home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Forums
OffTopic
Number of audio channels, & sound quality
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 1170518" data-attributes="member: 82144"><p>Hello</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you really do mean louder when you say "better", the response I gave to a similar question yesterday may be relevant:</p><p><a href="https://forum.team-mediaportal.com/threads/noob-here-help-with-channel-change-freezing-please.133208/page-2#post-1170405" target="_blank">https://forum.team-mediaportal.com/threads/noob-here-help-with-channel-change-freezing-please.133208/page-2#post-1170405</a></p><p></p><p>Otherwise I think your question is unclear, and requires more context including a precise definition of what you mean by "better".</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, the answer entirely depends on the context (audio setup, media source etc.) and what you mean by "better".</p><p></p><p>As far as I'm aware, neither of the encoding schemes you mentioned are so technically superior (eg. capable of reproducing a wider frequency and/or dynamic range, more efficient compression etc.) that one would <em>always </em>sound <em>noticeably </em>"better" - whatever that means - than the other. Therefore I'd be surprised if the difference you are noting related to technical aspects of the formats.</p><p></p><p>Rather, I think "better" would be a subjective judgement (ie. personal preference) of the match between your particular audio setup and the quality/intent of the mixing and mastering (encoding). For example, as mentioned in the linked comment above, AC3/DD for films seems to often be encoded with wider dynamic range in order to convey realism. The audio doesn't have to be encoded that way, but it often is because when whispers are almost inaudible and explosions blow you out of your seat then you're drawn into the story. Anyhow, such a mix/encode is perfect if you have a surround sound system, a home theatre room with little or no background noise, and don't have to worry about noise complaints. On the other hand, if you've got a stereo system, city/family noises all around, and a neighbour through the wall who is sensitive to noise, a 2 channel AAC track encoded with less of the low end (bass) effects and less dynamic range might be "better".</p><p></p><p><strong>What I'm trying to say is that audio formats are designed to be suitable for use in a certain range of applications, and audio tracks are mixed and encoded for specific application(s).</strong> If [for example] you're listening to a format/track that's intended for playback in a surround sound context (as AC3 often is) with cheap and tinny stereo TV speakers, it's no surprise that you'd be disappointed. Likewise if you're listening to a format/track that's optimised for stereo speakers and relatively low quality bit-rate (as TV AAC often is) then you may be disappointed when you listen to it with a quality sound system. However if you select a track that matches the context of your audio setup, you're less likely to be disappointed.</p><p></p><p>An example of technical superiority - <strong>for a particular application/context </strong>- might be that AAC supports far lower sample and bit rates than AC3. Therefore if given a choice between AAC and AC3 for encoding dialogue that only needs to be intelligible (eg. podcast, phone audio), AAC would be the more appropriate choice.</p><p></p><p>Does this make sense?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, "higher quality" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.</p><p></p><p>I think all that I can say in response to this question/comment is that I generally prefer AC3/DD over MPEG, AAC or HE-AAC. I prefer it because when I encounter AAC (and MPEG) it's almost always in the form of a relatively low bit-rate stereo (2 channel) TV channel mix encoded for intelligibility even on the "lowest common denominator" built in TV speakers. Compared to a parallel 5.1 AC3 track, this means that the high frequencies sound tinny and over-emphasized while bass and/or low frequency effect content is almost or completely missing. My PC sound chip is just a motherboard-based Realtek jobbie but I have monitor-quality stereo speakers, so I can absolutely hear the difference. To my ear the AC3 is "better", hands down.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 1170518, member: 82144"] Hello If you really do mean louder when you say "better", the response I gave to a similar question yesterday may be relevant: [URL]https://forum.team-mediaportal.com/threads/noob-here-help-with-channel-change-freezing-please.133208/page-2#post-1170405[/URL] Otherwise I think your question is unclear, and requires more context including a precise definition of what you mean by "better". Again, the answer entirely depends on the context (audio setup, media source etc.) and what you mean by "better". As far as I'm aware, neither of the encoding schemes you mentioned are so technically superior (eg. capable of reproducing a wider frequency and/or dynamic range, more efficient compression etc.) that one would [I]always [/I]sound [I]noticeably [/I]"better" - whatever that means - than the other. Therefore I'd be surprised if the difference you are noting related to technical aspects of the formats. Rather, I think "better" would be a subjective judgement (ie. personal preference) of the match between your particular audio setup and the quality/intent of the mixing and mastering (encoding). For example, as mentioned in the linked comment above, AC3/DD for films seems to often be encoded with wider dynamic range in order to convey realism. The audio doesn't have to be encoded that way, but it often is because when whispers are almost inaudible and explosions blow you out of your seat then you're drawn into the story. Anyhow, such a mix/encode is perfect if you have a surround sound system, a home theatre room with little or no background noise, and don't have to worry about noise complaints. On the other hand, if you've got a stereo system, city/family noises all around, and a neighbour through the wall who is sensitive to noise, a 2 channel AAC track encoded with less of the low end (bass) effects and less dynamic range might be "better". [B]What I'm trying to say is that audio formats are designed to be suitable for use in a certain range of applications, and audio tracks are mixed and encoded for specific application(s).[/B] If [for example] you're listening to a format/track that's intended for playback in a surround sound context (as AC3 often is) with cheap and tinny stereo TV speakers, it's no surprise that you'd be disappointed. Likewise if you're listening to a format/track that's optimised for stereo speakers and relatively low quality bit-rate (as TV AAC often is) then you may be disappointed when you listen to it with a quality sound system. However if you select a track that matches the context of your audio setup, you're less likely to be disappointed. An example of technical superiority - [B]for a particular application/context [/B]- might be that AAC supports far lower sample and bit rates than AC3. Therefore if given a choice between AAC and AC3 for encoding dialogue that only needs to be intelligible (eg. podcast, phone audio), AAC would be the more appropriate choice. Does this make sense? Again, "higher quality" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I think all that I can say in response to this question/comment is that I generally prefer AC3/DD over MPEG, AAC or HE-AAC. I prefer it because when I encounter AAC (and MPEG) it's almost always in the form of a relatively low bit-rate stereo (2 channel) TV channel mix encoded for intelligibility even on the "lowest common denominator" built in TV speakers. Compared to a parallel 5.1 AC3 track, this means that the high frequencies sound tinny and over-emphasized while bass and/or low frequency effect content is almost or completely missing. My PC sound chip is just a motherboard-based Realtek jobbie but I have monitor-quality stereo speakers, so I can absolutely hear the difference. To my ear the AC3 is "better", hands down. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
OffTopic
Number of audio channels, & sound quality
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom