# Store 325+ songs in 1 gb card in full quality .



## expertno.1 (Dec 19, 2007)

Yep its true and is experimented by me 

See the list of mobiles supported at the bottom of the tut .

* Most mobile users store mp3 files in their mobiles for playing songs .

The songs are either in converted mp3 format (low quality) or above 128 kbps (good quality) .

But in 950 MB one can only store atmost 160-200 mp3 songs in good quality , say 128kbps .

But now dont be a mere mp3 songs listener coz mp3 is outdated now ! .
Do you know that your latest mobile comes with aac , mp4(also m4a) support ? 
Allmost all models manufactured by Nokia from the year 2005 have the mp4/m4a support.
*[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More than 150 different phone models support aacPlus as of mid 2006[/FONT]
* 
Here we go : - 

1. Get the trial of dbpoweramp music converter from www.dbpoweramp.com (dont worry trial will work forever for aac / mp4 formats conversion)

2. a ) Download the m4a release 7 codec for dbpoweramp here
*www.dbpoweramp.com/codecs-new/dBpoweramp-Codec-m4a.exe
     b) Aac release 1
 *www.dbpoweramp.com/codecs-new/dBpoweramp-Codec-aac-encoder.exe

3.  You will require the neroaac encoder to make dbpoweramp work .
here
ftp://ftp6.nero.com/tools/NeroDigitalAudio.zip

Now you have got all the tools......

Now.....
a. Install Dbpoweramp
b. Install the codecs of step 2--> a and b
c .Extract the contents of NeroDigitalAudio.zip to some folder 

4. Goto start-dbpoweramp music converter-dbpoweramp batch converter...

5. select the files from the right hand side 
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/file%20selection.JPG

6. click on convert on the top-left corner on the screen and this window will appear 
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/2.JPG

click on locate encoder and browse the directory where you extracted the nerodigitalaac.zip in step 3.c
select the neroaacenc.exe and click open

7. Time to set the encoder option to he aac
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/4.JPG

8. Time to set the bitrate .....
According to the latest technology 64kbps he aac equals 128kbps mp3 because of its technology called SBR . (will not discuss it) 

But in order to get maximum quality set the bitrate to 80 kbps 
you can also set the bitrate to 64 as you wish .....but not below 64

9. Define the folder and click convert . 

10. it will enocode above 10x and more for faster cpus  
      within 1.5 to 2 hrs you will be able to get all 300+ songs converted to the folder . 
5 min song = 2.6mb approx

Now , 

Copy the files to your mobile card and start listening 80kbps he aac (quivalent to 160-192 kbps mp3) .

Now ......special for s60 phones.....
if ur default music manager takes long time to load the songs list.....use the freeware oggplay mmf software for s60 .....it nor only is SUPER fast but also plays ogg , wma and mp3 formats and organizes them too !

here *symbianoggplay.sourceforge.net/

Rock your mobile with 44.1 khz , 16 bit stereo quality sound !

*This is for Nokia Mobiles (especially series 60) , series 40 , Sony Ericsson , but can be applicable on other mobiles if other mobiles have the mp4/m4a format support and good library manager (so that it can handle 300+ songs without hanging)

All mobiles of N-series supported
Mobiles of s60 feature pack 2 (6630 6681 6680) supported
Mobiles such as 3310c , and all music phones supported
Most new Sony ericsson phones supported


 i have added the samples 

*Note : -

use only these two players to play both the files
1. VLC media player 0.8.6 from www.videolan.org
2. Winamp 5.05 + versions


song clip - somewhere i belong (rapcore genre) linkin park 

m4a file (80 kbps)
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/somewhere%20i%20belong.m4a

mp3 file (128 kbps)
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/somewhere_i_belong.MP3

Listen Urself and tell me any difference u hear  !!*
* 




Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1
*


----------



## alsiladka (Dec 19, 2007)

Dude nothing new in here! Even Nokia Music Transfer application does that, only trouble is it is very buggy and somehow does not convert most of my MP3s.

I use *Easy CD-DA* convertor and convert them to m4a. Each song about 2 mb in size. And Easy CD-DA is a lot easier than the application you choose. All you have to do is download and install it, no extra codecs or encoders, alls built in! 
Plus, it also allows you to search the Amazon sites for Album Art and keeps them after conversion. After getting my files converted, i simply transfer them using Nokia's Music Manager to sort them into folders.
Even the album art shows up in N73's Music Player.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 19, 2007)

alsiladka said:
			
		

> Dude nothing new in here! Even Nokia Music Transfer application does that, only trouble is it is very buggy and somehow does not convert most of my MP3s.


Nokia Music Transfer doesn't encodes above 64 kbps 
plus sony ericsson and other mobile users dont have Nokia PC suite so as a whole to cover all sets this is the software i selected .

and easy CD-DA ......i tried it and it has a hell slow encoding speed ......plus it has old he aac format 

the one i posted is new nero aac august 2007 format (latest) and is better in quality than the apple's he aac encoder ,....so you will get 20% more quality in sound .


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## Tech.Masti (Dec 19, 2007)

I think it will work with my 6085, will test. I know about mp4,  but heard about m4a first time, btw thanks


----------



## Lucky_star (Dec 20, 2007)

Have been using m4a in my N73 since long. Why 64 kbps? Even 32 kbps doesn't seem to have any difference with the original MP3.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 20, 2007)

Transcoding is EVIL. Only convert to AAC from original files. Transcoding reduces quality even if the bitrate is preserved.

There is nothing new here. You just gave us an example of music conversion.

MeGUI is also good for the same.

You can easily make Scripts to automate the same for a huge list of files to be batch converted, with the offitial Command line encoder from Nero(trust me, nero is the best. Its better than Apple or FAAC)


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> Transcoding is EVIL. Only convert to AAC from original files.



Completely agree.... transcoding hampers intricate details of quality....!!!!

There is a major difference in using High-Efficiency (HE)-AAC and Low-complexity (LC)-AAC codecs/Modes for compression... compare the frequency response curves of uncompressed songs and those compressed by LC and HE modes respectively.... even 96 KBps LC-AAC songs possess similar FR curves to the original... but when using HE-AAC, the waveforms are altered... so even if u get a very low file size, (~ 1 MB for a 5 minute song), the quality is severely hampered... !!! I can almost feel the creepy distortions and flat washed-out sound quality of low-bitrate HE-AAC encoded songs. So I always prefer 96-128 KBps LC-AAC m4a or 96 KBps WMA if I want to acheive lower file sizes.... they preserve the quality of most songs to quite a good extent while providing u lower file sizes... 

btw, did anyone notice that while hindi songs (with lesser degree of complex sounds)  sound almost good even at very low 64 KBps and 56 KBps of AAC/WMA, if the song comprises of complex sound mixes (Linkin Park for e.g.), even at 128 KBps LC-AAC, they sound pathetic to me in terms of quality. I always have to use at least 160 KBps AAC/128 KBps WMA/192 KBps mp3 to make it sound better....


