Skip to main content
Topic: Q1 Nero AAC vs QAAC (Read 4769 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.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

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 © 2008-2018