[anetode]

Simple: set the target average bitrate at the 320kbps max.

 

[Deep Funk]

I was used to AAC at 128 kbps and listened occasionally to WMAs at 128 kbps via WMP10 and 11. On my portable I now listen to WMAs at 128 and on my PC I either listen to FLAC or WMA at 320 kbps. 320 kbps is perfectly acceptable and sometimes comes close to what I hear in FLAC. In fact 320 kbps will be my standard for the time coming including for my portable because it sounds very good.

If I want the best sound I take CD and place in the PC or Discman.

 

[krmathis]

I seriously doubt it is highly superior.
That said; under ideal circumstances (right track, right gear, right set of ears, which encoders used, ...) I am sure there will be an audible difference. If you can hear a difference I have no idea.

But as mentioned before I do not see the use, as at 448kbps one is close to what lossless may achieve.

 

[kirtar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, there are some DAPs that do not play any kind of lossless but do play AAC.

And most if not all of those can't play above 320 kbps on that so that point is moot. If you're going up to 448 kbps, just do lossless so you can code to whatever later without worrying about compounding lossy encodes.

 

[3602]

Alright. foobar2000 cannot read (rather, convert) Apple Lossless (.m4a) files. Not file problem, VLC plays just fine. Any plug-ins to solve this?

 

[lozanoa11]

Look on there web site im sure they do. They have plugins to play .ape and .dts i don't see why they would not.

 

[kirtar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3602 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Alright. foobar2000 cannot read (rather, convert) Apple Lossless (.m4a) files. Not file problem, VLC plays just fine. Any plug-ins to solve this?

have you tried this component?
foobar2000: Components Repository - ALAC decoder

 

[AtomikPi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif tbh, AAC @ 448Kbps is extreme overkill and is tbh would be 9.97 of a FLAC file. AAC @ ~192 kbps is better than VBR -V0 / 320kbps CBR mp3. Solid proof? [snip]

I don't think those prove anything - some poor codecs, for example, have very high lowpasses but still sound objectively worse than LAME via DBT. I'd like to seem some support for your conclusions via DBT.

Considering that v0 is transparent in 95%+ of cases, I highly doubt this question is of much significance anyway, and although this particular comparison I do not believe has been ABXed, the other mp3 vs AAC tests I've seen do not suggest it is vastly inferior.

I do wish greater support for musepack would emerge as it is vastly superior in achieving transparency at lower bitrates compared to any of these codecs.

 

[RedLeader]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simple: set the target average bitrate at the 320kbps max.

But then it's not really variable...

 

[anetode]

It's still encoded as a VBR file and due to to the VBR algorithm it will not be 320kbps 100% of the time, you might get a few dozen frames at other bitrates. There's nothing in mp3 codecs to stop you from creating a file that's tagged as VBR but uses only 320.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeader /img/forum/go_quote.gif What? How can you have a constant bit rate, using a variable encoder? The only way you would get that is with a sine wave.

command line instruction.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtomikPi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think those prove anything - some poor codecs, for example, have very high lowpasses but still sound objectively worse than LAME via DBT. I'd like to seem some support for your conclusions via DBT.

I wasn't looking at the lowpasses tbh. I was more looking at the actual spectrogram. If you look at the spectrograms, you notice that AAC is superior. Also AAC is better at a lower bitrate...really, everything to gain from using AAC on an iPod over mp3. Battery life is directly linked to bitrate.
Also for me to properly conduct DBT properly I must:

1) Have the headphone positioned exactly the same on my head throughout the DBT test
2) Have a song that actually has treble, detail and complexity + mastered well
3) The same amount of earwax / none
4) Lowest ambient noise possible, preferably none
5) Have extremely detailed and neutral headphones
6) Mentally fresh and not fatigued
7) Proper time of day, preferably night

Thus why I say the theory of DBT is great, the application of it by most users is flawed due the failure of one or more of these factors.
Spectrograms isolate all this by taking all of it out of the equation.

 

[AtomikPi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1) Have the headphone positioned exactly the same on my head throughout the DBT test 2) Have a song that actually has treble, detail and complexity + mastered well 3) The same amount of earwax / none 4) Lowest ambient noise possible, preferably none 5) Have extremely detailed and neutral headphones 6) Mentally fresh and not fatigued 7) Proper time of day, preferably night

1, 3 you can control for by testing in one sitting. This is complicated a bit by 6, but you can still take short breaks. 2, 4, 5, and 7 you can deal with simply by paying attention to the conditions - ie if you hear differences, then your headphones should be sufficient to demonstrate that under DBT.

Also WRT HD usage, that's relevant under only HD based iPods. And WRT FR graphs, those aren't sufficient to demonstrate that the differences are audible.

 

[3602]

foobar2000 has an ABX plug-in. Might use that.

 

[chinesekiwi]

but DBT tests only test that if there's a perceived difference, not which one is better.