>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
Accessories
> AAC Plus
Bookmark topic
Dreams, sorry buddy, but try Nero or dbpoweramp (both claimed on this site to be able to produce aac+ :
http://www.mus-ic.co.uk/weblo[....]es/2005/02/aacplus_techie.html )
Arez, I wondered at that too.
Analog tape has frequency response 30-16KHz (compared to digital 20-20KHz), so there is a massive drop of audio data required on both ends of the frequency scale. Assuming the same sample rate when creating an AAC file, tape audio will retain more fidelity (to the original audio stream) than a cd pcm stream when ripped at the same bitrate. Therefore a lower bitrate can be used to retain the same fidelity as the AAC file ripped from cd at a higher bitrate. (but the audio quality is less due to smaller frequency response, and indemic noise). Basically this means you can faithfully reproduce TAPE audio in AAC format at lower bitrates than you would need to faithfully reproduce cd audio in AAC.
Not just this, but analog tape suffers massive loss of signal from noise, so even less bandwidth is needed to faithfully reproduce tape (if you run noise filters). So I guess from a technical point of view a 128Kbps MP3 would be about "tape quality" compared to "cd quality" 392Kbps MP3's.
But to be honest, I still have occasion to listen to tape recordings, and they aren't that bad. Infact due to the analog nature, there are some advantages to Tape over CD; the sound is fully and deeper and recorded on metal tape with dolby, sounds very nice. The reduced frequency response isn't as significant to listenability as many people claim.
But in terms of 128Kbps MP3 being equivalent to TAPE? Well such an MP3 still has the full frequency response of cd quality audio. MP3 (or AAC) codecs do not compress by throwing away higher and lower frequencies (unless you specify that). Therefore you cannot really claim that a 128Kbps MP3 is "tape quality"
Atleast that's my understanding, which I'm quite happy to be corrected on.
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2005-10-29 02:01 ]
--
Posted: 2005-10-29 02:51:38
Edit :
Quote
thanks a lot.. checking out on the software now.
One more thing. If SE were to allow.. and is it possible for them to add on media support for an existing phone model? Like W800i to be able to play ACC+?
[ This Message was edited by: dreams on 2005-10-29 06:27 ]
--
Posted: 2005-10-29 07:23:45
Edit :
Quote
unlikely. It may be 'possible' to install AAC+ codec via a firmware update, but I think these phones have the audio decoders embedded in the hardware, not in the firmware.
--
Posted: 2005-10-29 08:13:55
Edit :
Quote
Oh well.. I thought firmware is just like an OS for the hardware. By updating the OS to do certain task we can totally change how a phone works.
--
Posted: 2005-10-29 10:51:45
Edit :
Quote
even if se could do it the question would perhaps be why would they do it. they would probably have to license the codec which costs them money and its still not a recognised codec yet so there not much in it for them from a business point of view
with firmware updates i prefer se to fix exisiting problems and not create any new problems
--
Posted: 2005-10-29 11:07:50
Edit :
Quote
exactly so. A hardware implementation was too costly for W800 when under development, and a firmware solution now would require a complete rewrite, since the mediaplayer only plays the data output from the on chip decoders. The firmware has no encoder/decoder from my understanding. (someone please correct me if wrong)
W900 has the hardware, so no doubt SE music phones will all support AAC+ from now.
--
Posted: 2005-10-29 13:14:47
Edit :
Quote
I was thinking they could just alter the firmware to do whatever they want with what they have.
Just like a PC with the same hardwares but being able to play different codecs that are introduce in the future.
--
Posted: 2005-10-30 00:14:38
Edit :
Quote
yes, but to alter the firmware in that way would involve rewriting the firmware completely, not just adding a minor piece of code. Without a hardware chip for aac+ decoding, the W800 hardware is probably too slow and has not enough memory to run a software decoder in firmware alone.
Believe me, what you are asking, is not a simple task. It probably can't be done without changing the hardware as well as the firmware anyway. Even if it could, it would be thousands of hours of coding and testing to add a feature that's available in the W900 anyway.
Like some other guy just said, let's get the current firmware right first
--
Posted: 2005-10-30 02:26:38
Edit :
Quote
the dbpoweramp plugin is crap. Sound of cymbals is very flat at highest encoding setting of 64 kbit/s stereo.
Edit: I stand corrected. Winamp 5.1 can't seem to play it right, playing it at 22 kHz, but plays excellent on wmp with the coreaac library at 44 kHz. Definitely smaller and better than mp3
.
_________________
Si hoc non legere potes tu asinus es.
Gendou(^-^)[ This Message was edited by: blu_6779 on 2005-10-30 05:10 ]
--
Posted: 2005-10-30 05:38:14
Edit :
Quote
What I see from the internet.. MP3 is still widely most common format.
--
Posted: 2005-10-30 07:24:06
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
