Please check my math!
 

Hello everyone :D

Could anyone verify my math here :?:
I'm currently thinking about encoding a bunch of audio CDs to the newer aacPlus CODEC, so I can keep a DVD with all my music handy, and take it to work, etc. (And also hoping that a portable player supporting aacPlus (AAC+) hits the streets in the near future :) )
So, using CalcuMatic and ignoring the Video fields, I figured that at 48Kbps (CD quality, as per specifications here: http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/aacPlus.htm )
I should be able to put 8 days worth of CD quality audio on a single DVD :!:

So please check my math :cool:

11520 minutes (8 days) ~24Kbps (CalcuMatic doesn't have 48Kbps, so use 24Kbps and multiply by 2 )

11520 minutes @24Kbps yields 2025000KB, times 2 = :arrow: 4050000KB
With some room still to spare :)

So basically, this means that we can put 8+ days worth of CD quality audio on a DVD-5 :?:

-kwag

YOur maths are not so wrong despite the fact you are taking too much room :)

An other way to do your math :
A CD-Audio contains 80 minutes of PCM at 1411 Kbit/s.

1411/48 = 29.4. So a CD contains 29.4 x 80 minutes = 39.19 hours.

A DVD contains 6 CD, so 6 * 39.19 hours = 9.8 days !

CD quality per specification is not the same as real "CD quality". It's like MS telling you that wmv low bitrate videos are "DVD quality" :) I've tried the Winamp AAC+v2 with SBR, parametric stereo etc. and while it's IMPRESSIVE, it's _not_ "CD quality". There are some obvious artifacts, even more obvious if you use headphones. It's more than good enough for background music or for listening through PC speakers, though.

There's a public listening test on various AAC codecs @ 48kbps going on, maybe some of you want to participate:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=41598

http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?48k...0public%20test

Yes, but it's so close to the original, that if you don't have anything to compare (ABX test), even with earphones it sounds like the original. At l least it did to me :roll:
However, I'm sure that if I compare and switch back and forth between the audio CD and the 48Kbps AAC+, there will be some differences heard, just as you said.
At about what bitrate would you consider AAC+ to be transparent :?:
I'd like to make some tests :)
But man :!:, the thing sounds so damn good, even at 24Kbps through speakers it's like FM radio, and at 32Kbps it's really like FM+ quality. Indeed :!:I'll check that out.
And if you or anyone knows of a portable player that can playback AAC+, please let me know :)

-kwag

Good one Phil :D

-kwag

Well, I can hear that something is strange even without comparing to the original. But I'm an amateur/semi-pro musician so I have a "trained ear" for tone/timbre.

I don't know. I have not tested it. For mp3, I think 160kbps to 192kbps is perfect, it depends on the kind of music. I can definetely hear artifacts @ 128kbps. This is with heaphones. Through (big and good) loudspeakers 128k is Ok most of the time.

The innovations in AAC+ are more directed to very low bit rate (and they really achieve excellent results), not to transparent or hi-fi. Like SBR (where you throw off the highs and use the lows and mids plus some "clues" to create an artificial treble content). Or parametric stereo (you encode in mono and then use some clues to create a synthetic stereo). I guess because of that the bitrate for really "transparent" should not be much smaller than for mp3 - maybe 96k or 128k.

Yeah :)

The Core Pocket Media Player
 

Just to let you all know that I've decided on this: http://tcpmp.corecodec.org/about
Instead of waiting for a player :lol:
The Core Media Player, plays ALL audio formats, including AAC+ with plugin available here: http://www.rarewares.org/files/aac/t...almos.0.66.zip (PALM)
And here: http://www.rarewares.org/files/aac/t...obile.0.66.zip (Windows Mobile)
So we can play all types of audio and even video on any PALM or Pocket PC ;)

-kwag

48 Kbps AAC (PS+HE) sound more like 96 Kbps MP3 with lame. Certainely not transparant because sbr is imo really destructive.

Try the latest (current) AAC+ encoder version in Winamp 5.21. At 48Kbps, it sounds far better that any 128Kbps I've ever heard :!:

-kwag

@Kawg,

Kwag wrote:
I D/L'd Winamp v5.21, installed it and tried to play streaming music at
SKy.fm. I seem to connect and see the scrolling URL, but no sound is
playing. Should I set something in prefrences input / output plugins :?:
I also, tried FooBar 0.9RC2 and again it wouldn't play. WMP did play
media audio on Sky.fm and was very nice. :)

-BP

Hi BP,

Foobar should play ANY aacPlus station :!:
Try "Preferences/ File Types" on Foobar, and select "Associate all" button, just to test.
Then click on any of the links at www.tuner2.com to try it out :)

-kwag

@Kwag,

Kwag wrote:
Works!!!! :D Damn that sounds good :mrgreen: Thanks Kwag. :wink:

-BP

It does, doesn't it? :D
I can't stop hearing 4U - Rock n Metal.
That station rocks :mrgreen:.

Re: The Core Pocket Media Player
 

Thanks for the links!

Now if I could use the Palm with a good stereo mic to "tape" concerts, etc. in a good quality format...

The results are out:

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/aac_48/results.html

I don't know if I'm missing something here, but the latest test I made (heard on my PC speakers) with LAME ( LAME 32bits version 3.98 (alpha 3, Mar 15 2006 06:00:39) )
even using "-V 7--vbr-new", are far better than any AAC/AAC+ at 48Kbps :roll:
Have you tested that :?:
I know that the bitrate is higher, but it's still averaged below 128Kbps.
I can clearly hear AAC+ artifacts all over the place, but with LAME, therey're almost non-existant.
Just make sure you use version 3.98 alpha 3 of LAME.

-kwag

The LAME (3.97b2) -V5 encode @ ~130kbps is only included as a "high anchor" in this test - that is, it is not in the "competition", it is expected to be undoubtly better than any of the encoders under testing. The inclusion of a high anchor and a low anchor makes the statistical treatment easier.

If you see the final results, the LAME got 4.73/5, that is, almost perfect, while the AAC+ files are ~3/5, significantly worse than LAME, but at a smaller bitrate. Also the AAC+ is undoubtly better than the low anchor (AAC without the plus) that scored a very low 1.49.

So... my interpretation of the results is that AAC+ is obviously not near CD quality but it's much better than standard AAC and a good option when you need the lower bitrate.

It is interesting to see the full results to see how the encoders handle each sample.

My hear are good too ... last AAC HE V1 (from Nero or CT) sound like 80-96 Kbps MP3.

64 Kbps AAC HE V1 sound like 128 MP3 CBR (latest lame build) for my hear.

Just a warning: alpha versions of LAME are considered unstable and not recommended for anything but tests. If you want to keep the encodes, the developers recommend sticking to betas (stable). The last recommended version is 3.97b2.

Thanks GFR :)

-kwag