AACplus v2

[Mel3k]

Has anyone heard samples of Coding Technologies' new AACplus v2
encoding with Parametric Stereo? I'm quite curious as to what the
audio quality is like at the low bitrates (24-40Kbps) along with the
"derived" stereo separation from the downmixed mono audio.

Parametric Stereo webpage:
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/paraSter.htm

[Paul T]

Results are quiet acceptable. At present am listening to RTL on 1440khz
DRM with 18.4kps ACC plus (ie SBR) and P-stereo. The SBR can make
speech a bit "mechanical" sometimes. Music especially classical is good
and very effective. Not bad for an AM station using 9khz bandwidth.
There is stereo separation which sounds good but how this relates to
the original is a good question. can send a small wav file if you want.

Paul T

[Pierre PANTALÉON]

Paul T a écrit :
> Can send a small wav file if you want.

Yes I want it ;)

Where are you ?
What is your reception level ?

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

You can download DRM audio samples here:

http://www.drm.org/system/audiomusic.php
http://www.drm.org/system/audiospeech.php

--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_radios.htm

[Pierre PANTALÉON]

DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :

> Pierre PANTALÉON wrote:
>> Paul T a écrit :
>>> Can send a small wav file if you want.
>> Yes I want it ;)
>>
>> Where are you ?
>> What is your reception level ?
>
>
> You can download DRM audio samples here:
>
> http://www.drm.org/system/audiomusic.php
> http://www.drm.org/system/audiospeech.php

No I want a reception sample, not a simple sound encode by AAC+
;)

And now not in 2000, and independante

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

Those samples were recorded off-air. They used to give the transmitter
and receiver locations, but they don't list them any more.

[Paul T]

Pierre,

Its only a small file but being a wav it occupies 19MB - I did not want
to
compress to mp3 for fear of corruption.

It was recorded last night from RTL 1440. I listen most nights. My
location
is just to the North of London.

Let me know if you want more, some different stations / bit rates etc.

Find files here http://www.taylorps.prodigynet.co.uk/

Best Regards

Paul T

[Kristoff Bonne]

Gegroet,

Paul T schreef:

> Its only a small file but being a wav it occupies 19MB - I did not want
> to compress to mp3 for fear of corruption.

You can always compress it using one of the lossless codecs, e.g. "flac"
of the xiph family of codecs.

http://www.xiph.org/
http://flac.sourceforge.net/

It's reduce the size of your flac-file by some 50 %. Not as good as a
good lossless codec, but still better then an uncompressed wav.

> Let me know if you want more, some different stations / bit rates etc.

Can you receive the broadcasts of the BBC worldservice on 1296 Mhz?

> Find files here http://www.taylorps.prodigynet.co.uk/

Interesting. Thanks.

> Best Regards
> Paul T
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

[BofH]

There are also a heap of Internet streams using AACplusV2 at www.tuner2.com

Even some in 5.1 surround!

[Paul T]

The BBCWS 1296Khz beam is to the continent and reception in my area is
not good.
Reception of WS is best for me from Kvitsoy Norway on 7465 and 9470.

PaulT

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

Download Winamp, because it has Coding Technologies' AAC+ v2 encoder in
it that allows you to rip from CDs (it doesn't allow you to encode WAV
files).

[_]

> No I want a reception sample, not a simple sound encode by AAC+
> ;)
>
> And now not in 2000, and independante

I recorded the following about a year ago with my Elecktor DRM module using
Dream. 1440khz night time

http://www.amstereo.audio-stream.net/amstereo/files/upload-here-please/1440%20Tuesday%204th.mp3

[_]

"Paul T" <tayl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140999263.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

The best I get is about 4db from 1296 when my MW loop is carefully
postioned. We badly need some UK DRM MW transmissions for the UK. The BBC
could easily switch over to DRM some of their pointless MW relays for local
radio

[_]

"Paul T" <tayl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1140828028.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Pierre,
>
> Its only a small file but being a wav it occupies 19MB - I did not want
> to
> compress to mp3 for fear of corruption.
>
> It was recorded last night from RTL 1440. I listen most nights. My
> location
> is just to the North of London.
>

The sound is good Paul but very thin with the stereo separation ??

Dave

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

"_" <no...@home.here> wrote in message news:440496ed$1...@news.greennet.net...

> I recorded the following about a year ago with my Elecktor DRM module
> using Dream. 1440khz night time
>
> http://www.amstereo.audio-stream.net/amstereo/files/upload-here-please/1440%20Tuesday%204th.mp3
>
>

Quite a few gaps and a few nasty screeches too.

Why are you listening to this and not the English service on 7145kHz ?

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

[Drewdawg]

Do you have Winamp 5.1? If you don't you can download it and use it to rip
your own examples from CD to hear for yourself.

I've ripped CD to parametric stereo 44.1khz from 16-48kbps and have had
interesting results. 24-40kbps shows AACplus is a very effecient codec while
quality can be achieved at low rates. 40-48kbps definitely
compares with FM quality. Parametric stereo does an excellent job at stereo
separation but suffers in total stereo imaging.

Try it, sample the future. ;-)

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

Drewdawg wrote:
> Mel3k wrote:
>> Has anyone heard samples of Coding Technologies' new AACplus v2
>> encoding with Parametric Stereo? I'm quite curious as to what the
>> audio quality is like at the low bitrates (24-40Kbps) along with the
>> "derived" stereo separation from the downmixed mono audio.
>>
>> Parametric Stereo webpage:
>> http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/paraSter.htm
>
> Do you have Winamp 5.1? If you don't you can download it and use it
> to rip your own examples from CD to hear for yourself.
>
> I've ripped CD to parametric stereo 44.1khz from 16-48kbps and have
> had interesting results. 24-40kbps shows AACplus is a very effecient
> codec while quality can be achieved at low rates. 40-48kbps definitely
> compares with FM quality.

No, FM should sound miles better than 40-48kbps HE AAC v2. If you've got
good reception on FM it is almost lossless, i.e. you get out virtually
the same audio as they put in. The same can definitely not be said for
40kbps HE AACv2 and it cannot usually be said for 48kbps either. If
radio stations don't make the most of FM's capabilities that doesn't
mean that HE AACv2 sounds better than FM, because you're not comparing
like with like. To compare like with like you would have to transcode
the audio, apply heavy audio processing and such like prior to encoding
to HE AACv2. And the thing with FM is that it always avoids that final
lossy encode, so in reality FM will always sound better unless they can
achieve near transparency at such low bit rates.

HE AACv2 is a very good and very efficient codec, but it's by no means
perfect.