----------



## 2kewl (Dec 20, 2007)

Tried it, the quality didn;t impress me though.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 20, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> Transcoding is EVIL. Only convert to AAC from original files. Transcoding reduces quality even if the bitrate is preserved.
> 
> There is nothing new here. You just gave us an example of music conversion.
> 
> ...



Dude .... its not evil ....even the mp3 you get is transcoded from audio cd ......and transcoding mp3 to m4a (HE AAC) even to 64 kbps doesn't reduces a little of quality .

And yes nero aac is better thats why have used it in dbpoweramp ...read bhai above .




> There is a major difference in using High-Efficiency (HE)-AAC and Low-complexity (LC)-AAC codecs/Modes for compression... compare the frequency response curves of uncompressed songs and those compressed by LC and HE modes respectively.... even 96 KBps LC-AAC songs possess similar FR curves to the original... but when using HE-AAC, the waveforms are altered... so even if u get a very low file size, (~ 1 MB for a 5 minute song), the quality is severely hampered... !!! I can almost feel the creepy distortions and flat washed-out sound quality of low-bitrate HE-AAC encoded songs. So I always prefer 96-128 KBps LC-AAC m4a or 96 KBps WMA if I want to acheive lower file sizes.... they preserve the quality of most songs to quite a good extent while providing u lower file sizes...



dude its HE AAC only !! 
thats why have provided 80 kbps
if u wanna compare see this

*www.codingtechnologies.com/products/assets/CT_aacPlus_whitepaper.pdf

first read this ....... theres no difference in mp3 quality of 160 kbps and 80 kbps HE AAC .....not at all ...everything is preserved.......

Dont post on your own.....get the knowldege first !!



> Tried it, the quality didn;t impress me though.



Dude ...its surely true that you haven't tried it or you converted low quality song to 80 kbps He AAc (m4a)

. 

convert the original ones then you cant hear any difference in the quality of both the songs ......

its proved by coding technologies and the various scales like mushra and noise show it .

READ THE PDF ABOVE  and clear Your lol doubts  of quality .



Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> ....even the mp3 you get is transcoded from audio cd...



lol  _"Transcoding is the direct digital-to-digital conversion from one (usually lossy) codec to another. It involves decoding/decompressing the original data to a raw intermediate format" _..... c.f. Wikipedia. A song is ripped or converted (ENCODED) from uncompressed format (PCM) available as audio CD tracks to compressed digital formats such as mp3/aac etc etc... so while transcoding from a lossy codec as the source, the quality further degrades or at best efficiency, remains the same as the source, BUT doesn't revert back to the original quality of the uncompressed music... If u have used a song encoded in a lossless format such as Lossless AAC as the source while transcoding, that results in optimum quality and conversion... 




			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> dude its HE AAC only !!
> thats why have provided 80 kbps
> if u wanna compare see this
> 
> ...



Before u jump on to conclusions, why don't u do a little experiment on your own ... the tools are some basic software available on the net. Ok, I will tell u a long story, if u r so inclined.... 

When I got my W850 in 2006 winter, I was searching for the best codec suitable for my phone which would produce optimum music quality at the best file size. Sony Ericsson mentioned that the bundled 1 GB MSPD card would hold a 1000 songs .... that translates to ~1 MB per song.. and SE specifically mentioned those songs to be encoded using AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. I then went on a rampage to uncover every possible research on AAC+... while every one of them claimed that  HE-AAC can preserve the audio quality. at 80 KBps (above 96 KBps the encoder I used automatically switched from HE-AAC mode to LC-AAC mode) LC-AAC (forced) sounded worse than HE-AAC encoding of the same song (Linkin Park - One Step Closer.... source: Uncompressed PCM ripped from Audio CD)and  HE-AAC resulted in 10% lesser file size than LC-AAC at the same bitrate (forced).  But they both sound inferior to a 96 KBps LC-AAC encoded song and the HE-AAC algorithm tends to falter/show no better results above 96 KBps... so why would I go for a 80 KBps worse sounding compression when it sounds way sweeter at 96 KBps with a minimal increase in size....

AAC+ is better than LC-AAC at bitrates lesser than 96 KBps but they both are inferior to 96 KBps LC-AAC. AAC+ uses parametric stereo (stereo downmixed to mono and then spatially regenerated and transformed by the decoder) and hence "approximates" the quality of the source at lower bitrates. Thus when u analyze an AAC+ compressed song in an editor like Audition, u can see only a single conjoined-channel instead of two separate with a heavily altered pattern of FR curves/Gain analysis.... Due to this downmixing and consequent "regeneration" procedure, even though the codec  can manage to hold as much music "quality" as 160 KBps mp3 even while while having lesser "data", the altered pattern of the "data" will result in a more "flattened" hearing by many people (as the destroyed data is being sort-of "regenerated" and "approximated" by the decoder using advanced enhancement algorithms). Thus it all depends on the DECODER QUALITY and EFFICIENCY !!! As far as I can recollect, its very hard to distinguish when you are listening on a computer (good decoder + higher processing) except for the mild "flat" hearing .... but once the songs are on ur PMP, man u WILL notice the difference.... !! 

No codec (specifically the lossy ones) can preserve the complete quality of the song because those algorithms are specifically tailored to remove those parts of the uncompressed songs (lossy-ness of the codec) , which human ears cannot distinguish between.. Can u distinguish between uncompressed song and lets say a 256 KBps mp3 conversion of the same ?? In that case u can compare them using audio editors like Audition ..... Give it a try..


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

A Little late for me ... but here u go.... Spectrum freq. Analysis graphs for "Bally Sagoo - Aap Ki Nazron Ne Samjha (Remix)" ... But I don't have the Audio CD with me now though I have the 320 KBps mp3 at VHQ Fraunhoffer encoding.. so it should be very close to the source uncompressed one....

Graphs for 320 KBps mp3 source, 96 KBps transcoded LC-AAC (m4a), 80 KBps transcoded LC-AAC (m4a) and 80 KBps transcoded HE-AAC v2 (AAC+).... file sizes 12.1 MB, 3.8 MB, 3.2 MB and 2.6 MB respectively... notice the regeneration or original attempted by the AAC+ decoder resulting in a "continuous" spatial pattern (the flattened quality of HE-AAC)... 

Single Channel freq. spectral distribution......Used Adobe Audition 3.0 and Adobe Photoshop CS3...

*img147.imageshack.us/img147/6874/piczu3.th.jpg


----------



## clmlbx (Dec 20, 2007)

OK

IF I CONVERT MP3 320 KBPS TO M4A 320 KBPS .

SO IS THERE WILL BE ANY QUALITY LOSS

bcoz of size, it gets reduced so I would like to do it


----------



## infra_red_dude (Dec 20, 2007)

clmlbx said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> IF I CONVERT MP3 320 KBPS TO M4A 320 KBPS .
> 
> ...


How would that reduce the size? Both are same bitrate. So a wiser thing would be to convert MPe 320kbps to m4a 160kbps (say for e.g). Quality will be almost same but size would reduce. The best thing actually is to skip MP3 altogether and directly convert to m4a (aac in m4a container) from the lossless source at desired bitrate.


