

AAC LC = basic AAC
AAC Main = AAC with predictors
AAC LTP = AAC with better, different predictors (only MPEG4)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328884"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm...this and w/ Oki's post some times ago.

AAC LC = MPEG2 AAC + PNS --> (???)
AAC Main ~=  MP3 + TNS + TP or MPEG2 AAC --> (???)
AAC LTP (or MPEG4 AAC) = MPEG2 AAC + LTP + PNS

What is 'basic AAC' anyway?
The basic AAC specification has several profiles too. The basic AAC is described in IEC/ISO 13818-3. I do not have that specification since you have to pay for it. I would like to have it lately.

Quote
Btw, from what I've read on Wikipedia (not HA's own Wiki), SSR is introduced by Sony.
That it's somehow similar to its own ATRAC and ATRAC-3 formats.
And that its quality is below the other AAC profile on the same bitrate.
Anyone can confirm this?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328963"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You sacrifice quality for scalability. Main profile's quality/bitrate ratio is higher than SSR's.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #65 –
Quote
It is my opinion that all these low bitrate enhancements are a cruelty of fate, because they are being developed precisely at a time when they are not needed anymore.

If these enhancements were released in the late nineties or early 2000s, they wouldn't be anything short of groundbreaking. Back then, everyone was still on dial-up (great streaming possibilities!) and the most expensive flash-based DAPs had 128~256MB of storage.

These days, most people are on broadband, making streaming a moot point, and you can hardly find a DAP with less than 512Mb. Microdrives handling several gigabytes are being added to cell phones and optical storage is breaking the 50Gb/unit barrier.

Likewise, "spatial audio" (the multichannel version of parametric stereo, another novelty that came too late) would have been great for 1-cd DVD rips in 2003. Nowadays, most people don't even bother to rip DVDs, instead just copying it verbatim to another DVD.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328926"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are completely wrong on all aspects.

Firstly, the target of these formats is largely broadcasting, especially so for spatial audio. For a broadcaster, the equation is simply less bitrate == more channels or less bitrate == less costs, and it will always be the case, even if bandwidth gets cheaper, less is still more. Just look at what happened with DAB in the UK. Or internet based broadcasting. More quality in smaller spaces is always welcome. Unlimited quota broadband is not something that exists in 99% of the world.

If I read your post it's like the only application for compressed audio is people ripping music on their digital players, or making DVD backups. That is false. These formats are now being used for example to push digital television further along.

Don't forget what the M in MPEG standard stands for.

Secondly, no matter how big your mobile player storage is, 32kbps PS AAC will still fit four times as many songs as 128kbps, and it will also sound acceptably good. Don't tell me this is useless if the storage is so big. I would expect most people to be always craving for more space, or for better quality in the same size.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #66 –
Quote
Quote
It is my opinion that all these low bitrate enhancements are a cruelty of fate, because they are being developed precisely at a time when they are not needed anymore.

If these enhancements were released in the late nineties or early 2000s, they wouldn't be anything short of groundbreaking. Back then, everyone was still on dial-up (great streaming possibilities!) and the most expensive flash-based DAPs had 128~256MB of storage.

These days, most people are on broadband, making streaming a moot point, and you can hardly find a DAP with less than 512Mb. Microdrives handling several gigabytes are being added to cell phones and optical storage is breaking the 50Gb/unit barrier.

Likewise, "spatial audio" (the multichannel version of parametric stereo, another novelty that came too late) would have been great for 1-cd DVD rips in 2003. Nowadays, most people don't even bother to rip DVDs, instead just copying it verbatim to another DVD.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328926"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are completely wrong on all aspects.

Firstly, the target of these formats is largely broadcasting, especially so for spatial audio. For a broadcaster, the equation is simply less bitrate == more channels or less bitrate == less costs, and it will always be the case, even if bandwidth gets cheaper, less is still more. Just look at what happened with DAB in the UK. Or internet based broadcasting. More quality in smaller spaces is always welcome. Unlimited quota broadband is not something that exists in 99% of the world.

If I read your post it's like the only application for compressed audio is people ripping music on their digital players, or making DVD backups. That is false. These formats are now being used for example to push digital television further along.


I'm wondering why you left out of the quote precisely the paraghraph where I wrote the caveat about these enhancement techniques not being useless - and I specially mentioned broadcasting

Let me quote it then:
Quote
I'm confident these fancy new buzzwords will find their place. SBR and PS are very useful as AM replacement in DRM, and some people more space-conscious than quality-conscious will want them on their DAPs. But for most people and purposes, they are too late, too little.


