IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
ETN.fm using HE-AAC at 96kbits...
senab
post Mar 1 2006, 21:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690



ETN.fm (a good and popular dance radio station), have just started up a new channel called ETN3. They've decided to use AAC+ to stream at 24kbits and a hi-quality one at 96kbits. Am I being stupid because I was under the impression that SBR is pretty much useless at bitrates over 48kbits. huh.gif

To me, it sounds a bit tinny and slightly fake. I've tried telling the admins of the site, and they replied:
QUOTE (ETN Admin)
AAC+ 96 = similair to 192 mp3 so that is why it rocks. AOL is gonna switch all streams to AAC+ eventually, so this codec is the future. It sounds really good at this bitrate, very layered and you feel like you're in something.
laugh.gif

You can have a listen to it here.



[EDIT : Spelling ]

This post has been edited by senab: Mar 1 2006, 22:13


--------------------
::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Mar 2 2006, 09:49
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



I think the maximum bitrate was 80kbps. Beyond that, you get worse results than with LC-AAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBO
post Mar 2 2006, 10:04
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: 10-February 06
Member No.: 27671



QUOTE
AAC+ 96 = similair to 192 mp3

I seriously doubt that that is possible. As far as I know, AAC+/HE-AAC can deliver improved perceptual quality at low bitrates - when bandwidth is limited and quality must be sacrificed - but has never been claimed to be transparent. Therefore, I doubt it can approach high levels of quality, as should be expected from a good (and not problematic) 192kbps MP3 encode.

QUOTE
so that is why it rocks

I love these really professional ways of stating and substantiating opinions.

QUOTE
It sounds really good at this bitrate, very layered and you feel like you're in something.

Of course...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Mar 2 2006, 10:11
Post #4


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



This is really sad on many levels, not the least of which is that the use of HE-AAC at such a high bitrate is questionable. Unless they're doing 5.1 streams, which doesn't seem to be the case.

This post has been edited by Garf: Mar 2 2006, 10:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Mar 2 2006, 14:16
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1783
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



Seems they just extrapolated things too much.

As we know, SBR is not adaptive (as in being used only if needed). It is used always, whatever the bitrate. The stream sounds ok, but probably it would sound just as well at 64 or so.

I've seen another station using HE-AAC at 80kbits. Probably what these stations look is the bandwidth. an LC-AAC stream at 96 has a lowpass filter around 15~16Khz, while SBR usually fills the complete bandwidth.

Other than that, the comparison with 192kbps mp3 is way out of place.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Mar 2 2006, 20:41
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Threre were statements that SBR was impoved the last time. Most probably at 80 kbit/s SBR is already slighltly better than LC. Some samples can be encoded better at 96 kbit/s SBR. But mostly at 96 kbit/s and higher LC will be better.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=40022&hl=
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=352418

If they want maximum quality at 96 kbit/s good reason to use Vorbis. But it still won't have the same quality as MP3 Lame 192 kbit/s

This post has been edited by IgorC: Mar 2 2006, 20:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Mar 2 2006, 21:02
Post #7


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (IgorC @ Mar 2 2006, 09:41 PM)
Threre were statements that SBR was impoved the last time.  Most probably at 80 kbit/s SBR is already slighltly better than LC. Some samples can be encoded  better at 96 kbit/s SBR. But  mostly at 96 kbit/s and higher LC will be better.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=40022&hl=
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=352418


Huu, the first thread is about IS, which has nothing to do with SBR. The second one is about downsampled SBR, which again is something different (and not recommended for now).

QUOTE
If they want maximum quality at 96 kbit/s good reason to use Vorbis.
*


Where's your proof for _that_ claim?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Mar 2 2006, 21:42
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



That topic is certainly about IS. But if you will read that you will find some words about sbr and abx test. I didn't say nothing without proof it (at least I mentioned I've done some internal ABX tests).

I also ABXed LC-AAC and OGG at 96 kbit/s and the result were more or less the same as in previous Guru's tests at 80 and 128 kbit/s. And Ogg was higher ranked than itunes AAC.
Of course You, Garf and another Nero's developres preparing a new version of AAC 5.0. And when it will be done it will be necesary do a new ABX test.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
senab
post Mar 2 2006, 21:53
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690



I've recommended Vorbis to them, but apparently they're using AOL servers and only Shoutcast is installed on them (funnily enough). It's a shame, really because Vorbis hasn't really took off in the streaming department...


--------------------
::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Mar 6 2006, 21:22
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1783
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



Crazyness just got crazier....

http://somafm.com/tagstrance64.pls

They are broadcasting right now HE-AAC(v1) at 128kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Mar 6 2006, 21:29
Post #11


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Mar 6 2006, 10:22 PM)
They are broadcasting right now HE-AAC(v1) at 128kbps
*

At least it sounds decent unlike basicly all 128 kbps mp3 streams.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bidz
post Mar 7 2006, 04:25
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 351
Joined: 27-December 02
From: Norway
Member No.: 4258



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Mar 6 2006, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE ([JAZ)
,Mar 6 2006, 10:22 PM]They are broadcasting right now HE-AAC(v1) at 128kbps
*

At least it sounds decent unlike basicly all 128 kbps mp3 streams.
*



LC-AAC 128kbps would be a better choice anyway. 128kbps HE-AAC is just ... retarded?


--------------------
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Mar 7 2006, 13:47
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1783
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



Update:

It is a 32kbps stream now. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2014 - 12:36