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

a 320 KBps song encoded in both AAC and MP3 should be very close (in ideal case, equal) to each other in size because the bitrate is the same (as infra red dude rightly pointed out). It is wiser to use 160 KBps AAC as its quality is nearly equal to that of 256 KBps encoded mp3 while being much less in size...  

But the choice of codec is ultimately subjective... many audiophiles claim that AAC gives much better sound quality (sweeter sound) while others claim mp3 to do so.. I personally found out that some songs sound better in AAC, so i use 128 KBps for them while some others might sound sweeter in mp3 format (for me 192 KBps VBR is sufficient.. Linkin Park always sounds better in mp3).... even in some cases I have found 96 KBps WMA sounds better than the rest.. Its after all your own personal preferences.. use a good set of earphone/headphones and experiment with all kinds of viable compression modes and codecs on your PMP (not on your PC) and see what suits you best....


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 20, 2007)

rockthegod said:
			
		

> Before u jump on to conclusions, why don't u do a little experiment on your own ... the tools are some basic software available on the net. Ok, I will tell u a long story, if u r so inclined....


 have already experimented and is experimetning from the year 2004 .



> When I got my W850 in 2006 winter, I was searching for the best codec suitable for my phone which would produce optimum music quality at the best file size. Sony Ericsson mentioned that the bundled 1 GB MSPD card would hold a 1000 songs .... that translates to ~1 MB per song.. and SE specifically mentioned those songs to be encoded using AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. I then went on a rampage to uncover every possible research on AAC+... while every one of them claimed that  HE-AAC can preserve the audio quality. at 80 KBps (above 96 KBps the encoder I used automatically switched from HE-AAC mode to LC-AAC mode) LC-AAC (forced) sounded worse than HE-AAC encoding of the same song (Linkin Park - One Step Closer.... source: Uncompressed PCM ripped from Audio CD)and  HE-AAC resulted in 10% lesser file size than LC-AAC at the same bitrate (forced).  But they both sound inferior to a 96 KBps LC-AAC encoded song and the HE-AAC algorithm tends to falter/show no better results above 96 KBps... so why would I go for a 80 KBps worse sounding compression when it sounds way sweeter at 96 KBps with a minimal increase in size....


Dude do you know first LC-AAC stands for Low Complexity 
*Low Complexity (LC)* - the simplest and most widely used and supported . and i am talking here about HE AAC 

LC-aac has noway quality gain over HE-aac (HE = High Efficiency)

AND HE AAC v2 and HE AAC v1 are same above 64 kbps !!!!!



> LC-AAC (forced) sounded worse than HE-AAC encoding of the same song





> But they both sound inferior to a 96 KBps LC-AAC encoded song


Please think what you are writing and experimenting....

one side you are writing  LC aac worse at 96 kbps (switeched automatically from he aac to lc aac) and other you are writing that both sounding inferior to 96 kbps LC-aac . 

final :-

dont talk about LC-AAC , its the worst of all , dont convert any of you song to LC-AAC

HE-AAC is by far the most enhanced codec invented till now !!

i bet 80 kbps HE-AAC superpasse 128 kbps mp3 

update : -

i have added the samples 

*Note : -

use only these two players to play both the files
1. VLC media player 0.8.6 from www.videolan.org
2. Winamp 5.05 + versions


song - somewhere i belong (rapcore genre) linkin park 

m4a file
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/somewhere%20i%20belong.m4a

mp3 file
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/somewhere_i_belong.MP3

Listen Urself and tell me

and

HUMAN EAR IS THE FINAL JUDGE !

*
_*Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1
*_


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> Dude do you know first LC-AAC stands for Low Complexity
> *Low Complexity (LC)* - the simplest and most widely used and supported . and i am talking here about HE AAC
> 
> LC-aac has noway quality gain over HE-aac
> ...



Dude, do u know how to read ??  : No offense, but I had started all this bickering and long posting with "Low Complexity" expansion of LC AAC from my first post in this thread.. check back and READ properly.... reagrding the KBPs.. its Kilo-bits-per-second... or as u wud say kbps.... .. how can a song be encoded in kilo "BYTES" per second... of all the information provided, u grab hold of the non-essential habitual typos and bring them up... really pathetic !!!! 

Again, Read properly, I clearly mentioned.. I DIDN'T SWITH BETWEEN LC and HE.. the ENCODER program automatically did... I had to FORCE LC AAC at lower bitrates and HE at high.... as does dBPowerAmp you mentioned.... 

Here are some friendly suggestions:

1) First of all, get a better knowledge of the codecs.. u r experimenting frm 2004 and this is where u r at.... seems someone sucks at doing proper research and experimentation.... 

2) Second, READ and READ... I have mentioned strictly that HE-AAC algorithm provides superior audio quality over LC-AAC ONLY at LOWER bitrates.... the algorithm practically doesn't work at higher bitrates... The European Broadcasting Union was behind the initial MUSHRA scale tests... and those were used commercially by CT, but those were not so conclusive as other tests followed. 

3) OK.... I am fed up of writing.... read WIKIPEDIA :


> Scientific testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at 48 kb/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale. [1]. MP3 in the same testing received a score less than half that of HE-AAC and was ranked "Poor" using the MUSHRA scale. Data from this testing also indicated that some individuals confused 48 kb/s encoded material with an uncompressed original.
> 
> Other testing indicates that material decoded from 64 kb/s HE-AAC does not have similar audio quality to material decoded from MP3 at 128 kb/s[2]. However, this testing was conducted in an uncontrolled manner and cannot be deemed conclusive.
> 
> ...




4) AND visualize my SIMPLE graphs properly or do your experiments properly.... I am not gonna fight over this simple matter with someone clearly lacking advanced knowledge and who strongly holds to his wrong/partly right beliefs and doesn't bother to stand corrected... So u will hear no more from me.. I have provided enough data from my part, the intelligent readers can sort them out for themselves... 



			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> dont talk about LC-AAC , its the worst of all , dont convert any of you song to LC-AAC
> 
> HE-AAC is by far the most enhanced codec invented till now !!
> 
> i bet 80 kbps HE-AAC superpasse 128 kbps mp3



1) Why won't anyone talk about LC-AAC.. we have our fundamental rights..... 

2) Are you ordering ppl not to use LC-AAC... ??   If u r gonna use low bitrates.... better to use HE-AAC.. if u r gonna use high, better to use LC-AAC...

3) theres other more advanced codecs out there and certainly they are used by transmission professionals..... 

4) It is just a claim.. no unequivocal conclusions yet !!!! 

Keep your encoded files to urself.. what do you think.. We don't have a PC or what ??


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 20, 2007)

rockthegod said:
			
		

> Dude, do u know how to read ??  : No offense, but I had started all this bickering and long posting with "Low Complexity" expansion of LC AAC from my first post in this thread.. check back and READ properly.... reagrding the KBPs.. its Kilo-bits-per-second... or as u wud say kbps.... .. how can a song be encoded in kilo "BYTES" per second... of all the information provided, u grab hold of the non-essential habitual typos and bring them up... really pathetic !!!!



dude thats what am talking we have to get more and more songs at excellent quality then why one should convert for LC-AAC to 96 or more 128 why not mp3 ? if its high bitrate mp3 is good bhai !!