My point is that a window of opportunity for these formats has pretty much closed now. That's the "too late" part in my post.

Can you deny these technologies would have been much more useful years ago?

Quote
Secondly, no matter how big your mobile player storage is, 32kbps PS AAC will still fit four times as many songs as 128kbps, and it will also sound acceptably good. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329773"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, I wouldn't expect an AAC vendor to do otherwise, but come on, Garf... 32 kbps acceptable? Now you're sounding like Microsoft

Besides, that's precisely what I said in the part you forgot to quote. "some people more space-conscious than quality-conscious will want them on their DAPs." As DAPs are coming with 60Gb these days and storage will only get bigger and bigger, fitting more songs on the player won't make a difference because most people simply won't have such a big music collection anyway.


So, no, I'm not completely wrong on all aspects, although I understand that, from a professional point of view, you wish I was.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #67 –
Quote
I'm wondering why you left out of the quote precisely the paraghraph where I wrote the caveat about these enhancement techniques not being useless - and I specially mentioned broadcasting


I reread the post I was replying to, and this wasn't stated anywhere.

You only mentioned DRM. I was thinking about *quite a bit more* than that. Broadcasting is way bigger than just one shortwave standard.

Quote
My point is that a window of opportunity for these formats has pretty much closed now. That's the "too late" part in my post.


I don't see how, and I don't see any argument why. Because some players have 60g  disks? The smaller ones are still cheaper and handier, you know.

Quote
Can you deny these technologies would have been much more useful years ago?


Their effect is the same as their effect is today. You can do with significantly less storage, which means less costs.

So, no, I don't think so.

I guess putting todays technology into the world of 10 years ago would be interesting, but the fact is that it never happened that way.

Quote
Quote
Secondly, no matter how big your mobile player storage is, 32kbps PS AAC will still fit four times as many songs as 128kbps, and it will also sound acceptably good. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329773"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, I wouldn't expect an AAC vendor to do otherwise, but come on, Garf... 32 kbps acceptable? Now you're sounding like Microsoft


32kbps PS AAC is very acceptable for portable playback. This isn't marketing, it's a fact, supported by your own listening tests.

32kbps AAC was rated above or equal to MP3 at 128kbps encoded by FhG, Gogo, iTunes, and Xing.

If that is not acceptable, then why are or where so many people encoding to those formats?

I'm not saying it's great or that it's transparent, but it's usable.

Quote
So, no, I'm not completely wrong on all aspects, although I understand that, from a professional point of view, you wish I was
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329776"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Is trolling really only the only thing you are capable of?

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #68 –
Quote
I reread the post I was replying to, and this wasn't stated anywhere.

You only mentioned DRM. I was thinking about *quite a bit more* than that. Broadcasting is way bigger than just one shortwave standard.


DRM was an example. I could post several more, like Tuner2 and the like.

Quote
I don't see how, and I don't see any argument why. Because some players have 60g  disks? The smaller ones are still cheaper and handier, you know.


Even "smaller ones" are going past the 1Gb capacity, and getting bigger and bigger as time goes by.

Quote
Their effect is the same as their effect is today. You can do with significantly less storage, which means less costs.


Giving up on quality, so it's not the same thing as just comparing storage prices. If SBR was lossless, I would be all for it. But it's very far from it.

Quote
32kbps PS AAC is very acceptable for portable playback. This isn't marketing, it's a fact, supported by your own listening tests.

32kbps AAC was rated above or equal to MP3 at 128kbps encoded by FhG, Gogo, iTunes, and Xing.

If that is not acceptable, then why are or where so many people encoding to those formats?


Whoa. You know more about my listening listening tests than I do.

Is it just me, or are you trying to extrapolate results across tests? As far as I remember, that's highly unrecommended around here. Specially with two tests conduced at such different bitrates.

Hehe. Ok, ok... I would say that is rather your opinion than a fact, but what is the point of arguing with you?

Quote
Is trolling really only the only thing you are capable of?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Your definition of trolling is too broad, Gian-Carlo. Why you get so touchy when your professional interests are mentioned? It's perfectly natural to give some priority to professional interests.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #69 –
Quote
Giving up on quality, so it's not the same thing as just comparing storage prices. If SBR was lossless, I would be all for it. But it's very far from it.


"Giving up on quality" is subjective. The question is if most users really feel like they are doing that, or even whether the tradeoff is worthwhile or not.

Quote
Whoa. You know more about my listening listening tests than I do.

Is it just me, or are you trying to extrapolate results across tests? As far as I remember, that's highly unrecommended around here. Specially with two tests conduced at such different bitrates.


