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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > General > Audio encoding

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10th June 2008, 01:48   #1  |  Link
Raboo
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.
Raboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 02:18   #2  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
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
tebasuna51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 03:37   #3  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
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.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 12:23   #4  |  Link
Raboo
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 )
So I guess the end result is LC..
But according to you guys professional opinion, should I stick with this or change to AC3?
Raboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 15:10   #5  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raboo View Post
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 )
So I guess the end result is LC..
But according to you guys professional opinion, should I stick with this or change to AC3?
The encoder command part is correct (without -aacprofile_hc or -aacprofile_lc) to let the automatic encoder select. Only the audioprofile name "AAC HE VBR 5.1..." must be corrected.

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
tebasuna51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 16:15   #6  |  Link
Raboo
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 )
And if I intend to do a high quality rip I should use the existing AC3 from the DVD instead.

(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)
Raboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2008, 19:17   #7  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
Is the quality parameter for NeroAacEnc from 0 to 1 (max).
Then 0.2 is less quality than 0.3, the range to use is between 0.2-0.4 with more quality the aac may be bigger than the ac3.
tebasuna51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aac, ac3, comparison

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.