neothe0ne
Jan 20 2009, 04:41
What kind of quality loss would you expect?
shadowking
Jan 20 2009, 07:00
I think not much loss for casual listening based on some brief personal tests I did a while back. 256k AAC transcoded cleanly to AAC, MP3, OGG etc.. even 192k was ok, but i only tested 1 sample at 192k. 128k had obvious audible artifacts (listening back to back) - that's what i'd want to avoid.
I think AAC 256k + makes a decent transcoding source and you have the bonus that it is a recognised standard with an ever growing HW support. This is also true to some extent for very high bitrate mp3 (256~320k).
Just try a few tracks and see and I think you will be pleasantly surprised...
ameyer17
Jan 20 2009, 08:43
If I recall correctly, AC3 is rather inefficient by modern codec standards.
If I had to guess, you'd have a quite noticeable amount of quality loss by going from 192 kbps AAC to 160 kbps AC3.
Honestly, if you're creating a DVD, you'd be a lot better off finding a lossless audio source or using either 448 kbps AC3 or uncompressed PCM. If you're not, I suspect you'd get better quality from mp3, AAC, ogg vorbis, musepack, or perhaps wma around 160 kbps, not to mention just leaving the audio alone and not transcoding.