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: AAC Compression question? (Read 6347 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC Compression question?

Im new to the Nero AAC encoder and im using DbPowerAmp for now and saw that it could go up to 400Kbps CBR and was wondering why is that a higher bitrate compared to Lame Mp3 which has a maximum bitrate of 320kbps CBR?

AAC Compression question?

Reply #1 –
Well, the AAC standard allows frames up to 6144 bits per channel in size. this means up to 529 kbps At 44.1 kHz stereo, and 576 kbps at 48 kHz stereo. I don't think the MP3 standard allows such big frames.

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

AAC Compression question?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Well, the AAC standard allows frames up to 6144 bits per channel in size. this means up to 529 kbps At 44.1 kHz stereo, and 576 kbps at 48 kHz stereo. I don't think the MP3 standard allows such big frames.

Chris


Oh thats cool to know so the AAC format is better than mp3 codec quality wise?

AAC Compression question?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Native_Soulja on
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Well, the AAC standard allows frames up to 6144 bits per channel in size. this means up to 529 kbps At 44.1 kHz stereo, and 576 kbps at 48 kHz stereo. I don't think the MP3 standard allows such big frames.

Chris


Oh thats cool to know so the AAC format is better than mp3 codec quality wise?


Better? Subjective claims are forbidden here unless backed up with ABX test results ("TOS 8"), so we can't really answer that. We can say that AAC was designed with deliberate technical improvements and greater technological capabilities than MP3 in a number of ways. Whether that translates to better perceptible quality for a given bitrate depends on the source material, the capabilities & settings of the encoder, your hearing & sensitivity, etc. You must run your own tests to figure out what works for you. And of course there's a standard response: if you're that concerned about quality and you don't mind using a smidge more disk space, consider using a lossless encoding scheme like FLAC, ALAC, APE, etc.

AAC Compression question?

Reply #4 –
Don't confuse bitrate and quality. Higher Bitrate (might) only equals higher quality within the same encoder.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

AAC Compression question?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: mjb2006 on
Better? Subjective claims are forbidden here unless backed up with ABX test results ("TOS 8"), so we can't really answer that. We can say that AAC was designed with deliberate technical improvements and greater technological capabilities than MP3 in a number of ways. Whether that translates to better perceptible quality for a given bitrate depends on the source material, the capabilities & settings of the encoder, your hearing & sensitivity, etc. You must run your own tests to figure out what works for you. And of course there's a standard response: if you're that concerned about quality and you don't mind using a smidge more disk space, consider using a lossless encoding scheme like FLAC, ALAC, APE, etc.


The MPEG tests show clearly that with a half-decent encoder, AAC very much outperforms MP3. This is not speculation, it is published testing.

Having said that, there are newer things in the world now.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

AAC Compression question?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
The MPEG tests show clearly that with a half-decent encoder, AAC very much outperforms MP3. This is not speculation, it is published testing.


I would say it depends very much on the encoders and the circumstances. AAC has technical advantages, but continuous improvement on MP3 encoders raised the quality enough that in quite a few circumstances "doing better" than being transparent just isn't possible.

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm

I think that is relevant if we're talking about >=320kbps encodes as we're doing here.
 

AAC Compression question?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Quote
the AAC standard allows frames up to . . .529 kbps At 44.1 kHz stereo, and 576 kbps at 48 kHz stereo. I don't think the MP3 standard allows such big frames.
so the AAC format is better than mp3 codec quality wise?
This has all been said, but it's worth collating into one place: Yes, AAC has the technical potential to be 'better' (if possible at such high bitrates), but not just because it has a higher maximum bitrate.

AAC Compression question?

Reply #8 –
Thanks guys for the information.