> First of all, get a better knowledge of the codecs.. u r experimenting frm 2004 and this is where u r at.... seems someone sucks at doing proper research and experimentation....


i think you should hear both the sounds i provided and clear your mind 



> Second, READ and READ... I have mentioned strictly that HE-AAC algorithm provides superior audio quality over LC-AAC ONLY at LOWER bitrates.... the algorithm practically doesn't work at higher bitrates... The European Broadcasting Union was behind the initial MUSHRA scale tests... and those were used commercially by CT, but those were not so conclusive as other tests followed.


thats what i wanna say for 64-80 kbps HE-AAC is far better than LC-AAC



> Are you ordering ppl not to use LC-AAC... ??   If u r gonna use low bitrates.... better to use HE-AAC.. if u r gonna use high, better to use LC-AAC...


lol.......for high bitrate i will always use MP3 !!

for low bitrate <80 kbps i prefer HE-AAC



> theres other more advanced codecs out there and certainly they are used by transmission professionals.....


it is already used in "AacPlus v2 by Codingtechnologies [8] is also standardized by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) as TS 102005 for Satellite services to Handheld devices (DVB-SH) below 3 GHz."



> Keep your encoded files to urself.. what do you think.. We don't have a PC or what ??


 we are here to discuss and resolve the detective stories .....not to run away from them 



			
				rockthegod said:
			
		

> of the non-essential habitual typos


then correct it bhai coz you are typing it everywhere !!

and

_*(128 KBps) plus (128 kbps) = 144 kBps*_


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> and thats the thing i am talking about from the beginning that HE-AAC at 48 kbps is excellent.......equivalent to 96 kbps mp3
> so 80 kbps HE-AAC is equivalent to 128-160 kbps mp3
> see in the MUSHRA scale urself !!
> this all thread is about SBR technolgy so from where low complexity comes ?
> ...



The Mushra test results are not unequivocally accepted (read Wiki)... 128 KBps LC-AAC= 160-192 KBps mp3 in quality as is generally accepted...

80 KBps HE-AAC may pawn 128 KBps mp3 but not 192 KBps, so it doesn't go anywhere near 128 KBps LC-AAC (from earlier logic)...

I mention it again:  *If you are gonna use bitrates lower than 96 Kbps, use HE-AAC but if u r gonna use higher bitrates, better to use LC-AAC as HE-AAC doesn't work properly above 96 Kbps.. *


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 20, 2007)

bhai read post #17 ......was editing for more and you posted quickly bhai 



> 80 KBps HE-AAC may pawn 128 KBps mp3 but not 192 KBps, so it doesn't go anywhere near 128 KBps LC-AAC (from earlier logic)...


 and we consider 128 kbps mp3 good quality.....



> *f you are gonna use bitrates lower than 96 Kbps, use HE-AAC but if u r gonna use higher bitrates, better to use LC-AAC as HE-AAC doesn't work properly above 96 Kbps.. *



bhai : - 
*
HE-AAC IS LIMITED TO THE BITRATE OF 128 kbps AND IS OF EXCELLENT QUALITY AT ITS MAX BITRATE i.e 128 kbps .*

in simple one line ....upto 80 kbps use HE AAC bhai and get sound quality equivalent to 128-160 kbps mp3 for mobiles ....in this way many songs will be for mobile ......and since human ear is the final judge i say ma suggestions are not wrong 

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

the annoying thing is that u r mis-interpreting my writing.... I have compared 80 Kbps HE-AAC to 80 Kbps LC-AAC and both to 96 Kbps LC-AAC.... the order is:
96 Kbps LC >> 80 Kbps HE >> 80 Kbps LC....

For higher bitrates like 128 Kbps, why would I use mp3 when 128 Kbps LC-AAC provides similar quality to 160-192 Kbps mp3 at lower file size.... tell me this first.. !!!!

And why do you not get one thing... * I MENTIONED IT EARLIER IN MY EARLIER POST.. LISTENING TO ALL THESE SONGS ON A PC WON'T DO A THING BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ANY ENCODED FORMAT BECAUSE OF THE PC's SHEER PROCESSING POWER, ALL DECODERS PERFORM GOOD.... ITS THROUGH WAVEFORM ANALYSIS ONLY, THAT COMPARISONS CAN BE DONE ON A PC * . Use ur PMP and then tell me which sounds good and which doesn't...


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 20, 2007)

rockthegod said:
			
		

> For higher bitrates like 128 Kbps, why would I use mp3 when 128 Kbps LC-AAC provides similar quality to 160-192 Kbps mp3.... tell me this first.. !!!!


dude we are here to discuss abt space conservation in mobiles.......not for pc playback of 192 + kbps quality......

1.  all songs we get from cd's are mp3's of 128-160 kbps
 or even higher

* but why one should waste time to converte these all to LC-AAC above 128kbps?? , if mp3 is providing me excellent quality at its simple available original bitrate* .....thats why dude ........i prefer MP3 at high bitrates ....no need to convert ....its readymade .....



> Use ur PMP and then tell me which sounds good and which doesn't...


Have already tested and played songs in N70 , 3110c , 5200 , 5700 and N73 ........even 64 kbps he aac stream sounded evryone (me  , ma bro , ma friends and all respective mobile owners ) equal to 160 kbps mp3 !! in all phones above !!



Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## rockthegod (Dec 20, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> dude we are here to discuss abt space conservation in mobiles.......not for pc playback of 192 + kbps quality......
> Thanks
> Regards.....
> Expertno.1



To be precise, we are here to discuss about space conservation with optimum quality... read my earlier post back as I have added a few things which u have definitely missed due to fast posting ... I am not talking about PC playback but playback on ur PMP and I have repeated this fact in every post... 

wow. how this discussion changed its course .. phew... good nite.. its too late for me already... !!!!


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 20, 2007)

rockthegod said:
			
		

> To be precise, we are here to discuss about space conservation with optimum quality... read my earlier post back as I have added a few things which u have definitely missed due to fast posting ... I am not talking about PC playback but playback on ur PMP and I have repeated this fact in every post...
> 
> wow. how this discussion changed its course .. phew... good nite.. its too late for me already... !!!!



plese refer post #21 again and.....

yes i have mentioned it in each and every post........

*that for mobiles 80 kbps HE AAC is just enough to listen songs at optimuuuuumesssssssst quality .*

and dude what are you trying to say ?

for your LC-AAC stuff.....----->

see this graph and tell me which encoding technique wins ?



*img441.imageshack.us/img441/2593/22243549mo6.jpg

*didn't they all meet at 128 kbps ?

between 108 to 128 kbps all the three encoding techniques have same quality .....

isn't even 80 kbps he aac better than 96 kbps lc aac .....which contradicts your earlier posts this :- ---
*


			
				rockthegod said:
			
		

> have compared 80 Kbps HE-AAC to 80 Kbps LC-AAC and both to 96 Kbps LC-AAC.... the order is:
> 96 Kbps LC >> 80 Kbps HE >> 80 Kbps LC....



