Hydrogenaudio Forums > Opinion Wanted

Mr. McFly

Nov 20 2003, 20:48

I have been using LAME --aps for about 2 years and I have been experimenting with iTunes AAC. I would like to know your opinion, what encoder setting would be comparable to LAME's --aps switch? I am having a hard time deciding what bit rate to use. Should I go with 160kbps or 192kbps? If I encode with 160 I can hear audible differences but with 192 I can not. But if I use 192, the file size would be bigger then that of mp3's. For example, when I encode Pink Floyds The Wall with LAME's --aps I get a total of 103mb size album. But if I encode with AAC @ 192kbps I get a total size of 110mb per album. Wasn't the whole reason for AAC was to become higher quality but smaller size? or should I just stay with LAME?

indybrett

Nov 20 2003, 21:04

I did a quick test using the fatboy.wav sample with Itunes AAC encoding. I used 160kbs. Granted, one sample is not representative of how well an encoder does with "real" music, but the results were bad enough that an ABX test was unnecessary. There were very audible dropouts. Bad enough to be able to pick it out 100% of the time.

Vorbis GT3B1 and LAME APS would have required ABX testing to see if I could distinguish them from the original, or each other. Not so with Itunes. Maybe I should bump the bitrate up to 192kbs and see how well that does.

jtclipper

Nov 21 2003, 06:56

AAC/mp4 is the new trend/hype and iTunes is supporting it in a monumental way.
I think this is very good for us users because it will just make compressed music better, for the time being though and from personal tests I will stick with LAME and let the bubble grow.. if it bursts or matures I am not sure , personally I am taking the safe way out and sticking with mp3, I do encode to mp4 simultaneously all the CD's I encode in mp3 but just to have a general feeling not to store with my other music and the aac/mp4 are always bigger at the same bitrate. I use 192 for some CD's and 160 for others , 160 for AAC is not as good as 160 for LAME but as I said this is just my ears...

AeternalTCC

Nov 24 2003, 13:59

Just my two cents:
Back when I was on PC, I used EAC + APX for most of my music. Since switching to Mac, I've started using 192kbps AAC. I can hear a difference between the MP3 and AAC files (AAC sounds sharper, while a good MP3 sounds softer and a bit more neutral), but I can't say that the AAC files are "lower" in quality to my ears. I can't say I was happy with 128kbps AAC, but 192 seems to have hit the sweet spot of size and sound to my ears.
As for the size issue, the whole hype behind AAC is that a 128kbps AAC file sounds MUCH better than a 128kbps MP3 (thus "higher quality at a smaller size"). At that bitrate, the AAC files do sound much better, no doubt. But if you're on this forum, you undoubtedly care more about your music than the idiots who download 128kbps crap MP3s off KaaZaa. I'd say the equivalent for APS would be 192kbps AAC, as according to your test they came out to be roughly the same size (7MB is barely a difference to me).

Peter

Nov 24 2003, 14:09

QUOTE(AeternalTCC @ Nov 24 2003, 10:59 PM)

Just my two cents:
Back when I was on PC, I used EAC + APX for most of my music. Since switching to Mac, I've started using 192kbps AAC. I can hear a difference between the MP3 and AAC files (AAC sounds sharper, while a good MP3 sounds softer and a bit more neutral), but I can't say that the AAC files are "lower" in quality to my ears. I can't say I was happy with 128kbps AAC, but 192 seems to have hit the sweet spot of size and sound to my ears.
As for the size issue, the whole hype behind AAC is that a 128kbps AAC file sounds MUCH better than a 128kbps MP3 (thus "higher quality at a smaller size"). At that bitrate, the AAC files do sound much better, no doubt. But if you're on this forum, you undoubtedly care more about your music than the idiots who download 128kbps crap MP3s off KaaZaa. I'd say the equivalent for APS would be 192kbps AAC, as according to your test they came out to be roughly the same size (7MB is barely a difference to me).

From Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service:

QUOTE

8. Statements on technical or quality oriented matters are expected to be supported by the author responsible for such statements.

If you, as a user, make a claim about the quality or general ability of an encoder/decoder/etc to perform in a given situation which happens to be contrary to pre-existing data, but then fail to provide proof to support your claims, you are likely to be receive harsh responses to your posts. The HydrogenAudio staff might not take action against users that post these harsh responses.

Explanation: By not providing proof of your claims, you are not only wasting your time, but the time of everyone else participating in the forums here. This is especially true for the authors of such codecs, who are then forced to wade through possibly false claims before they can actually work on addressing a valid issue. In the case of pointing out a quality problem with a given codec, the proper course of action would be to provide either a test sample, ABX testing results, or ideally both. Please be aware of this matter, the HydrogenAudio community does not take it lightly.