IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
how "low" is "low bit-rate"?
johnwong
post Jul 22 2009, 08:21
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 26-September 08
Member No.: 58658



As it said in HA-wiki "The latest version is aoTuV beta 5, which improves the low bit-rate quality in relation to Noise normalization without sacrificing compression ratio. This version is currently undergoing peer-review at Hydrogenaudio. "

So,how low is low bit-rate? <96kbps?or?

THX
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Jul 22 2009, 09:26
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



Off the top of my head, low bitrate on HA means <128kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post Jul 22 2009, 19:35
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2598
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



I don't know what the author meant...

When I say "low bitrate" I mean "low quality" or "compromised quality", where a small file (or low bitrate for data transmission) is the the main goal of compression, and quality is secondary.

When I say "high bitrate" I mean "high quality", where audio quality is more important than bitrate.

I'm not sure I'd give a numerical answer... A high bitrate for spoken voice, might be a low bitrate for music.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Jul 22 2009, 19:57
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



I'd say the dividing line for "low bitrate" is when it is virtually impossible to maintain transparency for the majority of music listeners. For any sort of half-decent listening environment, that is 128kbps and has been for quite some time.

For high noise/portable situations you could make the case that <64kbps is low bitrate since HE-AAC, Vorbis etc are so good, but that is something of a codec-by-codec call to make. All of those codecs still have transparency issues up to 128k.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
insane_alien
post Jul 22 2009, 22:35
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 26-July 08
Member No.: 56345



QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 22 2009, 19:57) *
I'd say the dividing line for "low bitrate" is when it is virtually impossible to maintain transparency for the majority of music listeners.


it should also be noted that there is no hard cut line between trnasparent and detectible.

the type of sound encoded also makes a massive difference. for instance, a simple sine wave in theory could be transparently encoded a few hundred bits/s or less with a suitible codec, losslessy too. but anything more complicated would sound crap though.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
johnwong
post Jul 23 2009, 02:47
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 26-September 08
Member No.: 58658



thanks you guys! happy.gif It seems there's no standard definition for low bit-rate.To me 128k OGG is enough.
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: 22nd September 2014 - 13:16