What's better: AAC-LC 128k or HE-AACv1 96k?

[zambelli]

Let's assume the AAC encoder is either Nero or MainConcept.

What would yield better quality?


HE-AACv2 64 kbps or AAC-LC 96 kbps?
HE-AACv1 80 kbps or AAC-LC 128 kbps?
HE-AACv1 96 kbps or AAC-LC 128 kbps?


Let's assume "quality" is defined as perceptual, not mathematical (SNR).

P.S. Yes, I realize I could figure out the answer myself with extensive blind testing, but I'm trying to save some time. :)

[nurbs]

HEv2 typically isn't used above ~48 kbps and HE isn't used above ~80kbps because they are not useful for quality anymore. PS is bad for stereo separation and some people can hear SBR, plus why replicate high frequencies if you have enough bitrate to encode them. In all your examples the higher bitrate encode should give better quality

[mindbomb]

i also would guess the higher bitrate ones would be better

[IgorC]

HEv2 typically isn't used above ~48 kbps and HE isn't used above ~80kbps because they are not useful for quality anymore.
Right.


Nero and Apple AAC encoders (default profiles - recommended) don't go for HE at bitrates >80 kbps. LC-AAC is already better than HE-AAC at >80 kbps.

As of HE-AAC v2. It is not better than HE-AAC v1 already at 48 kbps. http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/aac_48/results.html

My own listening test shows that LC-AAC 80 kbps encoded with high quality VBR encoder can do better than HE-AAC v1 (or at least on par). http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74781&hl=


Zambelli, is it something to do with upcoming verification tests of new standard for audio coding known as USAC?

[zambelli]

No, just trying to get an idea of whether it's worth spending a few extra kilobits to encode in LC instead of licensing an HE decoder.