You are right, the 32kbps was anchored twice, but the 128kbps one was not. My bad, conclusion must not be taken -yet-.

Shall we do a new test?

Quote
Your definition of trolling is too broad, Gian-Carlo. Why you get so touchy when your professional interests are mentioned? It's perfectly natural to give some priority to professional interests.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329792"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I definitely see some signs of trolling:
Sign 1: turning it into a personal matter.
Sign 2: trying to undermine what I say by attempting to attack my credibility

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #70 –
Please, be calm.

Garf, I understand that if you have acceptable quality for a portable DAP at 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 then no one will prefer 128Kbps MP3. It is the difference between 3 minutes and 12minutes uploading to the portable device. It means a lot for commercial purposes too, most DAB content and its rips will be done in HE-AAC v2 as well as DVB's. I have no doubt that the future is for AAC and its versions. MP3 will be supported only as legacy.

Roberto, I also understand that for audiophiles, it is easier to obtain lossless quality cheaper and cheaper as the time goes by. The time will bring cheaper and with bigger capacity portable DAP, more Internet bandwidth, cheaper DVD-R, more capacity and features in our mobile phones...
It is true that AAC would have been a revolution 10 years ago, but also AVC (h264), wifi, perpendicular recording, PCI-express, dual cores, etc... Does it means that evolutions are not valid, only revolutions?

Roberto, I am more aligned with Garf,  Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3, even most people think that iPod is a "MP3 player". They only understand battery life, uploading time, recharge time and sound effects (usually more bass). But I agree with you that 10 years ago HE-AAC v2 would have been a big fat revolution.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #71 –
Quote
Shall we do a new test?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329794"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Of course. I've been awaiting a successor for more than an year. Noone felt up to the challenge so far, it seems. Whenever someone does, I'll be extremely happy to help him/her in every way I can.

Quote
Sign 1: turning it into a personal matter.


I never tried in any fashion to turn this discussion to the personal side, even though it's a well known fact around here that I have no sympathy for you. All my opinions in this thread are based on my view of what happened in the past and what might happen in the future of the audio compression arena.

Quote
Sign 2: trying to undermine what I say by attempting to attack my credibility


I'm not trying to attack it. I'm just pointing to an obvious reason for you to want HE AAC to succeed. It's your job at stake. Anyone looking at your member title can come to the same conclusion.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #72 –
Quote
Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering that HE-AAC v2 is pretty new, and that there haven't been any large scale public tests, and considering the difficulty to prove such a generalizing statement about "most people" being not able to distinguish them using listening tests, I wonder what makes you think that this could be established as a fact?

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #73 –
Quote
Quote
My point is that a window of opportunity for these formats has pretty much closed now. That's the "too late" part in my post.


I don't see how, and I don't see any argument why. Because some players have 60g  disks? The smaller ones are still cheaper and handier, you know.

Quote
Can you deny these technologies would have been much more useful years ago?


Their effect is the same as their effect is today. You can do with significantly less storage, which means less costs.

So, no, I don't think so.

I guess putting todays technology into the world of 10 years ago would be interesting, but the fact is that it never happened that way.


My girl friend has an ipod. One day I told her, ipod plays AAC and AAC gives more compression and suggested her to use AAC instead of MP3. She said to me, "my ipod is never full". This is a good example showing that AAC brings less impact to our daily life than it could several years ago.

Quote
32kbps PS AAC is very acceptable for portable playback. This isn't marketing, it's a fact, supported by your own listening tests.

32kbps AAC was rated above or equal to MP3 at 128kbps encoded by FhG, Gogo, iTunes, and Xing.

If that is not acceptable, then why are or where so many people encoding to those formats?

I'm not saying it's great or that it's transparent, but it's usable.


As my personal feeling, when using ear phones, HE-AAC-PS @ 32kbps does not always sound as good as MP3 @ 128kpbs VBR, maybe for some songs it really does, but just not always. If one day HE-AAC-PS-VBR gets widely available, things might be better.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #74 –
Quote
32kbps PS AAC is very acceptable for portable playback. This isn't marketing, it's a fact, supported by your own listening tests.

Acceptable, yes.

Quote
32kbps AAC was rated above or equal to MP3 at 128kbps encoded by FhG, Gogo, iTunes, and Xing.

???
Am I missing some test results?
I do not doubt that in internal tests you found some tracks where AAC-SBR/PS @32 was better than some MP3 @128, but a generalization seems highly risky.

note: if for whatever reason one day you fall into pure marketing, I'd suggest you to compare against Shine, this way you could have AAC-SBR/PS @32 superior to MP3 @192.