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

[expertno.1]

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But now dont be a mere mp3 songs listener coz mp3 is outdated now !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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lucky_star]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[expertno.1]

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)

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]

....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...

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

*www.codingtechnologies.com/pr...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 !!

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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 .

and one more thing you donno abt bitrates...if u then why writing 96 KBps , kb in capital ?????

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.

Further controlled testing by 3GPP during their revision 6 specification process indicates that HE-AAC and its derivative MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2 provide "Good" audio quality for music at low bit rates (e.g. 24 kb/s).

MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AAC LC decoders without SBR support will decode the AAC LC part of the audio, resulting in audio output with ony half the sampling frequency, thereby reducing the audio bandwidth. No known tests have been conducted which compare the audio quality of such decoded material.

HE-AAC today competes only with Microsoft's low-bitrate WMA Professional codec.

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...

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]

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

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]

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 ?
Thanks
Regards.....
Expertno.1

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]

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]

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...