*one more thing , even AAC main is better in quality than the LC-AAC at 96 or 128 kbps .....

so dude correct urself  by reading this 
*[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]
AAC Main - This is the deluxe model that includes all the tools available and delivers the highest quality audio. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]AAC LC - LC means "low complexity." It reduces audio quality while also reducing processor demand. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]AAC SSR - SSR means "Scalable Sampling Rate." It's the same as LC with a different filter bank and a special gain control.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


			
				www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/ said:
			
		

> There are three profiles for the AAC standard, called Main Profile, Low Complexity Profile, and Scalable Sampling Rate Profile. The Main profile is intended for use when processing, and especially memory, are not at a premium. The Low Complexity profile is intended for use when cycles and memory use are constrained, and the SSR profile when a scalable decoder is required




[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]Through rigorous testing of every imaginable way by The MPEG organization's tested the MPEG family of compression codecs and published the MPEG-2 AAC Stereo Verification Tests. If you just absolutely have to read this thrillride document, it's availabl e as a .zip file at [FONT=arial, helvetica]www.mpeg.org/MPEG/aac.html[/FONT]  [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]The study found this ranking of the best sounding codes:   [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]1) AAC Main encoded at 128 kbps [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]2) AAC LC encoded at 128 kbps [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]3) AAC SSR encoded at 128 kbps [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]4) AAC Main encoded at 96 kbps [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]5) AAC LC encoded at 96 kbps [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]6) MP2 encoded at 192 kbps [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]7) And in 7th place the most popular format today! MP3 encoded at 128 kbps. 
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]source : - www.angrycoffee.com 
and          www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/
 [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

* 


i think i did a mistake of not posting it before 


even i have posted this thread after a lot of experiments and results ......

have read many pdfs on AAC mp3 and all other codecs including this .......readu urself !!
**
*people.arcada.fi/~johnny/MobileAudio7.pdf
*www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3296_tcm6-10497.pdf

 *
Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## ratedrsuperstar (Dec 21, 2007)

for those who don't have ears of carnivores.here's how to do it easily

1.Use mp3gain and set the volume to 98-100db for every song(some songs which have volume about 90-92db might crack if there's heavy bass).so always first analyse them.

2.Use Xillisoft video converter to convert to .m4a.use 32kbps bitrate and 44100 frequency.The normal version allows for 5 min of transcoding per file.
the best part is that it's VBR so the bitrate is maintained according to the complexity in sound at that moment.
                 the result is 75-100kbps of LC-AAC.

3.Use Winamp to edit tags.

i've 523 songs in 1.3gb in my mem-card and quality is same to that of mp3's of anywhere between 128-320kbps and 96-192kbps WMA.

guyz why fight over whose's graph has more slope/area under the curve,etc.lol.it doesn't matter if your screen has a few dead pixels while watching a 1080p movie.


----------



## hac_king (Dec 22, 2007)

@expert no1 U used a lot of time for this thread to compile but 
 buddy i dont think so that ur thread woth any appreciation coz 
 .... i agree AAC have better quality on lower bits
 but only if played on desktop speakers....

In mobile less RMS speakers appr. all bitrates are same.... (if converted properly)

I can bet you in quality that i'll give you even less size MP3 file compared to ur AAC (whatever be the version) and quality is great even better than ur AAC (only in mobile speakers.......)

Method: *Use mp3 cutter n joiner
in settings set minimium bit rate at 32 kbps MONO n quality 3
now goto Variable n set it to 64 n quality 2 (encoding MRAH)
click on FORCE minimum bitrate*

n now get 1.9 mb file size for 5 min song n again i can bet u'll get 
great sound with convetional everywhere used file type....



one more thing... i have near about 180 mp3 songs,,,
2 full 3 hours movies,, 28 avi songs,,
~30-40 softwares all converted by me on my 512 original mmc


----------



## kalpik (Dec 22, 2007)

Well.. I've tried LC-AAC, HE-AAC, HE-AACv2, Ogg *AoTuV*, all at 64 kbps. To me Ogg always sounds the best! Im not saying Ogg is better than AAC.. Just that probably my N70 does not support HE-AAC, as the file sounds right on PC, but it sounds muffled on the phone  Probably the phone discards the SBR part of HE-AAC.


----------



## ratedrsuperstar (Dec 22, 2007)

@hac_king - we're not talking of speakers they sound so lame on every phone.and if you keep audio in mono whats the use of listening music.do you have some mono phone?


----------



## x3060 (Dec 22, 2007)

i downloaded and heard the music in my k750 just now . . and i would not recommend it at the present quality . its full of bass . sounds too bad. i suggest you up the quality settings . .you made that song horrible to listen 

i must add . . the mp3 that you gave along has richness in it . . but it sounds bad too - did you rip from cd?, i dont think so . . please provide a sample that you can rip from cd.

am on phone now . . edit the above -i need a sample that you ripped from cd. in both formats , thats all . with the current settings the mp3 is far rich.and the other is not


----------



## Ramakrishnan (Dec 22, 2007)

Good tutorial, dude, Keep it up


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 22, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> Well.. I've tried LC-AAC, HE-AAC, HE-AACv2, Ogg *AoTuV*, all at 64 kbps. To me Ogg always sounds the best! Im not saying Ogg is better than AAC.. Just that probably my N70 does not support HE-AAC, as the file sounds right on PC, but it sounds muffled on the phone  Probably the phone discards the SBR part of HE-AAC.


 *
Dude N70 doesn't decodes the HE-AAC part of .aac  file*

*dude you have to convert it in .mp4 / .m4a ...*then it will recognize and 

decode the SBR part ...even it supports PS tooo./ N70 rocks !



			
				x3060 said:
			
		

> i downloaded and heard the music in my k750 just now . . and i would not recommend it at the present quality . its full of bass . sounds too bad. i suggest you up the quality settings . .you made that song horrible to listen


@x3060 ....dude does k750 supports AAC+ ?

in gsm arena its given mp3/aac player not eaac/eaac+ player ......

if it doesn't supports eaac then there will be no quality in song bhai ! it will be full of bass .....no SBR !!

i had already mentioned in the first post that only the phone which have eaac support will work !




			
				hac_king said:
			
		

> .... i agree AAC have better quality on lower bits
> but only if played on desktop speakers....
> 
> In mobile less RMS speakers appr. all bitrates are same.... (if converted properly)
> ...


LOL !

i will give you a 24 bitrate .m4a file having Spectral Band Replication and Parametric Stereo ......even mp3 of 64kbps cant beat it in quality in MOBILE SPEAKERS ! .

take a N70 , N72 , N73 or 5700 from any of your friend and play 24 kbps .m4a file (SBR and PS technolgy encoded)

and play your mp3 ....*i challenge you* that the m4a will sound 100 times better than that !!

*Note:- MP3pro has SBR technology but is not supported in mobiles*

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## hac_king (Dec 22, 2007)

@ratedrsuperstar hey y its no use for mono??????
 In mobile speakers mono is best even if set bitrate to 192!!!!]

Coz stereo sound makes a bit noice on less RMS spkrs like mobiles..

Well r u getting MONO as MONOtonic?????


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 22, 2007)

hac_king said:
			
		

> @ratedrsuperstar hey y its no use for mono??????
> In mobile speakers mono is best even if set bitrate to 192!!!!]
> 
> Coz stereo sound makes a bit noice on less RMS spkrs like mobiles..
> ...


who the fool in this world will store 300+ songs in his mobile phone to play the songs in mobile speakers all the time ??

we store songs in good stereo quality to listen in earphones bro !


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## hac_king (Dec 22, 2007)

@expert.... Hummmmm Its the point but i not use much to
 listen thru earphone.....


----------



## x3060 (Dec 22, 2007)

well i have not checked aac+ , so i guess you are right . i dont have a comp handy to check right now . i just said , when i played it in my phone , it sounded crap . i will test in comp later .


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 22, 2007)

^^^^^
thanks bro........

check it and i guarantee that you will not be disappointed !

@hac_king 

thats it dude and please try it on your N72 mobo ....u have N72 na  u posted it in "wmv for s60v3 thread" try the both files and tell me if u get any difference

* N72 too doesn't encodes HE-aac of .aac file so you will need .m4a file bro....keep this in mind ....*

* i think the people here who are telling quality loss is beacuse of this reason only .

so please refer ma first post and follow it strictly !
* 

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 22, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> *
> Dude N70 doesn't decodes the HE-AAC part of .aac  file*
> 
> *dude you have to convert it in .mp4 / .m4a ...*then it will recognize and
> ...


I tried both the m4a and aac *containers*.. Sounds the same in both.. I know theoretically N70 supports both HE-AAC and HE-AAC v2, but i just cannot hear the difference. And BTW, an MP4/M4A file is HE-AAC only! AAC is the codec, and M4A/MP4 is the container. So don't think i dunno anything about audio formats and all  I urge you to try Ogg AoTuV


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 22, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> I tried both the m4a and aac *containers*.. Sounds the same in both.. I know theoretically N70 supports both HE-AAC and HE-AAC v2, but i just cannot hear the difference. And BTW, an MP4/M4A file is HE-AAC only! AAC is the codec, and M4A/MP4 is the container. So don't think i dunno anything about audio formats and all  I urge you to try Ogg AoTuV


dude dude dude.........if you are converting higher bitrate mp3 to higher bitrate m4a ..........it will sound similar bhai !

hear 24-32 kbps m4a he aac , 24 kbps m4a he-aac v2 and 24-32 kbps mp3..........you will get the difference....i too have N70 and you cant fool me 

here is the sample....put both in your mobile and tell me which sounds better 

*m4a_xd (24 kbps SBR+PS 44100 hz 16 bit stereo)*
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/m4a_xd.m4a

*mp3_xd (32 kbps 16 bit 44100 hz stereo)*
*www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/mp3_xd.MP3

Now you will see *THE MAGIC of your phone 

*


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 22, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> dude dude dude.........if you are converting higher bitrate mp3 to higher bitrate m4a ..........it will sound similar bhai !


Where did i say it wont sound similar! Heck i WASNT even comparing MP3 and M4A 



			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> hear 24-32 kbps m4a he aac and 24-32 kbps mp3..........you will get the difference....i too have N70 and you cant fool me


Heh.. Believe me, i've got better things to do than trying to "fool" you. 



			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> here is the sample....put both in your mobile and tell me which sounds better
> 
> *m4a_xd (24 kbps SBR+PS 44100 hz 16 bit stereo)*
> *www.fileden.com/files/2007/12/10/1636697/m4a_xd.m4a
> ...


Wheeeeeee! Geeeeezz.. Man STOP treating others as if they are kids..


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 22, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> Where did i say it wont sound similar! Heck i WASNT even comparing MP3 and M4A
> 
> 
> Heh.. Believe me, i've got better things to do than trying to "fool" you.
> ...



i am sorry if i considered you a kid 

Dude i was talking in the case of N70 that it doesn't decodes HE-aac part of .aac extension file but does of .m4a extension........may be because it is made in 2005.....old phone.........not rich supported .

EVEN it cant read the album , title , bitrate , year , etc of the .aac/.m4a songs

AND you can find difference between HE-aac v1 and he-aac v2 at low bitrates only.....coz he -aac v2 works from 16 to 40 bitrate only....and even there is no requirement of he-aac v2 above 48 kbps.

the difference in he-aac v1 and he-aac v2 is that 

he-aac v1= SBR technology only ...suitable for bitrate above 48 kbps
he-aac v2=SBR+PS technology ...suitable for bitrate <48 kbps

since parametric part only enhances stereo part of the song at lower bitrates(lower bitrate osngs are almost stereoless in mp3) its suitable for lower bitrates only.....at higher bitrates 48-96 kbps HE-AACv1 is fine and above 96 kbps AAC is just enough.....

even if you set the bitrate of he-aac v2 above 70+ kbps .....it will limit itself to 64kbps .....

and he-aac v1 limits itself to 128 kbps

prcatically above 48 kbps there is no difference in quality between v1 and v2 .

see the graph in post 23

thanks for your reply

keep on.....


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

I KNOW all that you just said! I am just saying that i cannot feel that the SBR and PS are being decoded by my N70! That's it!


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> I KNOW all that you just said! I am just saying that i cannot feel that the SBR and PS are being decoded by my N70! That's it!



and i had told earlier that it will only decode sbr part of .m4a ......and which converter are you using ? which file you are playing ?




Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

Im using dbpoweramp only, with the Nero Codec.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

^^which bitrate you tested ...... ? and did you forced HE-aac or LC-aac ? please clarify everything !


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

I tested at 64 kbps.. Tried all.. LC, HE, HE v2.. All sound same..


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> I tested at 64 kbps.. Tried all.. LC, HE, HE v2.. All sound same..


dude at 64 kbps he-aac and he-aac v2 have same quality.....refer ma above posts....

and dude LC would dound somewhat bad ...u can listen hissing in background....did you use speakers (mobile) or headsets ....

and here in this..... we are getting awesome song quality at he-aac between 64-80 kbps.....did you got any quality difference from mp3 of 128-160 kbps and he-aac of 64-80 kbps in you mobile ?


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

hey expert bro you are absolutely right !

i played 128 kbps of mp3 of linkin park - numb in ma n70 and 64 kbps of he-aac .4a file of this songs in my mobile and didn't got any quality differece (heard in headsets and speakers too) you rock buddy !

and the two files you uploaded xd_m4a and xd_mp3 have very very high difference in quality , xd_m4a sounds 10 times better than sx_mp3 with stereo quality and no treble loss 

@kalpik

you are either doing something wrong or you are just troubling expert by saying lie. i have N70 and i tried experts tut step by step and amd getting awesome quality sound .

and oggplay is awesome too !


good word EXPERT !

hats off to you !

put more tut like this

now i can store 350 songs in full quality .yipppppppyyyy !!!!!


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

No difference from MP3.. I can hear the hissing sound.. I use EP-630 with my N70.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

yep....no difference in quality of mp3 128 kbps and .m4a he aac of 80 kbps ...finally.......

phew...........

dont try lc-aac at lower bitrates i.e from 64-80....you will get hissing sound

@dead
hope evryone too try like you and dont post their own stufffs and say "its not working"

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

Oops.. I mean it sounds same as MP3 of 80 kbps.. Anyway.. OGG AoTuV at 64 kbps sounds MUCH better than HE-AAC at 64 kbps.. Why don't you try it once?


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

@kalpik
i am sorry bhai .........i did a big mistake of explaining you the new tech.......go use your mp3 and be happy........

@edit:- /ogg


Thanks
Regards.....
Expetno.1


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

^^what happened bhai ?
i have tried and tested it and is working for me.dont be upset .


@kalpik 

why are you telling false
what you get ?
why are you not accepting whn expert had made the things clear and right

and i have tried ogg autov.it sound heck bad at 64 kbps
and  64 m4a kbps sounds similar to 140 kbps of mp3 and all

expert is right
you are telling lie why ?


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

^^ Cause i love to lie :-S

@expertno.1: Again MP3! Im not taking about MP3! Im talking about OGG AoTuV. Also, i've noticed that OGG requires less processing power.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

yup your mp3 or ogg whatever.......
how can ogg beat technology such as SBR and PS ? 

since HUMAN EAR is the judge .....i get .m4a of 80 kbps h3-aac far better than mp3 and ogg autov

ogg autov is some months old i had tried it both in mobile and pc its just a little improvement over ogg vorbis and theora .....

get encoding speeds faster than ogg autov using ogg lancer (same as autov but optimized for faster encoding)

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

@kalpik.i think that you dont have a hard heart to correct yourself and thats it.
no use of explanation.



			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> yup your mp3 or ogg whatever.......
> how can ogg beat technology such as SBR and PS ?
> 
> since HUMAN EAR is the judge .....i get .m4a of 80 kbps h3-aac far better than mp3 and ogg autov
> ...



ogg lancer .
heard about it.

but i agree that your PS and SBR wins both practically and theretically.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

@kalpik .....dead is saying that he has got the quality and the difference between the codes we debated on....why aren't you getting ?

he too using N70
lol .....how much n70 users here ? three in this page only ..... 

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

@expertno.1

please keep posting such kind of tuts
your tut is right what it says


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks bro......at  least there are some people who are doing it correctly and getting the thing.......practically and theoretically ......i liked this.....and yep its true in both the cases !!


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

If Digit Testers would test these modes for us i am sure that you will stand correct ...


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

*www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35438


> *• AAC-HE (Nero, CBR 80 “high”):* very disappointing score, for this format claimed to be a killer at low bitrate. 80 kbps is probably excessive for AAC-HE, now that AAC-LC implementation are getting better and better (take a look again on POOL#1, and see how AAC-LC have progressed). AAC-HE doesn’t suffer from any lowpass, but the SBR layer is highly impure, and seems to interfere with the lowest part of the spectrum. As result I get constant artefacts, noticed with more than 90% of the tested samples. AAC-HE has a maybe CD spectrum, but it’s like if a cricket was directly screeching in my headphones. Personally, I would consider something poorer (with audible lowpass and some ringing) as better that this (un)constant parasitical noise. Just a personal appreciation; other people might prefer the opposite – I don’t know. AAC-HE also have *big* troubles with attacks (pre-echo) and fine details (smearing), even more audible than simple MP3. AAC-HE would probably more pertinent at lower bitrate, for which other contenders would probably be in pain.
> 
> *• AAC-LC (iTunes, CBR 80)*: poor results. I’ve expected something better, a bit more suitable for listening with portable player. Quality is not *that* bad (just compare to MP3 or WMA for reference), but there are too often irritating distortions. Lowpass is also annoying, at least on ABCHR conditions (with direct comparison with a full quality reference file), probably less perceptible on common earbuds (I’ve tried, and quality suddenly became much less irritating).
> 
> ...


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

if they test 



Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

dead said:
			
		

> If Digit Testers would test these modes for us i am sure that you will stand correct ...


Like i give a damn about Digit tests! LOL!


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> *www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35438
> 
> Not everyone likes the sound of SBR



*i am telling that you will get optimum quality by he-aac of 64 kbps (1.5-2 mb/file) .

plus see this and clarify more....its the test done by organization and not a single person 

*people.arcada.fi/~johnny/MobileAudio7.pdf
*www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3296_tcm6-10497.pdf

moreover its the ogg community ......and they will surely try to prove it as the best 

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1
*


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> Like i give a damn about Digit tests! LOL!



what ? you cosider digit tests as rubbish ?

what a digit reader

and

i have tried SBR on my mobile and i FOUND it optimum quality to play
so no more debates

just thank him !


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

lol......no need to fight !

leave him ....he will not accept the practical proofs

kalpik do whaever you like

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

expertno.1 said:
			
		

> *
> moreover its the ogg community ......and they will surely try to prove it as the best
> *


 You think Hydrogenaudio is OGG community? Ok, i rest my case..


			
				dead said:
			
		

> what ? you cosider digit tests as rubbish ?


Yes.


			
				dead said:
			
		

> what a digit reader


No, im not a digit reader.


			
				dead said:
			
		

> i have tried SBR on my mobile and i FOUND it optimum quality to play
> so no more debates


Good for you! Well i didnt find it to be of "optimum" quality.  I like OGG better. What are you gonna do about it?


			
				dead said:
			
		

> just thank him !


So now i have to take orders from you! HA!


			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> lol......no need to fight !


Exactly! You find AAC better, i find OGG better! What's there to fight! The sense of hearing cannot be really quantified.. So probably to your ears AAC sounds better, and to mine OGG sounds better! We cannot really disprove each other on this!


			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> leave him ....he will not accept the practical proofs


There is NO practical proof! As i said different things sound different to different people! You cannot really "prove" to me that your sense of hearing is better than mine!


			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> kalpik do whaever you like


Why thank you! I will!

Anyway.. i got nothing against anyone here.. Was just looking for a healthy discussion, but i guess this forum cannot handle healthy discussions. Sorry for wasting your time as well as mine.


----------



## Ganeshkumar (Dec 23, 2007)

@ Expert
Thanksssss 

I will try it in my Rokr E6... 

I hope it works for me tooooo 
I understand the logic but let me try...


----------



## 2kewl (Dec 23, 2007)

Don't fight, guys! Music quality like music itself is quite subjective. What one likes, otehr may not.

One must still appreciate expert no.1 for an informative post


----------



## kalpik (Dec 23, 2007)

^^ I sincerely do appreciate


----------



## dead (Dec 23, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> You think Hydrogenaudio is OGG community? Ok, i rest my case..
> Yes.
> No, im not a digit reader.
> Good for you! Well i didnt find it to be of "optimum" quality.  I like OGG better. What are you gonna do about it?
> ...



if you were here at present you would be shamed here of making yourself false.

digit community is for the members who appreciate others works .
most of the people had doubt abt these codecs and all and i think he has done a good job in clarifying everything with every e-book and graph .

you are just standing on your point like a child who cant accept the right .
senseless just from a old member like you . only post count and no sense .

