MP3 Player recommendation

[t0rek]

Yes please provide them. Please rip some seconds of one song of your CDs, one in HE-AAC + PS @ 32 and the same seconds in LAME MP3 CBR @ 128. Not the whole song because of the copyright stuff and forum rules, you know.

Anyhow, read this stuff:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html

The first (obvious) conclusion is: No codec delivers the marketing plot of same quality as MP3 at half the bitrates.

Consider that this conclusion came by comparing HE-AAC @ 64 with LAME MP3 @ 128. If HE-AAC @ 64 doesn't have the same quality as MP3 @ 128, how would you explain a HE-AAC bitrate offering superior quality? sorry, but you are satisfied with very low bitrates / sound quality, and that's fine if you prefer it that way.

 

[General Plot]

Just too bad it sucks at everything else. Sold mine, couldn't be happier without it.

Dunno, now that we have full res video capability, if converted right, videos look downright crisp on it. Games are beginning to get better as well. In any event, I'm not letting go of mine any time soon.

 

[Toasty]

Please rip some seconds of one song of your CDs, one in HE-AAC + PS @ 32 and the same seconds in LAME MP3 CBR @ 128. Not the whole song because of the copyright stuff and forum rules, you know.

Or he could just use a public domain song.

 

[JKKDARK]

Games are beginning to get better as well.

 

[General Plot]

Need I remind you?lain:

http://psp.ign.com/objects/711/711340.html

 

[Doomulation]

Yes please provide them. Please rip some seconds of one song of your CDs, one in HE-AAC + PS @ 32 and the same seconds in LAME MP3 CBR @ 128. Not the whole song because of the copyright stuff and forum rules, you know.

I'll provide some samples. Unfortunately, I have not any CDs around and all currently uncoverted MP3s are at highest 128 kbps, but I could try to find some mp3s from the web. Otherwise, anyone is free to donate a sample, of course.

Anyhow, read this stuff:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html

3 notes:

1) Page is old (it dates from 2004!)
2) All codecs deliver not the same quality.
3) I use Winamp's AAC encoder, not Ahead's.

Consider that this conclusion came by comparing HE-AAC @ 64 with LAME MP3 @ 128. If HE-AAC @ 64 doesn't have the same quality as MP3 @ 128, how would you explain a HE-AAC bitrate offering superior quality? sorry, but you are satisfied with very low bitrates / sound quality, and that's fine if you prefer it that way.

See above.

 

[t0rek]

So you are telling me that in 3 years they have improved the codec so much that now is like 2 or 3 times better? Don't think so. And of course another codec version will have different quality, but it's not such a giant margin...

UPDATE: Since I use Winamp too and Winamp uses LAME MP3 coder I'll make the test just for reference purposes.

The test:

"In my Place" by Coldplay will be ripped using Winamp 5.35 in the following formats:

LAME MP3 @ 128 CBR = Size 3,49 Mb
HE-AAC @ 32 = Size 919 Kb
HE-AAC @ 24 = Size 691 Kb

The files are inside the 7Zip file attachment, I used no compression, so it's just a container for this purpose.

So now, the ET jury will give a veredict

 

[smcd]

I for one can tell a difference between the files, even between the 24 and 32 bitrate... the highs and mid range sounds suffer a great deal.

 

[Toasty]

Ditto. Stereo separation also seems to take a hit in both the low-bitrate encodes.

 

[Doomulation]

So you are telling me that in 3 years they have improved the codec so much that now is like 2 or 3 times better? Don't think so. And of course another codec version will have different quality, but it's not such a giant margin...

Compression is a difficult thing... don't judge it too harshly. Testing is always the best option.

So now, the ET jury will give a veredict

I'll listen to your encodes and give you my verdict a little later when it's done. Just to check, but you DID use Parametric Stereo, right?

EDIT: Verdict is in. Your encodes sound "slightly" different. I could hear a slight problem at the "long" @ about 42 seconds in the song. Very, very subtle. HOWEVER, I took the liberty of compressing your MP3 myself and I couldn't hear a difference! So, here, I attach these files, 32 and 24. What's your verdict, EmuTalk buddies?

 

[Trotterwatch]

Ok, I can easily tell the difference with t0reks one (blind test).

The 24/32 ones were horrible.

Doomulation, your ones were slightly better but I'm sorry no way is that of a quality I'd be happy to listen to. Maybe if you are using very cheap speakers, but using decent headphones makes it unpleasant to say the least. Seems to clip a lot.

Maybe a trip to the Doctors to get your earwax removed is in order?

/Edit

My blind testing method was to create an empty Winamp playlist, put the 3 tracks in and then tap the skip track key a number of times so I didn't know which track was which. I then listened and noted what I thought. After that I skipped 1 track at a time.

I then did the same for yours.

