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: Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3 (Read 39625 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Hi all,

I have some audio in the following format, according to MediaINfo:

Format                                  : AAC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile                          : HE-AAC / LC
Codec ID                                : 10
Duration                                : 3mn 3s
Channel(s)                              : 2 channels
Channel positions                        : Front: L R
Sampling rate                            : 44.1 KHz / 22.05 KHz
Compression mode                        : Lossy

In terms of bitrates what would be the equivalent bitrate in an MP3 file to match the audio quality of that format (assuming all other things equal, such as the best encoders etc)  ?

Also wondering how that format compares in file size with MP3.  Its 3 minutes 3 seconds  and 1.12 Mb so again, knowing the relative quality of the audio in that format Ill know the bang for the byte compared with MP3.

Cheers.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #1
If my math is right, that works out to about 49 kbps. An mp3 would have to be significantly higher bitrate to give equivalent quality. Of course, if you are transcoding to mp3 then to even maintain nearly the same quality would require a fairly high bitrate.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #2
If my math is right, that works out to about 49 kbps. An mp3 would have to be significantly higher bitrate to give equivalent quality. Of course, if you are transcoding to mp3 then to even maintain nearly the same quality would require a fairly high bitrate.



Would you hazard a guess at the bitrate required?  Genrally Id like to know the quality comparison between the formats. 

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #3
Rough estimation (considering high quality AAC and MP3 encoders).

HE-AAC 48 kbps ~ LC-AAC 64 kbps ~ MP3 96 kbps

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #4
@califauna, that does not work that way.
You are asking for a linear quality scale, when lossy codecs use different tools that produce different types of quality degradation. (I.e. it is not the same to degrade the stereo image, to remove the highs, or to "simulate" the highs, to name just a few).

As such, it is possible to answer your question, but only with the premise that different people will preffer different degradations.

With that premise, HE-AAC is an extension of LC-AAC which roughly requires half the bitrate. So 64kbps HE-AAC (v1) would roughly be similar to 128kbps LC-AAC, and 48kbps HE-AAC (v1) would roughly be silimar to LC-AAC 96kbps which is roughly similar to 128kbps MP3.

A direct comparison cannot be done, because they produce identificable differences, especially when compared to the source file.



BTW: you should also learn that bitrate = bits per second = number of bits required for one second of content = length of file in bits/length of sound in seconds  (1byte=8bits).

That's why pqd has been able to guess the bitrate without you telling about it.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #5
@califauna, that does not work that way.
You are asking for a linear quality scale, when lossy codecs use different tools that produce different types of quality degradation.
Listening tests are practically always organized around rating samples on single linearly-ordered quality scales. Sure, ratings will vary not only among listeners but among different trials with the same listener, but when he asks for something to "match the audio quality" he's not asking for it to generate identical output or to generate the exact same ratings in every trial from every listener. We can determine with reasonable accuracy where a typical listener will (in repeated trials) rate different encoders/settings, and it's clear something like this is what he's after. Jumping to "correct" him just because he didn't formulate his question in whatever complicated manner would meet with your approval doesn't help anyone.
With that premise, HE-AAC is an extension of LC-AAC which roughly requires half the bitrate. So 64kbps HE-AAC (v1) would roughly be similar to 128kbps LC-AAC, and 48kbps HE-AAC (v1) would roughly be silimar to LC-AAC 96kbps which is roughly similar to 128kbps MP3.
This doesn't agree with listening test results at all. Normally, 48kbps HE-AAC will not hold a candle to 96kbps LC. IgorC's claims (48kbps HE ~ 64kbps LC ~ 96kbps MP3) are much more realistic.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #6
@jensend: My way to express it wasn't the best either, as it seems. I just wanted the OP to understand that there is no strict answer to that question.

About the values... Yes, probably my assumption is wrong, now that I tested Winamp's latest fraunhofer codec with the values IgorC mentioned.
Maybe i was more used to HE-AAC v2 (which obviously, has more bandwidth free for the LC part due to parametric stereo), or really LC-AAC has come a long way in low bitrates, because the LC one sounds fine, while the HE-AAC has clearly a problem.

I've uploaded a sample here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=102059 , just in case it is a bug in the HE-AAC code, even though it could simply be the expected behaviour.

Concretely, the problem is some warbling that happens after the cymbal, which is clearly visible in the spectogram: the white zones at the 10KHz band. Mmm. well, i'm not sure now if it's that part, or the empty zones between 4 and 8Khz, or simply something that should be looked with other zoom levels.. but it's easy to hear.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #7
@jensend: My way to express it wasn't the best either, as it seems. I just wanted the OP to understand that there is no strict answer to that question.
Makes sense, no worries.
About the values... Yes, probably my assumption is wrong, now that I tested Winamp's latest fraunhofer codec with the values IgorC mentioned.
Maybe i was more used to HE-AAC v2, or really LC-AAC has come a long way in low bitrates, because the LC one sounds fine, while the HE-AAC has clearly a problem.
It's certainly true LC encoders have made some progress, though I don't know how the improvement histories of HE and LC compare. But 48kbps HE wouldn't have matched 96kbps LC even at its introduction ten years ago either. This 2003 paper shows 48kbps HE-AAC barely edging out 64kbps LC.

