Skip to main content


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: EAC3 vs AAC  (Read 21652 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


HELLO guys
i wonder which audio codec is better eac3 or aac in the same bitrate for stereo audio ?

Re: EAC3 vs AAC

Reply #1
I have no idea. Is there anything which can encode to EAC3?

Also which bit rates is EAC3 meant for, is it even near competitive at < 128 kbps?

Re: EAC3 vs AAC

Reply #2
EAC3 to AC3 is the same as AAC to HE-AAC.

If  an original source is EAC3 it's recommended to not transcode from lossy to lossy (from EAC3 to AAC).
If  an original source  is lossless then go with AAC(medium and high bitrates) or HE-AAC (less than ~180-200 kbps for 5.1) for better quality.

Re: EAC3 vs AAC

Reply #3
E-AC-3 is only a slight improvement over conventional AC-3, and still carries an overhead of loudness, compression and checksum data. It requires a relatively high bitrate. AAC is more efficient and compatible on the personal computer. Maybe that is not true on h/w receivers.

Re: EAC3 vs AAC

Reply #4
While I know it's somewhat futile to discuss codec quality/efficiency without the benefit of ABX test results, it's worth noting that the encoding recommendations from Dolby are different for EAC3 (Dolby Digital Plus) vs AC3 (Dolby Digital) - which would imply that EAC3 is a significantly more efficient audio codec than AC3.
Dolby's recommendations in the past were to encode stereo AC-3 at 192 kbps and 5.1 AC-3 at 384 kbps. For E-AC-3, on the other hand, Dolby has been recommending 96-128 kbps for stereo and 192-256 kbps for 5.1. Here is an example of such recommendations: