Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 10, 2009, 01:46 AM   #1
devburke
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Any advantage to using HE-AAC at higher bitrates?

So iTunes 9 introduced the ability to encode in HE-AAC (as well as AAC with bitrates up to 320 kbps), but everything I see on the internet about it basically says it allows better quality at lower bitrates. Does it help for higher bitrates too?
devburke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2009, 02:22 AM   #2
J the Ninja
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
"Better quality for the same bit rate" is a better way of putting it.
__________________
Flickr | deviantART | Vimeo
J the Ninja is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2009, 02:29 AM   #3
devburke
Thread Starter
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by J the Ninja View Post
"Better quality for the same bit rate" is a better way of putting it.
So really, there’s reason not to use it?
devburke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2009, 03:18 PM   #4
InnocenceMyth
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by devburke View Post
So really, there’s reason not to use it?
A) you *can't* use it in iTunes for bitrates higher than 80

B) its "efficiency" comes from replicating the higher frequencies. The higher the bitrate, the less need to replicate them because they are already there
InnocenceMyth is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2009, 04:24 AM   #5
Nermal
Moderator
 
Nermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Whakatane, New Zealand
I'm a bit bored so I did some tests, AAC at the default bitrate (256 kb/s) vs HE-AAC at the default (64). It's not really a fair comparison and AAC at 256 definitely sounded better. I'm not an audiophile and even I could tell the difference

When compared with AAC at 128, things may be a bit closer (I didn't test this). HE didn't sound bad (just not as good as AAC at 256), and certainly looks like a good competitor when you have limited space.
Nermal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2009, 05:41 AM   #6
broken-chaos
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Send a message via AIM to broken-chaos Send a message via MSN to broken-chaos
Sounds like it could be a pretty good codec to choose for combining with some (particularly streaming) movie or video encodes. You often don't need extremely high sound quality (particularly if it gets used for something like YouTube!), and bandwidth is still a very valuable resource to conserve.

I'll not be swapping any music over to it, but stuffing more quality in low bitrates is definitely a worthwhile endeavour.
broken-chaos is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iCloud/Protected AAC vs. Purchased AAC bsake iCloud and Apple Services 1 Jul 16, 2013 08:33 AM
Higher DPI Means Higher Resolution (Really?) leerkeller Digital Photography 4 Jun 13, 2013 08:37 AM
Advantage of 10.8.2 over 10.7.5? Thanks Jeff Troiano Mac Pro 25 Jan 27, 2013 05:03 PM
protected AAC instead of matched AAC MacMan988 iCloud and Apple Services 1 Nov 14, 2012 02:22 AM
iTunes + converting songs to higher AAC Timshan0876 iPhone 5 Jun 22, 2012 07:47 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC