[Icecast] Re: [Vorbis] AACplus

[Geoff Shang]

Monty wrote:

>> I'm seeing more and more streaming stations using AACplus, with many
>> listeners being amazed at the sound quality.  Most say that a 48kb/s sounds
>> better than a 128kb/s MP3,
>
> That's claiming a bit much.  Even against the original Blade this
> would require not paying much attention.  What's true is that the
> artifacts sound very different, so if you're listening for mp3-like
> high-end problems, you probably won't hear them.

You have to admit though that even Vorbis -q -1 in Vorbis 1.1 and aoTuV B3 
does sound pretty impressive at circa 48kbps.

>> which would put Ogg Vorbis at around 96kb/s IMO.
>
> Not really.  64kbps Ogg is still a little better than the 48kbps
> AAC+SBR we're talking about.

I've not heard any of the  AAC codecs, mainly due to the difficulties in 
playing them under lInux, but q -0 Vorbis compares very well (IMHO) to 
128kbps MP3.  Certainly q 1 does, and that's still only circa 80kbps.

> That's not to say the low bitrate AAC+SBR isn't very good; as a new
> codec, it's quite an improvement to classic AAC at low bitrates.  But
> many of the press-release claims are (understandibly) pushing the
> envelope of what is really believable.

I'll never forget what you wrote on the "Dare to Compare" Ogg Vorbis page. 
You were so convinced, simply by the hype, that WMA 8 was so good at low 
rates.  That was until you heard it.  This sounds like good advice to me - 
people should listen for themselves.

> Also, it's absolutely true that at the lowest bitrates (32/48kbps)
> AAC+SBR currently has a decent edge over Vorbis low bitrate.  Everyone
> is still moving forward and the lead changes back and forth.  The low
> bitrate race is pretty much down to new AAC and Ogg these days.  At
> low bitrate, AAC is ahead, at mid-bitrate Vorbis is still leading.

Have you had a chance to try out aoTuv B3 yet?  As far as I can remember, 
aoTuV's quality -2 sounds like quality -1 in Vorbis 1.0, but at 
considerably lower bitrates.

Geoff.