 

[Doomulation]

You're too picky
I'm using a laptop with high-quality headphones myself, so... But my desktop speakers make it sound terrific too. They can even transform 56 kbps MP3 to terrific quality. Must be the sound card. Maybe the speakers too. They're both high quality I believe...
Anyway, is there any specific part that you found horrible or everything?
Btw, clip? What exactly is this "clip" effect? Can you describe it because I'm not sure I understand what it is. Maybe you could also point out WHERE the clipping effect occours.

EDIT: Two more files for you to listen to, if you're interested. 40/48 kbps, HE-AAC + PS
Also, one file, 56 kbps NO Parametric Stereo.

 

[t0rek]

MMM, I have no experience with AAC, so I didn't use the Parametric Stereo thing (is that something like Joint Stereo thing in MP3?), so I'm gonna rip them from the CD again and post them here. No point in using Doom files, you lose a bit of quality in any recomprenssion,they will sound better ripped from the original CD in theory, so here they are the files with the parametric stereo thing.

EDIT: Hey you talked about 32/24 first, and now you are talking about higher bitrate. If you use 64 HE-AAC it will be ALMOST the same as LAME MP3 @ 128 CBR. I even admit that

 

[Toasty]

@Doom: Your encodes did sound better than t0rek's, but I can still easily see (or hear, rather) that details have been lost, even in the 48kbps and 56kbps encodes. A blind test confirmed this with me as well. I will admit I'm impressed with how well AAC performs at low bitrates, but unless I was in a car with bad speakers and a lot of road noise, I still don't think I'd find those encodes acceptable. Like I said before though, how "good" an encoded file is depends on the listener. If you find 32kbps AAC acceptable, more power to you - you're lucky to not have to buy as much storage space for music!

EDIT: Will have to listen to t0rek's newest encodes later.

 

[t0rek]

Added more files, the same bitrates Doom just posted, except this ones are ripped out right from the CD.

 

[Trotterwatch]

Anyway, is there any specific part that you found horrible or everything?
Btw, clip? What exactly is this "clip" effect? Can you describe it because I'm not sure I understand what it is. Maybe you could also point out WHERE the clipping effect occours.

The sound isn't rich, it sounds very shallow and tinny, their is no depth at all to it. There are sounds that just seem cut off in frequency, and the whole thing is distorted and noisy. I'd listen to it in the absence of any other versions (like if it were a leak) but I'd be replacing it ASAP.

There are occasions when this isn't a bad thing. I had a leeked Oasis album once (Heathen Chemistry), 64kbs WMA which normally would sound awful, but I liked it. When it came out I picked up the CD and thought it was crap - too clean. The low bitrate WMA file was a bit grittier.

t0rek, the other files you just posted the 56 Stereo one was the best for me, a tiny bit more full sounding.

Generally I rip at 192vbr. Recently I've started converting some of the .flac files I have on my HD to v0 MP3 or 192vbr, as their isn't any discernible difference to me.

 

[t0rek]

I also rip MP3s @ 192 VBR and 225 VBR according to the stuff. 64 HE-AAC is supossed to sound almost like MP3 @ 128 CBR.

EDIT: So it seems that everybody notice the difference Doom, but if you are comfortable with that is your choice.

Back on topic, according to Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Hardware

...only a few players other than the iPod read AAC. It might be others around, but who knows. Also there's a Sansa model that reads AAC with an updated firmware, if I am lucky I might get AAC playback with a new firmware, who knows.

BTW which AAC player do you use Doom?

 

[Doomulation]

Well, let's find the sweetspot then, 'cuz I'm really interested in what you all find the sweetspot with AAC. I stand by that HE-AAC + PS @ 32/24 sounds perfect to me, but that seems just me. I don't have the original, so all I can do is do a lossy re-encode. If SOMEONE would provide me with the original, I can use it for re-compressing!

What is PS you ask? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Stereo
Which AAC player do I use, you ask? Nokia 6131.

HE-AAC also further somewhat degrades the sound, so perhaps we should try LC-AAC. You may yet find good music at low bitrates

EDIT: Listening test. Who wants to participate?
http://www.eluni.net/temp/We Built This City Listening Test.7z
File contains an original MP3 @ 320 kbps plus HE-AAC + PS @ 24-72 kbps, HE-AAC only (no PS) @ 24-72 and last, LC-AAC @ 24-104 kbps.
Let me know the results of the encodings. All encodings were done with Winamp's encoder, though LC-AAC was done through BeHappy.
Discalimer: I am in no way responsible for what you do with these files. They are provided here by me for LISTENING TEST ONLY. All other uses are done at your own risk.

 

[t0rek]

hey hey... the original is in the CD, how can I let you have it? sending you a WAV file? that will be crazy.

mmm, it seems that parametric stereo thing is like an improved MP3's Joint Stereo thing

 

[Doomulation]

hey hey... the original is in the CD, how can I let you have it? sending you a WAV file? that will be crazy.

You could rip it and compress it via lossless...
Though so again, it is not necessary... unless you absolutely want to, that is.