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: [TOS #8] From: Should i start using AAC? Can you notice a better quali (Read 1876 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #8] From: Should i start using AAC? Can you notice a better quali

Best to "worst" (file encoded from flac and analyzed with Adobe Autidion):

AAC CBR400 = AAC CBR320 = AAC VBR.75. All three look exactly the same, or at least my eye doesn't see any difference (...or the difference doesn't explain 3 more MB for the CBR400).

AAC CBR256 = AAC VBR.65

MP3 CBR320

MP3 VBR -V 0


My suggestion, if you'd like to convert all of them go with AAC CBR320 or AAC VBR.75. Of course, if you can go/stay with FLAC/ALAC.

I use MP3 (LAME 3.99.4/3.99r) CBR320 but after this test, I will keep testing tomorrow, I will switch to AAC CBR320 for the few albums I keep on my iPhone.

[TOS #8] From: Should i start using AAC? Can you notice a better quali

Reply #1
Best to "worst" (file encoded from flac and analyzed with Adobe Autidion):

...

My suggestion, if you'd like to convert all of them go with AAC CBR320 or AAC VBR.75. Of course, if you can go/stay with FLAC/ALAC.

I use MP3 (LAME 3.99.4/3.99r) CBR320 but after this test, I will keep testing tomorrow, I will switch to AAC CBR320 for the few albums I keep on my iPhone.


This is not an ideal way to test lossy codecs, an encoder with a better psymodel could in theory produce an audibly better output than another even if a spectrum analysis suggests the former has preserved less of the signal. I think at these bit rates any quality difference is fairly academic as most people (myself included) could not ABX regular samples.