Questions about AAC+

[ClassicRox]

I have a few questions about AAC+ encoding, and I'd be very appreciative to anyone who could help me.

1. Is this form of encoding at least equal to 128kps stereo streaming?

2. What and where do I need to download in order to be able to encode to AAC+?

3. Will encoding into this format allow non-Winamp users to continue to tune in? (mostly regarding Windows Media Player users).

4. Will song titles still be sent to the listener?


Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Needed to add Question #4

[rockouthippie]

1. No, but it does give good performance at low bandwidths.
2. The premium version of Winamp has the encoder.
3. WMP won't work.
4. Yes

[drewbar]

Free does too, just make sure you download Winamp 5.1X Full (lite does not include AACPlus) and SHOUTcast DSP 1.9.0

[ClassicRox]

Ok guys, thanks very much for the info!

Rockouthippie - what would you say would be the equivalent sound quality of AAC+ broadcasting at 56k in comparison to MP3 streaming? 80kps? 96kps?

[rockouthippie]

I don't think I'd compare AAC+ with MP3, it's a different idea. It sounds decent in modem bandwidths (40 kbps).

If you use high bandwidths with AAC+, the trickery it uses to cram sound into modem bandwidths becomes evident and it becomes less of an option.

This is not an audiophiles codec, but a neat "trick". A very neat trick.

So, the comparisons like (sounds as good as) really don't matter. The point is that you can transmit to modems and get decent (while not very accurate) sound.

In the absense of a compelling reason (like not having enough bandwidth), I would use MP3.

Examples of AACplus stream at the web below. You'll notice in 40k, the sound is "good".

Just an FYI, my modem low bandwidth stream almost never gets used. I don't think modem users have figured out that they can get decent sounding internet radio too.

[drewbar]

Plus, it goes beyond modems. It's a matter of money if you are paying with bandwidth. If you can replace a 128kbps MP3 stream with a 64kbps AACPlus or even a 96kbps AACPlus stream, it is a big diffrence if you are paying based on the amount of data you trasnfer.

[rockouthippie]

That's kind of my point. I don't see this codec as a replacement for AAC or MP3.

Here's my analysis.

At 48kbps:

AACplus > AAC > MP3

At 96k:

AAC > MP3 > AAC+

At 160kpbs

MP3 > AAC > AAC+

In my opinion AAC+ is in no way a replacement for the other codecs.

I think high bandwidth AAC+ sounds "weird".

You'll notice that I rate MP3 at very high bandwidths as being better than the AAC codecs and that assessment is correct.

The right tool for the right job.

[ClassicRox]

Great job, guys! You provided me with all the info I needed! I kept thinking that AAC+ was the next best thing, but your comments have convinced me that 128kps is still better than anything else available.

Thanks again for all your help

[CraigF]

again, depends on how you pay for your connectivity, or what your max listeners/concurrent listeners is.

switching to aac+ can in some cases allow you to support more concurrent listeners, or save on bandwidth charges.

if neither of the above are relevent to you, then you'll see little benefit.

[Llord]

Hi,

You're having differents encoding methods :
- With an "expensive" codec, stream'll work on many players and OS.
http://www.orban.com/orban/products/..._overview.html
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/aacPlus.htm

- With a sofware encoder.. it's free but some players can have problem reading stream.

They are many tools to encode AAC+ files...