Have anyone tried Real 2 channel audio codec yet?

[Sgt_Strider]

If so, which bitrate have you been using for DVD rips? Also maybe give me your opinion on it? Thx

[Sirber]

Using surround codec, you can use 64kbps and 96kbps. 96 is CD Quality and 64kbps is quite good also. Self-testing is always the best way :)

[S_O]

96 is CD QualityNO!!!
Any lossy codec is never CD quality at any bitrate. These claims are normly done by M$ (48 = near CD, 64 = CD) and complety wrong. Please don´t behave like M$ and write such bullshit.

About self-testing, I agree.

You are a Real expert, can you tell what is the difference between Stereo and Surround Mode? The channel coupling?

[Sirber]

No ones claims that they are experts, that's why I said that he should try and compare. Also, "CD Quality" is more an expression than a real bit-to-bit comparison. I read a lot and did some tests to say something like that. I'm not an expert, but I'm not a noob :)

[RadicalEd]

:\
I've never used surround, but I've found regular stereo to be good at 96kbps, and not bad at 64.

[S_O]

Also, "CD Quality" is more an expression than a real bit-to-bit comparison.But an wrong expression that should not be used. CD-Quality is 44100Hz; Stereo; 16 Bit int PCM and nothing else. You could say "At 96kbps most people won´t hear a difference to CD", that doesn´t sound as good as "CD-Quality", but it is correct.
Also if you listen to WMA8 @ 64kbps you´ll see that this expression is used very often total incorrect, everybody (except deaf people) can hear a differnence between WMA and CD and WMA is everything else than CD-Quality (except WMA Lossless). Or as somebody said at HA: "they must have used a very bad CD player". You see, because of the missuse of this expression it´s more bad than good. People might think:
CD-Quality = WMA8 64kbps = 96kbps Real Gecko

For surround mode, what is the encoding differnce? This option is for suuround encoded material, where the phase-information must be kept to be able to decode it correctly (no intensity stereo). Is that all difference?

[Sirber]

Real Audio Surround codec can go up to 48 000 Hz, while Stereo Music clip at 44 100 Hz. That's why I always recommand surround codec for movies. I had problems with normal stereo on Naruto. Also, we are talking abour RealAudio, not WMA8 :) I don't like WMA quality, at any bitrate.

[bleo]

As far as I can tell, the RA Surround codec also resamples 48,000 Hz input to 44,100 Hz.

[hans-jürgen]

Originally posted by Sgt_Strider
If so, which bitrate have you been using for DVD rips? Also maybe give me your opinion on it? Thx RealAudio was part of the 64 kbps (and 128 kbps) listening test that the german computer magazine c't conducted one year ago. I didn't like it very much, but at least it was better than Ogg Vorbis in my opinion, so I ranked it on the fourth position with FhG AAC being first, WMA9 second and mp3PRO third. The worst was MP3, by the way, but all of this is only my personal impression which I further described in this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=13&t=3291

I'm not sure if these old links still work in the new forum software though...

[Dark-Cracker]

avoid to use surround codec if your input source was not surround u can hurt the output.

[bond]

what codec are you all talking about? as there is cook and atrac3 available as "realaudio" i think!?

anyone can clearify whats the purpose/difference of this two codecs?

[Sirber]

cook is for 96kbps and bellow, and atrac3 for 132kbps and more. I tryed cook ACM at 66kbps, and it's worse than MP3...

Originally posted by Dark-Cracker
avoid to use surround codec if your input source was not surround u can hurt the output. I never had any problem with surround codec and output.

[edit]

It was atrac3 ACM... :D

[bond]

cook is worse than (normal) mp3 @64?

wow, what codec uses real for low-bitrate streaming purposes then?
if atrac3 is only for higher ones, i thought that cook should be usefull for low bitrates...

[Sirber]

oups!!

I made a mistake. I tryed atrac3 ACM. There is no cook ACM :D

[bond]

so cook is the choice for 64 and atrac3 for 132+?

how is cook compared to vorbis? any experiences?

[Sirber]

"so cook is the choice for 64 and atrac3 for 132+?"

Yes.

"how is cook compared to vorbis? any experiences?"

I made a test with cook and vorbis at 64kbps with "Walking Wounded" from Tea Party Tengent CD. Both sound quality is good, but cook seems to limit the stereo range, while vorbis is #1.

As usual, make your own tests and choose the best for your needs :)