[bigshot]

AAC is common in compressed video and streaming video too. It's the best choice for people who care about sound quality.

 

[SmOgER]

I wonder though is it capped to 256kbps or can it go up to 320kbps over BT5?

PS. Apparently non-Apple phones perform much worse with AAC. Interesting!
https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/
I guess that's why my ears to be honest and despite my critique of the lack for abtX support from Apple can't really tell anything noticeably wrong about the sound quality.

 

[Blackwoof]

---

 

[Blackwoof]

can you please tell me the difference between all the AAC versions mainly exhale fdk and fhg? My ancient nokia phone says it supports "eAAC+" and I want to know if it sounds better than MP3 at lower or equal bitrates. Also is AAC free or proprietary?

Not used them much under 96kbps but for HE AAC, Apple AAC at 80kbps CVBR really holds up well. But Exhale & Opus will sound better than HE AAC at 96kbps almost matching 160 ~ 192kbps VBR MP3. But LC AAC your better off trying 144kbps Apple AAC as start since FDK/FHG AAC seems struggle with metal music at 128kbps while Apple encoder doesn't?.

 

[bigshot]

AAC can go beyond 320 with VBR. Even if it’s slightly different with different players, it’s still capable of transparency.

if an encoder can’t get the best out of a codec, that’s a fault with the encoder.

 

[Blackwoof]

AAC can go beyond 320 with VBR. Even if it’s slightly different with different players, it’s still capable of transparency.

if an encoder can’t get the best out of a codec, that’s a fault with the encoder.

Yup much of the tracks are transparent at 320kbps with QAAC. But HA got super mad when they kept touting Vorbis was as good as AAC at 144 ~ 224kbps, But with both encoders basic white noise based samples would trip it up to the point It needs 400 ~ 510kbps while Apple AAC it transparent on those at 75 ~ 145kbps & with MP3 it's 190 ~ 290kbps?.

 

[bigshot]

The difference in file size between AAC 320 and AAC 192 is small compared with the difference between lossless and AAC. At some point, people are quibbling over pocket change.

 

[Blackwoof]

The difference in file size between AAC 320 and AAC 192 is small compared with the difference between lossless and AAC. At some point, people are quibbling over pocket change.

Yeah, That actually why I don't get why AAC & Vorbis able to do 320 ~ 512kbps if needed at any setting was a issue at HA at one point?. Many would just blindly say go use Lossless too stupid to get that most music can be 950 ~ 1380kbps where 384kbps AAC or Vorbis would be a steal.

 

[bigshot]

I think most people only care that the sound is perfect for all kinds of music. They don't care about being a foot over the line as opposed to an inch. They just want to be sure that everything they rip is perfect. AAC 256 VBR is perfect for me. No need to fuss with anything lower than that.

 

[Davesrose]

AAC is common in compressed video and streaming video too. It's the best choice for people who care about sound quality.

With video, that depends. There's nothing wrong with AAC from a sound quality standpoint (and it supports multiple channel audio), but it doesn't support 3D audio formats: Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. Both of them require a meta stream on top of either TreuHD/DD+ or DTS-MA. Also, when it comes to most common digital audio with streaming, I would say it's DD: I find that is the output with cable and is also the standard with most streaming services. Dolby used to be found with Adobe Premiere, but it's now left out: as Adobe has decided to stop paying for the Dolby license. AAC is open source, so that is now the default sound format with Adobe video software. It's easy for distribution, like my niche of 3D animation with a soundtrack.....but when it comes to home distribution, DD+ (5.1 or Atmos) is most common.

 

[theaudiologist1]

AAC has a billion encoders and types I'm confused. The best is QAAC but that reuires installing proprietary apple spyware so the 2nd best is FDK.

 

[Blackwoof]

AAC has a billion encoders and types I'm confused. The best is QAAC but that reuires installing proprietary apple spyware so the 2nd best is FDK.

That why I switched to Vorbis cause It built in too Foobar, It doesn't seem to choke on Ambient like QAAC at 160kbps. I use FHG AAC that Winamp had for samples Vorbis chokes on, Aside from that Vorbis is transparent to me at 160kbps VBR.

 

[theaudiologist1]

That why I switched to Vorbis cause It built in too Foobar, It doesn't seem to choke on Ambient like QAAC at 160kbps. I use FHG AAC that Winamp had for samples Vorbis chokes on, Aside from that Vorbis is transparent to me at 160kbps VBR.

I would've too, but my nokia only supports MP3 AAC and WMA and on my android I simply put flac.

 

[Paul Mohr]

I didn't read all 80 pages of this so I am probably saying something someone else has said already. I highly doubt any major studios are are recording and mastering music in a lossy format. At the worst a small studio is probably doing 44.1 as a wave file which is lossless. Larger sutdios are most likely doing at least that or better. If you are ripping CD's I can almost assure you it is 44.1 wave files since that is the standard for that format. Especially if it came from a major studio. Now if its some CD a small band paid a small studio to make for them "maybe" it would be less? However they would probably have to ask for it. Maybe to fit more tracks on the CD or something? That being said it doesn't mean the transfer or original recording was good. I have heard some pretty crappy CD's over the years. It has nothing do with the file format or bit rate though. Just poor sound engineers and crappy transfers.

Now could some studios be releasing music in lower quality? Sure, it wouldn't surprise me at all being that everything is turning to streaming or small portable devices. However I highly doubt that is how the music was mastered in the studio, at least not a professional one. Now if you are pulling the music off the internet then yes YOUR original source may very well be an MP3.

Now all that being said, I have listened to various types of formats and bit rates. Me personally if it was done well I really can't tell the difference. I have heard some really great sounding MP3's and some really bad lossless but again, that didn't have to do with the format. Now if it isn't done well or correctly then yes MP3's or whatever can not sound as good. Then again so can better stuff.

 

[Blackwoof]

I would've too, but my nokia only supports MP3 AAC and WMA and on my android I simply put flac.

That why I use my LG V20 over my Sony AW45, I never understood them giving you only 3 codecs and It ones no one use anymore like WMA. I had to send two DAP's back because one had no gapless support and another had a 320kbps lock on Opus/Vorbis, My Sony had that too if a AAC encode reached 495 ~ 500kbps It would just say error?.