Hello everyone,

I'm sure you are all aware of the widely popular "Alt Preset Standard" setting on the LAME MP3 encoder. Many people (including myself) consider this encoding method the Standard in producing transparent MP3s while using the most efficient amount of compression.

But lately, I've been experimenting much more with AAC. It has some interesting features, and seems to be gaining more and more popularity, especially within the movie ripping community for its support of more than two channels and better compression at lower bitrates.

I know this may seem like a very subjective an open-ended question, but I was wondering what would be considered an "equivalent" AAC (Nero) VBR setting to LAME APS.

I appreciate any and all thoughts. Thanks!

Hi johnston,

Take a look here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=44310

Practically speaking, at or around default setting (-q 0.5) is probably what you're looking for. Though you might want to consider also that with the improvements in codecs, transparency can often be achieved for most listeners at lower bitrates. For example, I usually can't ABX Lame -V5 or AAC @ 128kbps vs. the original. So you may want to do some ABX tests yourself to see what's the lowest -q setting that achieves transparency for you.

i'd also like to see aac presets that have undergone proper psychoacoustic testing. this is precisely why i still use LAME.

How does iTunes 128kbps AAC VBR compare with LAME APS? The file sizes are very close (for a 2:41 jazz track the AAC file is 2.5MB and the MP3 is 2.6), though the AAC is almost always smaller (enough to justify the tradeoff?). One nice thing about the AAC is that it encodes faster, and is better integrated into iTunes than LAME (though its easy enough to do LAME in iTunes)
So yeah, what do people think?
(I can't tell the difference during casual listening so far, but I have yet to try any real tests...)

Edit: Oh man, I just realized I don't even know for sure if iTunes 128AAC VBR is faster... I was just remembering how blisteringly fast the normal 128 AAC encoder is in iTunes....

EDITedit: Ok, I tested it again with a different track, and I was right, the AAC encoder is much faster, and with this track produced a much smaller file (the other album was giving me ~130-140kbps with lame). 2.1MB with AAC, 3.7MB with LAME (239kbps). On a quick listen I think I can also tell the difference audibly between the two. The AAC file has slightly deadened trebles... (jazz piano). I tried it with one more track, this one with Vibes, and I compared the CD version with the AAC file and could definitely hear the treble softening; it was subtle, but easily detectable. So I guess LAME it is? I wonder how 160kbps AAC stacks up (both quality and size-wize).

That thread should really be in HA Wiki.