AAC+ (HE AAC) vs. mp3PRO

**dj_stick** · Mar 9, 2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

that's true..

but there will ALWAYS be the shitty stereos... surround sound units.... and there will always be the people that never have it setup properly ever.. (you don't know how many houses i've been in where they have a stereo with both speakers litterly sitting beside each other or ontop of each other)

that's the benefit stereo has over surround - it still sounds acceptable no matter how the speakers are arrayed - where as surround sounds like pure crap if the speakers aren't set up correctly

Judas · Mar 9, 2009, 08:10 PM

surround sound sounds just as good if all the speakers are allined side by side in the proper order.. and frankly i haven't come across a single household that hasn't setup the surround sound inproperly in that way..

Mac Daddy · Mar 9, 2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_stick

that's the benefit stereo has over surround - it still sounds acceptable no matter how the speakers are arrayed - where as surround sounds like pure crap if the speakers aren't set up correctly

I think you have that backwards ... The surround channels are modulated true speaker placement in stereo is harder to achieve.

**dj_stick** · Mar 9, 2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Daddy

I think you have that backwards ... The surround channels are modulated true speaker placement in stereo is harder to achieve.

i'm not sure what you mean by modulated... but even if "true" stereo isn't achieved, the result is still acceptable - you can still hear what's been played with a minimum of phase issues, no matter where you're standing in relation to the speakers - surround sound pretty much fails if you're not in the "sweet" spot

I understand how improperly setup stereo speakers will destroy the stereo image and there'll be no "sweet" spot, even moving out of the sweet spot will destroy the stereo image - BUT - it's much less of an issue than with surround sound

Tyrsonswood · Mar 9, 2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GigaWatt

that's right... but nevertheless, quadraphonic audio was nothing more than enhanced stereo... back then most commercial sound systems didn't have any kind of multichannel support... the stereo signal (either from radios, tapes, record players, etc.) was simply converted (sort of speaking) into a 4 channel signal... now that doesn't count as multichannel audio...

That's not entirly true, back around '75-'77 there were some 8track and LP's that were quad and were mixed from the get go for quad systems, which included special turntable and tape deck. Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" was one, it was relesed in both versions and the quad would not play (properly) on a stereo system. Dark Side in quad through quad headphones, yes they existed also, was very impressive. Not quite as impressive as the live show but they had some monster 20 channel PA or something for that gig.....

These systems would "enhance" a stereo signal, but could also play true quad tapes or lp's with discrete channels.

Me thinks I just gave away my age.....

Judas · Mar 10, 2009, 12:00 AM

I did some more looking into the quadrophonic 8 track player and yes... with the 8 track players.. they were capable of up to even 8 seperate channels of audio at a time provided you had a player capable of it and you also lost amount of play time in the process (no tracks to switch to..)

aka, typically 4x stereo tracks..... however the pink floyd one (as an example) used a 2x quad tracks for it's specific 8 track.

i actually got that 8 track tyrson (not mine though)

Via a FM Stereo, the quadrophonic would kick in to "simulate" where as the 8 track is fully capable of playing the pink floyd quad channel audio.... and it's exceptionally noticeable....

Surround sound even if your sitting UNDER the rear left speaker, you still get the full surround sound experience very well... just as much as you'd get stereo experience if you were sitting under that speaker.. (or on it.. or whatever)

Some people have zero perception of audio though. someone could be screaming on the other side of the room, and they couldn't tell. This is a known fact... Similare to that there are people that have extremely narrow tunnel vision.

Mac Daddy · Mar 10, 2009, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_stick

i'm not sure what you mean by modulated... but even if "true" stereo isn't achieved, the result is still acceptable - you can still hear what's been played with a minimum of phase issues, no matter where you're standing in relation to the speakers - surround sound pretty much fails if you're not in the "sweet" spot

I understand how improperly setup stereo speakers will destroy the stereo image and there'll be no "sweet" spot, even moving out of the sweet spot will destroy the stereo image - BUT - it's much less of an issue than with surround sound

Modulated meaning the rear and side surround speaker signals are processed. There is more flexibility because of this, delays and levels can be adjusted easier than conventional stereo whether the stereo setup has 2 of 4 speakers.

I know what your saying DJ but it also depends on the sound environment and "room". For example I work on car audio and speaker placement for stereo is crucial. Speakers too low in door panels to reproduce high frequencies properly (which are very directional), speakers in rear doors canceling each other out (bass cancellation due to phase).

I have 2 rear and 2 side surround speakers in my small computer audio setup which also includes fronts and a small sub. Out of those speakers the side and rear surround are the least affected by location and even shifting them a few feet or changing there direction can be compensated for by adjustments.

