Skip to main content
Topic: AAC vs. Vorbis (Read 390 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC vs. Vorbis

I did an ABX recently with the killer sample castanets and hi-hat file.   I was very surprised that Vorbis, which I have not used in some time (I've been muddling along with LAME for a while, being out of the loop for the past couple of years), outperformed Apple's AAC codec.  I use Aoyumi's latest tunings.  Both Opus and Vorbis were equally good at 128 kbps, even testing using planarmagnetic and electret headphones.  But the ACC was relatively easy to spot 6-7 out of 8 times, repeatedly.

I'm 42 and I only hear out to 16 KHz, so my hearing is not perfect.  Perhaps Q4 Vorbis is not transparent to everyone?

Re: AAC vs. Vorbis

Reply #1
[...] I only hear out to 16 KHz, [...]
try tonegenerator, like SineGen, to make sure & calibrate sound complex (ears+HW)
q4/128kbps transparent... never! q8/256 minimum.

 

Re: AAC vs. Vorbis

Reply #2
[...] I only hear out to 16 KHz, [...]
try tonegenerator, like SineGen, to make sure & calibrate sound complex (ears+HW)
q4/128kbps transparent... never! q8/256 minimum.

I have heard 16 KHz on Bose speakers, and I can hear it on my setup using Koss UR40's, though it is extremely quiet, almost inaudible at normal listening volumes.  I borrowed Oppo headphones to do the test, and I also used my own Electrostatz to confirm the result, because I wanted a more analytical sound.

I don't know what kind of artifacts one would be hearing at 128kbps with Vorbis that one would not hear also at 256kbps.  The pre-echo of Vorbis seems to have been greatly improved since I tried it years ago.   Of course, maybe my hearing is also worse.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019