Keyboard Cowboy Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 No matter how much I read about them I just don't get the differences for the life of me... Do I even want to use any of them when ripping CD's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 TPreston Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 AAC is the most efficient audio codec around so yes if your looking for lossy compression, Keep in mind that not all devices can deal with HEAAC. If you listen to music or watch a video online chances are its AAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Keyboard Cowboy Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 AAC is the most efficient audio codec around so yes if your looking for lossy compression, Keep in mind that not all devices can deal with HEAAC What would the technical differences between using LC AAC, HE AAC, or HE AAC v2 be then just regular vanilla AAC? Are they even worth using if it's an option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 TPreston Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 In short test to see if your device supports HEACC2 and if it does go for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Keyboard Cowboy Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 In short test to see if your device supports HEACC2 and if it does go for that So does newer equal better? What is Perceptual Noise Substitution? What's Spectral Band Replication doing for me? I can build and overclock a PC but when it comes to anything audio or video I'm completely clueless haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ambroos Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 If you want decent quality you'll have to go for AAC. HE AAC and HE AAC v2 are mainly made to still sound decent at very low bitrates, for example for streaming. At higher bitrates they have more distortion than regular AAC. A good rule for optimal quality: LC AAC (regular AAC) over 80, HE-AAC v1 over 48 and HE-AAC v2 below. You could try encoding in HE-AAC v2 at 48Kbps. If that quality is good enough for you there is no reason not to use it as it'll save you some serious amounts of disk space. The best way to rip your CD's on Windows is with Foobar, Nero's AAC encoder, VBR and some high settings (I use the highest). You won't hear the difference. lars77 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Keyboard Cowboy Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 If you want decent quality you'll have to go for AAC. HE AAC and HE AAC v2 are mainly made to still sound decent at very low bitrates, for example for streaming. At higher bitrates they have more distortion than regular AAC. A good rule for optimal quality: LC AAC (regular AAC) over 80, HE-AAC v1 over 48 and HE-AAC v2 below. You could try encoding in HE-AAC v2 at 48Kbps. If that quality is good enough for you there is no reason not to use it as it'll save you some serious amounts of disk space. The best way to rip your CD's on Windows is with Foobar, Nero's AAC encoder, VBR and some high settings (I use the highest). You won't hear the difference. Thank you haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 lars77 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Generally you'd use LC unless there is a specific reason you need super-low bitrates and/or very small file sizes. Of course if you're ripping your discs to store them long-term you should be looking at a lossless format IMO. (FLAC, WMA Lossless, ALAC, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 MS Bob 11 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 HE-AAC requires an HE-AAC decoder too when playing it otherwise it will sound like crap. No hard rule but generally at 128 kbps and above, use LC AAC. At low bit rates like 48 kbps or 64 kbps, use HE-AAC but still the quality may sound worse if you're an audiophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Keyboard Cowboy Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 Thanks for the suggestions guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 torrentthief Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Opus is the best audio codec for audio upto 192kbit/s. Vorbis is better than HE-AAC v2 btw too. It is still good but not as good as vorbis and opus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ambroos Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Opus is the best audio codec for audio upto 192kbit/s. Vorbis is better than HE-AAC v2 btw too. It is still good but not as good as vorbis and opus. If you're aiming for compatibility you're still better off with just regular simple AAC. HE-AAC is really only an option for low bitrates, it's just designed for that. Vorbis is fun if you only use Linux/Foobar on Windows and Android devices. Opus isn't interesting right now, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 raid0 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I converted my whole collection of mp3 to HEAAC+ @ 24kbps to save a lot of space, to me at this rate the sound is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ambroos Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Hah, seriously? I'm going to try that, can't imagine it sounding anywhere near OK tbh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 br0adband Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 AAC HE (High Efficiency) is the spec of the codec designed for voice frequency use, low bitrates, suitable precisely for the range that human voices tend to be most audible in. It is not and never should be used for music for a variety of reasons - all you'd have to do is try and encode some typical music and you'll understand it as soon as you attempt to play it back, it's pretty horrid. AAC LC (Low Complexity) is what's designed primarily as the "music" spec of the codec and far more suitable for that purpose. It is what's been used for iTunes music since day one even in spite of them now offering MP3 and ALAC as options as well, but the default AAC encoder settings for ripping your own audio CDs will use AAC LC and the given bitrate. Opus is gaining some traction but it will never ever reach the levels of usage saturation that MP3 has (anything can play this codec, it is the most widely supported audio codec there is, even more than WAV - seriously) and AAC isn't too far behind (but still not even close to MP3's level of support). Ogg Vorbis is still a fine codec that finds itself somewhat well supported at this point in time (just not on Apple i-Devices, of course). Also: when encoding audio the primary differences between the codecs are at lower bitrates, under 160 Kbps - once you start encoding at 192 Kbps or higher, it's pretty much well understood that all current modern psychoacoustic modeling compression techniques (that means lossy audio compression, basically) end up sounding virtually identical to the overwhelming majority of listeners. tl;dr If you intend to encode to AAC, use at least 192 Kbps (no need to bother with LC or HE because AAC HE can't be used to encode at such bitrates, it has a 64 Kbps "bitrate ceiling" - if you're encoding at over 64 Kbps it's going to be AAC LC by default) and you'll be just fine. If you want to save a bit of space and willing to sacrifice just a tad of audio quality, use 160 Kbps but, unless you really don't have a choice, don't encode at 128 Kbps using AAC. As for Opus, only time will tell with that codec. I've done my own testing and yes it sounds fantastic at low bitrates (64-96 Kbps) and has some seriously small file sizes but, there's practically zero device support at this time (yes that will grow) so for me it's useless at this point in time. Disclaimer: I've been involved with psychoacoustic modeling technology for 20+ years now, and I have 2700+ CDs backed up to FLAC format stored on DVD5 media here at home (the 2700+ CDs are kept in environmentally controlled storage, been collecting them since 1984). I have 19,368 songs stored in my Google Play Music account that are hand-encoded / hand-tagged / cover art embedded LAME V0 MP3 files and I'm done with music encoding for the foreseeable future. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 raid0 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Further controlled testing by 3GPP during their revision 6 specification process indicates that HE-AAC and its derivative MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2 provide "Good" audio quality for music at low bit rates (e.g., 24 kbit/s). From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Efficiency_Advanced_Audio_Coding I personally tested at this bitrate and was happy of the sounding, you can play it with VLC, iTunes and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Keyboard Cowboy Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 Thanks for all the great replies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ambroos Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Further controlled testing by 3GPP during their revision 6 specification process indicates that HE-AAC and its derivative MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2 provide "Good" audio quality for music at low bit rates (e.g., 24 kbit/s). From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....ed_Audio_Coding I personally tested at this bitrate and was happy of the sounding, you can play it with VLC, iTunes and more. For the bitrate it actually sounds OK, but it's nothing compared to high-bitrate AAC's. I really couldn't listen to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Keyboard Cowboy
No matter how much I read about them I just don't get the differences for the life of me... Do I even want to use any of them when ripping CD's?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
17 answers to this question
Recommended Posts