**dj_stick** · Mar 10, 2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Daddy

Modulated meaning the rear and side surround speaker signals are processed. There is more flexibility because of this, delays and levels can be adjusted easier than conventional stereo whether the stereo setup has 2 of 4 speakers.

ok well that "modulation" or processing is done by the receiver/decoder, the original source material has no such processing embedded (unless you're talking about "matrixed" formats like Dolby SR, which really aren't used for anything other than films these days)

I get what you're saying, that placement can be compensated, but I feel I haven't really stated my case properly

consider listenign at a club, concert, outdoor event, party at home, or even just lying in bed listening to a CD - in those situations multi-channel sound loses any advantage it has over stereo, or even mono. When you consider that's how commercially released music is going to be listened to at least 70-90% of the time, there's no real need to mix in anything other than stereo

now when mixing audio for film, that's another story, for a cinematic release you're guaranteed to have the audience sitting in a set position, and for a DVD movie, the same is generally true in a home theatre setup, so this is where multichannel really comes into it's own, but you've got to take into account mixing for stereo there for those without surround systems

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Daddy

I know what your saying DJ but it also depends on the sound environment and "room". For example I work on car audio and speaker placement for stereo is crucial. Speakers too low in door panels to reproduce high frequencies properly (which are very directional), speakers in rear doors canceling each other out (bass cancellation due to phase).

yeah, i agree placement is very important, especially in an enclosed space like a car

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Daddy

I have 2 rear and 2 side surround speakers in my small computer audio setup which also includes fronts and a small sub. Out of those speakers the side and rear surround are the least affected by location and even shifting them a few feet or changing there direction can be compensated for by adjustments.

but again, there's still no "one-size-fits-all" setting that works for anywhere in the room...

Mac Daddy · Mar 10, 2009, 06:10 PM

Thanks for the feedback and I think we are pretty much saying the same thing after reading your last post. My point was simply it is harder for positioning in stereo than it is in surround to obtain a true sound.

I have quite a bit of experience in live situations over 30 years now since my first "roadee" gig lol. On DSP or surround I don't use that with music myself I like a true feel to it.

On modulation and processing for surround that's the whole idea behind surround to allow the surround speaker components to use unnatural characteristics to achieve effects of a larger room amongst other things. These settings can be set up for a "sweet spot" as far as I am concerned with any speaker location scenario (within reason). To do so with a true stereo setup you don't have that flexibility.

(Sorry if I missed anything working on dinner here lol .. thanks for the reply

)

GigaWatt · Mar 25, 2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrsonswood

That's not entirly true, back around '75-'77 there were some 8track and LP's that were quad and were mixed from the get go for quad systems, which included special turntable and tape deck. Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" was one, it was relesed in both versions and the quad would not play (properly) on a stereo system. Dark Side in quad through quad headphones, yes they existed also, was very impressive. Not quite as impressive as the live show but they had some monster 20 channel PA or something for that gig.....

These systems would "enhance" a stereo signal, but could also play true quad tapes or lp's with discrete channels.

i really had no idea that Dark Side Of The Moon was released as a 4 channel LP... or that there were special 4 channel vinyl players available back then (i don't even know ones that are available now for that matter LOL

)... it's good to know that there were... even if the regular LP players couldn't read them properly...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrsonswood

Me thinks I just gave away my age.....

LOL

... don't worry, my lips are sealed LOL

...

anyway, i think we got a little bit off topic... LOL

so, who want's to try a blind listening test of the mp3PRO and AAC+ codec using foobar2000...? you get to pick the track to be encoded at in 64kbps, 44,1KHz, 16bit format and listen to it, use the comparison tool in foobar2000 and post your results...

so who is up for it...?

Mar 10, 2009, 06:10 PM	#39
Mac Daddy DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 7,950 Rep Power: 64 System Specs	Re: AAC+ (HE AAC) vs. mp3PRO Thanks for the feedback and I think we are pretty much saying the same thing after reading your last post. My point was simply it is harder for positioning in stereo than it is in surround to obtain a true sound. I have quite a bit of experience in live situations over 30 years now since my first "roadee" gig lol. On DSP or surround I don't use that with music myself I like a true feel to it. On modulation and processing for surround that's the whole idea behind surround to allow the surround speaker components to use unnatural characteristics to achieve effects of a larger room amongst other things. These settings can be set up for a "sweet spot" as far as I am concerned with any speaker location scenario (within reason). To do so with a true stereo setup you don't have that flexibility. (Sorry if I missed anything working on dinner here lol .. thanks for the reply ) __________________ "My mom said the only reason men are alive is for lawn care and vehicle maintenance." - Tim Allen