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: AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api (Read 5443 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

What would be the (iTunes/Nero) AAC bitrate equivalent to achieve the quality of -aps / -ape / -api ?

thank you

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #1 –
Quote
What would be the (iTunes/Nero) AAC bitrate equivalent to achieve the quality of -aps / -ape / -api ?

thank you
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


According to the nordic hi-fi mag Sound & Vision, iTunes rivals CD quality at 192kbps. Going above this bit-rate is generally a waste, unless you have some real killer samples. I'm not sure about Nero though.

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #2 –
Quote
Quote
What would be the (iTunes/Nero) AAC bitrate equivalent to achieve the quality of -aps / -ape / -api ?

thank you
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


According to the nordic hi-fi mag Sound & Vision, iTunes rivals CD quality at 192kbps. Going above this bit-rate is generally a waste, unless you have some real killer samples. I'm not sure about Nero though.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263815"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

well, if you are argue like that there should also be said that --aps is CD quality...so --ape/--api would be AAC 224kbps or what? It's hard to say since there hasn't been a listening test for that...because it's simply to hard...and most 'killer' samples might work on AAC but not on mp3 and vice versa...so you can only make an estimate...
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #3 –
Quote
well, if you are argue like that there should also be said that --aps is CD quality...so --ape/--api would be AAC 224kbps or what?


Huh!?

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #4 –
>>Huh!?
?
Pure logically, Jojo is right...

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #5 –
Quote
>>Huh!?
?
Pure logically, Jojo is right...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263846"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, it makes sense. Since no AAC encoder has received the extensive, open development that LAME has, one can't directly equate settings between LAME and any AAC encoder.

Now, a valid question is, "Which setting for a particular AAC encoder will achieve transparency most of the time?" Search the AAC forum for the answer.

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
well, if you are argue like that there should also be said that --aps is CD quality...so --ape/--api would be AAC 224kbps or what?


Huh!?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263838"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

--preset standard's target is to be transparent and that is the case for most songs. However, there are samples that have been proven not being fully transparent for some people. Those samples exist for every lossy codec...therefore, for AAC as well.

So, since you said that iTunes AAC @ 192kbps is transparent in most cases (unless you have some killer sample) the same thing applies to LAME --preset standard. It is transparent in most cases unless you have some rare killer sample
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #7 –
AAC has not benefitted from the testing MP3 has. for MY ears, on MY equipment, iTunes AAC 192 is transparent all the time, 160 is most of the time, and 128 is some of the time.

Others, with better ears, say 224 is transparent. No one has claimed the need to use 256 or higher for transparency (yet).

When iTunes AAC VBR comes out this year, more Hydrogen audio testers may take up the cause.

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #8 –
Quote
AAC has not benefitted from the testing MP3 has. for MY ears, on MY equipment, iTunes AAC 192 is transparent all the time, 160 is most of the time, and 128 is some of the time.

Others, with better ears, say 224 is transparent. No one has claimed the need to use 256 or higher for transparency (yet).

When iTunes AAC VBR comes out this year, more Hydrogen audio testers may take up the cause.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263896"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Right on there... until there is extensive testing all we have is personal favourites.

So far iTunes hasn't failed me yet on 192kbps it has once or twice on 160kbps but it was something really minor that I had to really concentrate on to pick it.

Regards
-=MusePack... Living Audio Compression=-

Honda - The Power of Dreams

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #9 –
No lossy encoder can produce "cd quality", only lossless can.
Lossy encoders can produce "similar to cd quality for an average human listener", however.

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #10 –
Quote
So, since you said that iTunes AAC @ 192kbps is transparent in most cases (unless you have some killer sample) the same thing applies to LAME --preset standard. It is transparent in most cases unless you have some rare killer sample
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263894"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The same applies to api as well.. People have found killler samples even for *gasp* 320kbps as well, use the search function..

So saying "since 192 is transparent, and so is aps, then ape/api surely equals 224kbps and 256kbps" is just BS!


Oh, before you do the usual and start digging up old threads with people testing AAC, remember that iTunes 4.7 is the current and most tuned one, not 4.6 

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #11 –
Quote
So saying "since 192 is transparent, and so is aps, then ape/api surely equals 224kbps and 256kbps" is just BS!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=263981"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I never mentioned 256kbps...I said that ape/api would be 224kbps...why 224kbps? Well, that's what comes after 192kbps...and as Gabriel said, you'll never achieve true CD-Quality with any lossy codec...

Also, I'm aware that there are some samples that fail on --preset insane and so far no one discovered a sample failing on AAC @ 224kbps...but as I said before...it's hard to compare...however, I don't think that there are less samples failing on AAC @ 192kbps as they do on --preset insane...therefore, the next step would be AAC @ 224kbps...which is superior to --preset insane (from todays's knowledge)...
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #12 –
Quote
I said that ape/api would be 224kbps...why 224kbps? Well, that's what comes after 192kbps...


So what evidence do you base it on that you need 224kbps to achieve api/ape type quality, except your own brand of common knowledge 

EDIT: No-one said 192kbps equals aps... For all we know it could be better than api, since it is transparent to those that has abx'ed it and no one has found any killer samples yet (I'm not saying that has to be the case though  )

Oh well, iTunes AAC VBR is coming soon so more testing will be done then.
 

AAC equivalent of -aps , -ape , -api

Reply #13 –
Quote
So what evidence do you base it on that you need 224kbps to achieve api/ape type quality, except your own brand of common knowledge  
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=264023"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

did you even read my post? It says it right there...also, it would be interesting to know what bitrate you suggest...if there are less samples failing at AAC 192kbps than on --preset insane, AAC 192kbps would be the answer...however, if a bit more samples fail on AAC 192, the answer would be AAC 224kbps...as I said, AAC 224kbps is better than --preset insane, but there's no AAC 210kbps or something...

An interesting quote from Garf, who is one of Ahead's AAC developers:
Quote
Such a test is extremely difficult. One can generally find clips that are not transparent at 160kbps without too much problems, so 170-200kbps is a good guess. This is assuming a good encoder (Nero or iTunes).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253667"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Edit: You might not believe it, but I'm also looking forward to the release of a iTunes vbr AAC implementation and it's result compared to--preset standard
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'