Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
10th June 2008, 01:48 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
|
AC3 vs AAC-HE VBR 200-250 kbps
AC3 ==> AAC-HE VBR 200-250 kbps
Is there really a big loss in this? Cause I've ripped a few DVD movies to x264 + AAC. Perhaps it's better to have it x264 + Original AC3 if it's a to big of a loss in the converting process. The difference in size is for example with the Godfather Part II AC3: 615 AAC: 384 i.e. 62% smaller in size (231 Mb).. I wonder how big of a quality drop there is, maybe it's hard to measure quality.. but let's say in a 1-10 scale or 1-100 scale? perhaps it's not even possible to give a good answer to this question... but I had to ask cause of my intentions.. I'm trying to find the best way to "computerize" my DVD's without loosing to much quality and to much disk space, simpler said: finding a good balance between size & quality. |
10th June 2008, 02:18 | #2 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
|
If you use VBR don't force to HE, let the encoder select if need Spectral Band Replication (HE) or can encode full high frequencies (LC).
"Is there really a big loss in this?" Only you can answer your question. You can also downmix from 5.1 to stereo Dolby ProLogic II and use 128 kb/s |
10th June 2008, 03:37 | #3 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
|
I remember seeing something either here or on HydrogenAudio about AAC @ 128kb/s VBR sounding identical to DVD 448kb/s AC3 source (both 5.1).
Encode a few, each with lower and lower bitrate, mix them up, and see if you can identify them. |
10th June 2008, 12:23 | #4 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
|
The audiostream according to MediaInfo is:
278 Kbps, 48 KHz, 6ch, AAC v4 (LC) But the audioprofile in StaxRip is called "AAC HE VBR 5.1 200-250 kbps" and the command is (uses BeSweet): Code:
"%application:BeSweet%" -core( -input "%input%" -output "%output%" ) -azid( -c normal ) -ota( -d %delay% -g max ) -bsn( -vbr 0.3 -6chnew ) But according to you guys professional opinion, should I stick with this or change to AC3? |
10th June 2008, 15:10 | #5 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
|
Quote:
The decoder command part -azid( -c normal ) say apply Dynamic Range Compression (DRC). This option is only for low quality audio equipment (laptops, ...) and maybe is enough a -vbr 0.2 to encode this output. My option is preserve the original audio AC3 without reencode, if I need less space -vbr 0.3 without DRC |
|
10th June 2008, 16:15 | #6 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
|
So this line is better if I want to use AAC and save some disk space
Code:
"%application:BeSweet%" -core( -input "%input%" -output "%output%" ) -ota( -d %delay% -g max ) -bsn( -vbr 0.2 -6chnew ) (btw I tried to find the switches for -bsn but didn't find any, whats the diffrence between -vbr 0.2 and -vbr 0.3) |
Tags |
aac, ac3, comparison |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|