HE-AAC v2 only adds parametric stereo, which is mostly intended for bitrates lower than 40kbps. In HA's 2006 tests at 48kbps HE-AAC v2 actually "lost" to V1 (lower average but not enough ratings to make it statistically significant). I imagine an up-to-date v2-capable HE-AAC encoder will just avoid parametric stereo at this bitrate unless you force its use. Others (esp. C.R.Helmrich) would know a good deal more about this.

That 2006 test does provide a good reality check for your "HE-AAC @48kbps ~ MP3 @128kbps" claim as well- though the AAC encoders have made more progress in the last 7 years than LAME has, it's not by anywhere near enough to make up that kind of margin.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #8
I agree with Igor's rule of thumb. Of course, for some particular items like the one just uploaded, HE@48kbps might sound worse, though.

I imagine an up-to-date v2-capable HE-AAC encoder will just avoid parametric stereo at this bitrate unless you force its use. Others would know a good deal more about this.

Don't know about other providers, but Fraunhofer's encoder does what you tell it to, meaning it will do HE v2 up to 48 kbps or even more. But if you use the slider in Winamp in Automatic mode it will switch to v2 only below 40 kbps, I think.

And yes, the Fraunhofer encoder certainly sounds better at low-bit-rate LC than a few years ago. I recall the quality of the iTunes LC@48-kbps anchor in the 2011 HA public test. 48-kbps LC don't have to sound that bad.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #9
I've checked now with Nero's encoder, and while the result is a bit worse in both files than fraunhofer's, HE at 48 is still worse than LE 64.
I really don't know why i had a different idea, really.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #10
Thanks for the rules of thumb above on the enigmatic 'audio quality' factor.

I realize the listening tests they are based on are often subjective but for me they can still help when someone is only familiar with one format, like me with MP3.  For example I know  the approximate bitrate when cymbals begin to lose fizz , and  (all other things being equal) the differentiation threshold between recordings in mbps, and how 'Listener X' uses all these and various other factors to arrive at ratings of this 'audio quality' for MP3 recordings at different bitrates. However, I have little idea what bitrate (in practical terms for me, file size) another format would need to arrive at this same 'audio quality' .

The decision on the format to choose is for me principally a tradeoff between size and quality. So long as the rules of thumb give a fair representation of 'listener X', they help me with this decision.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #11
The best subjective answer is to simply encode a couple of files and listen for yourself. Also for simplicity sake I use winamps built in encoder for aac encoding. For portable listening, he-aac v2, which is the lowest setting in winamp produced acceptable sound quality, but far too many imaging errors. The next setting up which is he-aac v1 provides perfectly listenable results for portable use, and really small file sizes, probably on par with lame at 128. This does not imply transparency, as that can only be determined through double blind testing. Since I have poor short term memory, artifacts I may hear during abx sessions I don't hear in casual listening using he-aac v1 so I no longer use abx to determine my portable encoding, I just listen for obvious artifacts.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #12
Rough estimation (considering high quality AAC and MP3 encoders).
HE-AAC 48 kbps ~ LC-AAC 64 kbps ~ MP3 96 kbps

Doesn't this mean that Fh AAC's vbr modes 2 and 3 are about the same quality? (~64 SBR vs. ~96 LC)
Maybe the main difference between vbr3 and vbr2 is just trading file size for encoding & decoding speed / playback time?

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #13
Rough estimation (considering high quality AAC and MP3 encoders).
HE-AAC 48 kbps ~ LC-AAC 64 kbps ~ MP3 96 kbps

Doesn't this mean that Fh AAC's vbr modes 2 and 3 are about the same quality? (~64 SBR vs. ~96 LC)
Maybe the main difference between vbr3 and vbr2 is just trading file size for encoding & decoding speed / playback time?

I don't see why did you take it as HE-AAC 64kbps ~ LC-AAC 96kbps.
Even if you have assumed that the ratio above remains the same for more higher bitrate (which is a very questionable assumption),  still 48:64 (=3:4) is not equal to 64:96 (=2:3).
(edit: wording)

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #14
this:

This 2003 paper shows 48kbps HE-AAC barely edging out 64kbps LC.

But maybe, like you said, the difference doesn't scale with bitrate, so that's why I was asking.


Just found this (from 2009). LC 80 was actually rated higher than SBR 80. I guess this answers it.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #15
SBR becomes a lot less useful above 64kbs, so it definitely does not scale with bitrate.

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #16
Some time ago I've experimented with the results of some blind tests (public, personal, verification etc.)
This is a preliminary version of the graph (music samples) . There might some variations due to different encoders but it should reflect performance of formats good enough.




Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #17
Just curious what encoders and versions were used for opus and USAC?

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #18
USAC RM10. Opus 1.1

Bang for the byte and quality of HE-AAC / LC vs MP3

Reply #19
Interesting. Two things one notices right off the bat about "received wisdom": "HE@48~=LC@64~=MP3@96" matches your graph pretty closely, and "USAC @X kbps ~= best of LC/HE/HEv2 at X+8 kbps" matches it very closely from 24kbps up to 96kbps.