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: If you could I have some questions. (Read 2939 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

If you could I have some questions.

I understand that these questions are asked a million different ways on a million different forums but I can't find a good analysis of high bitrate compression. I'm a rookie at this, so please forgive me.

Ok. So I'm an audiophile (sort of) and I've looked every where for a simple straight answer. It's obvious to me that one does not exist. However, I would appreciate (and I think that there are many non-audiophile casual readers that would too) an answer to a few questions. I'm asking these questions because I'm not really sure what some of the 'jargon' is. So I may have read an answer but not understood it.

Now I'm torn between the allure of LAME and the ravings of AAC. I can't really explain it, I just like Lame. However, I've gotten the impression from numerous articles that AAC is the next big thing.

For me, quality is number one and file size is second. Based on this, I can find nobody who has posted preferences on what the best high bitrate codec is.

I have five options that I'm looking at and would appreciate feedback on them. Please for my sake keep the answers concise.

Nero - Audiophile
Nero - Transcoding
iTunes - 320 (CBR is more like ABR)
Lame - V1
Lame - V0

I'm using the latest of Nero and iTunes and the 3.97.1 of Lame.

Which of these codecs, at the settings given, will produce best sound? I understand that there is no one answer and I also understand that it's all in the ears. I am kinda picky about tone but it's tough for me to really tell a difference which is why I'm asking questions here. What are your experiences with these codecs? And at what point does bitrate become a phallic symbol?

Which of these codecs, at the settings given, will create the smallest file?

Which of these codecs would you prefer to use and at what settings?

What are the advantages of AAC- I read somewhere about multiple channels? How important is this?

Which codec will decode better if I want to make an audio CD later?

For the sake of simplicity maybe rate the options on a scale of 1 - 10. One being best quality and/or smallest file size.

Feel free to give written answers and opinions.

One last question: at this bitrate, does sound quality more or less not change between them because I'm pushing them to the top?

The reason I'm posting this is because everyone is testing and talking about specific samples at bitrates so low that it's hard for me to care.

I'm talking regular music, on good (decent) equipment.

I'm sure there are many casual readers that would love to read the answers to these questions.

Thank you.

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #1 –
To answer this in my own way: LAME is the most protable in that MP3's play on most portable players.  AAC and OGG do not.  LAME APS/V2 seems to work quite well for the majority of folks on this board as indicated by numerousl istening tests.  YMMV 
Nov schmoz kapop.

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #2 –
You should probably do some listening tests for yourself to see if you even need bitrates as high as you're proposing.  I don't have any experience with Nero, but I would be shocked if anyone could reliably differentiate in an ABX test between iTunes 320 kbps AAC, LAME V1, and LAME V0.

I prefer AAC, but that preference is partly informed by my hardware: I use a Mac and an iPod.  It's certainly possible for me to use LAME, but AAC is just that much more convenient for me that I don't really think twice about it.  Typically, AAC is described as being transparent at slightly lower bitrates than equivalent quality MP3 files, usually on the order of 20-30 kbps lower, which my own personal listening has seemed to confirm.  Once you get past 192 kbps in both codecs, though, most people will probably tell you that there isn't much of a difference.

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #3 –
All these formats are more or less transparent to most people at say 180kbit. That is probably the best size / quality tradeoff. Higher bitrates like 250-500k can give a thicker safety margin at the expense of disk space. For common bitrates, mp3 is hard to beat from a compatibility point of view and quality is still very competitive. Sure there are lots of people that will want to murder me for saying it (esp audiophiles and format zealots), but I really believe this today.

At low bitrates there is a clear advantage to Vorbis AAC over MP3 and that can be very usefull for internet streaming and for limited storage DAP's. Again most DAP's only support mp3 or WMA.. The other thing is that with 60gb+ drives, these really low bitrates are less and less interesting.

Today for archiving I am only really interested in Lossless compression and nonperceptual lossy like wavpack and dualstream. The other being Vorbis / AAC for streaming as opposed to the butt-ugly sounding MP3 radio stations.

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #4 –
these are the perfect answers i'm looking for

i also have an ipod (windows user)

are mp3's less complex and therefore easier on your ipod battery or is it just file size or is it both?





thanks alot for answering some of these elementary questions

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #5 –
It seems to me you might be wanting a lossless codec.  If indeed "for [you], quality is number one and file size is second," then lossless would be the way to go.  Even if you cannot tell the difference between lossless and a high-quality lossy codec, there is a tremendous advantage in that a lossless codec can be transformed into other codecs without accruing any quality loss.  If, for example, you decide to go for AAC, but discover that you need to use MP3 for some device that doesn't support AAC, you'll find yourself dealing with files that have gone from raw PCM->AAC->MP3, which will be significantly worse than the lesser of the two codecs.

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #6 –
Mp3 decoding is less complex than vorbis and even AAC so its easier on battery life. File size is less of an issue.
 

If you could I have some questions.

Reply #7 –
Quote
It seems to me you might be wanting a lossless codec. 

...there is a tremendous advantage in that a lossless codec can be transformed into other codecs without accruing any quality loss.
I agree.

Especially considering:
Quote
...I'm an audiophile (sort of)...
[...]
For me, quality is number one and file size is second.
[...]
Which codec will decode better if I want to make an audio CD later?
Lossless codecs create files that are identical to the original source, just smaller in size.  Lossless has the greatest advantages for quality and future transcoding.