AND digit tests are just awesome from their side and i consider it best for me and many other readers..if you are not a digit reader you cant understand the digit feeling 

AND
why dont you stop making theories yourself
just do test with your mobile which sounds better at lwoer bitrates .
i think you dont have eaac+ mobile capable and you are fighting like hell.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> There is NO practical proof! As i said different things sound different to different people! You cannot really "prove" to me that your sense of hearing is better than mine!


1.*www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html
he aac outperforms here at this listening tests too and for me too

if it doesn't sounds good for you.....
i cant help better stick to your ogg 
i am not forcing you to aac . but only requesting you to try .
even it doesn't works for you.....atleast thanks for the appreciation.


coding technologies original pdf :-
2.*www.codingtechnologies.com/products/assets/CT_aacPlus_whitepaper.pdf


Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## pushkar (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks for the tutorial expertno.1. I previously used Easy CD-DA Extractor for converting mp3s to AAC. Now I am using this. I find this better and faster than Easy CD-DA Extractor.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

yep its a lot whole faster.....can convert to aac in 10-15 seconds /file and less time in more good processors

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## max_demon (Dec 23, 2007)

Can anyone clear my doubts regarding VBR and CBR?


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 23, 2007)

max_demon said:
			
		

> Can anyone clear my doubts regarding VBR and CBR?



this



> *Constant Bit Rate (CBR)* encoding means that you encode a file at a fixed rate, such as 128 Kpbs. For many people this is a common method of encoding MP3s. You can usually tell CBR files because they have consistent file sizes and sound quality. OK, file sizes aren't the kind of thing most of you will look out for. We know that.  *Variable Bit Rate (VBR)* encoding is a method that ensures high audio quality bit-allocation decisions during encoding. The encoder allocates an appropriate amount of data per second, depending on the complexity of the audio file.
> If there are very complex parts in a song it will use a quite high bit rate and a lower bitrate for something such as silence. The average bit rate may not be as high as the bitrate of an MP3 of the same quality with constant bitrate.
> You should use VBR encoding when consistent audio quality is the top priority.





and in simple words....in cbr data/sec is constant and in vbr it changes with the audio 




Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## kalpik (Dec 24, 2007)

dead said:
			
		

> if you were here at present you would be shamed here of making yourself false.
> 
> digit community is for the members who appreciate others works .
> most of the people had doubt abt these codecs and all and i think he has done a good job in clarifying everything with every e-book and graph .
> ...


Whatever.. 



			
				expertno.1 said:
			
		

> 1.*www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html
> he aac outperforms here at this listening tests too and for me too
> 
> if it doesn't sounds good for you.....
> ...


The test compares HE-AAC with OGG.. Not OGG *AoTuV*. And i DID say thanks didnt I! Anyway, this would be my last post in this thread.


----------



## expertno.1 (Dec 25, 2007)

kalpik said:
			
		

> Whatever..
> 
> 
> The test compares HE-AAC with OGG.. Not OGG *AoTuV*. And i DID say thanks didnt I! Anyway, this would be my last post in this thread.



and does your mobile decode ogg autov 

i had said already that i have tried it , not only ogg autov but all other codecs available in mobile . but i find eaac/eaac+ far better than ogg autov at 64-80 kbps because of the SBR tech in aac .

Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1


----------



## vilas_patil (Dec 26, 2007)

Hi, this is my first post on this Forum. I have read each and every post related to this thread. It's really nice to see people with genuine tech knowledge. 
  I really appreciate Mr. Expert No 1 for clarifying the doubts and making them understand how the various upcoming technologies are deferent and good with excellent examples. 
  You have managed to answer everyone’s queries, without loosing your pastients and with the best possible polite way.  You ROCK man


----------



## dead (Dec 26, 2007)

Yep Expertno.1 cleared eveyone's doubt and debated with various examples and everything with patience and without loosing any temper .

yep he ROCKS


----------



## harryneopotter (Dec 26, 2007)

Expert No. 1 has done a really good job ... and i havent expected all this from a senior member like kalpik ........ 

 Did i mentioned that this tut helped me immensly ?????


----------



## dead (Dec 27, 2007)

Expertno.1 too being a senior member reacted far far better than kalpik . 
see kalpiks posts .....its really awkward and ruined for forum members and see expertno.1 polite posts and full explanations . 

"kalpik is just a poster  but Expertno.1 is quality poster"


----------



## dead (Dec 29, 2007)

hey experty , are both .mp4 and .m4a same ?


----------



## kalpik (Dec 29, 2007)

dead said:


> Expertno.1 too being a senior member reacted far far better than kalpik .
> see kalpiks posts .....its really awkward and ruined for forum members and see expertno.1 polite posts and full explanations .
> 
> "kalpik is just a poster  but Expertno.1 is quality poster"


What the **** is wrong with you dude! Me and expert just had a discussion! He got no problems with me, i got no problems with him! Why do have to get your ass in between?


----------



## hahahari (Jan 14, 2008)

give me in a nutshell uys.........does this work or not without compromising the quality.....i usually listen at 192.


----------



## dead (Feb 4, 2008)

hahahari said:


> give me in a nutshell uys.........does this work or not without compromising the quality.....i usually listen at 192.



Yep it works 100% without comprimising any quality ! for 64-80 kbps

even if u use m4a of 32 kbps with SBR and PS u wont notice a slight difference .

try it yourself


----------



## Zangetsu (Feb 6, 2008)

Did anybody tried total audio converter ?


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Feb 6, 2008)

I would prefer using a batch file to do mass encoding of files using Nero AAC.
Besides, on a mobile 64 kbps mono/parametric stereo is enough.
I can even vouch that q-0.075 can sound decent on a mobile, if its encoded directly from a lossless source.

and yes, to all n00bs here: trying to transcode an audio file from one lossy format to another can/may/will result in a noticable loss in quality due to which music enthusiasts will be highly disappointed.


----------



## ranjan2001 (Feb 10, 2008)

dead said:


> hey experty , are both .mp4 and .m4a same ?


I need an answer too, are they same?


----------



## r2d2 (Feb 11, 2008)

^^ Yes


----------



## Rockstar11 (Feb 11, 2008)

dead said:


> hey experty , are both .mp4 and .m4a same ?



MPEG-4 files with audio and video generally use the standard .mp4 extension.

Audio-only MPEG-4 files generally have a .m4a extension. This is especially true of non-protected content.

* MPEG-4 files with audio streams encrypted by FairPlay Digital Rights Management as sold through the iTunes Store use the .m4p extension.


----------



## kumarmohit (Feb 11, 2008)

All in all when you transcode your files from whatever to whatever, the resulting quality is crap.


----------



## deepakchan (Feb 11, 2008)

How to batch convert many mp3 files into wma using Windows Media Encoder 9.? I need this for my WM6 phone.


----------



## dead (Mar 2, 2008)

use dbpoweramp music converter for batch converting wma files after loading wma codec from codec central of www.dbpoweramp.com

it is free for wma and batch conversion


----------



## kumarmohit (Mar 2, 2008)

Does not the WM6 phone support MP3? why do you want to convert?


----------

