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: Q1 Nero AAC vs QAAC (Read 10823 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Q1 Nero AAC vs QAAC

Reply #25
I applaud you for your effort.

The mp3 that I converted to flac and uploaded was 156kbps (Lame 3.98.4 -V3) and also happens to be what I use for my lossy library*.  The second upload was the lossless source that I used.  If I had used QuickTime AAC, I would have used an even lower bitrate and would have been every bit as confident that you would not have been able to tell a difference.

So while you may have struggled and perhaps had a difficult time accepting the fallibility of a-priori comparisons, in the end you win by gaining knowledge from the experience and seeing that you don't need to run a lossy codec at its highest settings in order to achieve great results.

People are being pretty conservative by telling you to try 200kbps.  For the vast majority of 2-channel content encoded using AAC, no more than 160kbps will be necessary for results that are indistinguishable from the original source (also known as transparent).  It is for only for the extreme cases where something significantly higher is necessary.  Here is a recent topic inquiring about what constitutes extreme cases:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112569.msg927898.html

(*) The average bitrate for my library is 171kbps.

Re: Q1 Nero AAC vs QAAC

Reply #26
I applaud you for your effort.

The mp3 that I converted to flac and uploaded was 156kbps (Lame 3.98.4 -V3) and also happens to be what I use for my lossy library*.  The second upload was the lossless source that I used.  If I had used QuickTime AAC, I would have used an even lower bitrate and would have been every bit as confident that you would not have been able to tell a difference.

So while you may have struggled and perhaps had a difficult time accepting the fallibility of a-priori comparisons, in the end you win by gaining knowledge from the experience and seeing that you don't need to run a lossy codec at its highest settings in order to achieve great results.

People are being pretty conservative by telling you to try 200kbps.  For the vast majority of 2-channel content encoded using AAC, no more than 160kbps will be necessary for results that are indistinguishable from the original source (also known as transparent).  It is for only for the extreme cases where something significantly higher is necessary.  Here is a recent topic inquiring about what constitutes extreme cases:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112569.msg927898.html

(*) The average bitrate for my library is 171kbps.

Thank you. I really appreciate it. :)
Thanks as well for the additional link at the end, it will help even further. :)

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021