AAC vs. Vorbis

Topic: AAC vs. Vorbis (Read 304 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC vs. Vorbis

2019-01-31 02:29:12

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 – 2019-01-31 03:24:48

Quote from: FireDragon76 on 2019-01-31 02:29:12

[...] 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 – 2019-01-31 04:00:29

Quote from: m14u on 2019-01-31 03:24:48

Quote from: FireDragon76 on 2019-01-31 02:29:12
[...] 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.