Quality and BitRate of SAT Recordings posted on tribal mixes, page 5

Now, it is interesting and I am going to follow you.

yes i see the missunderstanding too: -  Yes, I agree – there is misunderstanding;
xm broadcasts 64 - 96kbit/s (u can check with the method given above) to ur reciever, - No, I do not agree, (and I have not the necessarily tools to do that);
the decoder decodes the hec aac+ stream to a PCM waveform, - Yes, I could accept that;
and is adding artificial data to the highband of the PCM waveform, - No, I do not agree. I would say “it reconstructs the high band by information transferred also”;
u record the PCM waveform with the original stream data plus the added artificial highband data – No, I would say “PCM waveform having the reconstructed spectrum” ;
by the additional data the spectrum is artificially broadened – No, I would say “the spectrum has been reconstructed based on information extracted from the signal”;
and this finally brings us to the point that ur analysis shows a full spectrum covering PCM waveform even better than cd – Yes, the spectrum is not worse than of  an CD;
that in return has to be encoded with the highest bitrate possible bitrate in mp3 to cover the whole spectrum. – Yes, that is true;

to me this is a simple naive miscalculation! – I do not agree;
scientists have prooven that the highband above 16khz can be ignored.- No, this can not be proven. To ignore / accept is a choice and it depends on criterion, again chosen;
business depends on the science! – Yes, this should be;
aac+ maybe has a real cuttoff at 12 - 14khz before broadcasting and an artificial reconstruction – No, I would say “a signal extracted from the original, having maybe a cutoff at 12-14 kHz, is encoded traditionally, information to reconstruct the original signal is extracted and encoded also. Both are broadcasted”;
at the endpoint that generates no bandwidthusage. thats the way business goes. – Yes, and I would add this is the way the human advances. Discovering new knowledge and implementing them for more effective usage.

There is one more statement I need to address.
“hec aac+ v1 is a low bitrate codec! only developed to serve acceptable quality at the lowest bitrate possible. i think u have missed that point. it is the main reason for developing such codecs!”
I am sorry, I have to object that as totally wrong.
First, when we are talking about XM Sat Radio we have to think about aac+ v2, not acc+ v1. (It is enough for me to go by another's mistakes.)
Second, I am not a sound compression expert, I am not prepared to discuss a topic such evaluation of HE-AAC v2 - the MPEG-4 High Efficiency AAC v2 profile.
So, I can not go in details and I can not make statements like “hec aac+ v1 is a low bitrate codec! only developed to serve acceptable quality at the lowest bitrate possible”, which of course is not true at all.
What I can is to refer to the article I have already mention: “MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2 — Audio Coding For Today's Digital Media World” by Stefan Meltzer and Gerald Moser. ” (EBU TECHNICAL REVIEW – January 2006)
The say “HE-AAC v2 has proven in several independent tests to be the most efficient audio compression scheme available worldwide. Nothing about “a low bitrate codec” but “the most efficient audio compression scheme available worldwide”.
Further: “This article gives an overview of the standardization, its technical components and compression efficiency, and provides an outlook on the future potential of ongoing development work.” So, read it.
And further: “Considering the fact that the quality of compressed audio signals scales with the bitrate, the following interpretation of the available test results can be made.
Combining AAC with SBR and PS into HE-AAC v2 results in a very efficient audio codec, providing high audio quality over a wide bitrate range, with only moderate gradual reduction of the perceived audio quality towards very low bitrates.”  And “Even at bitrates as low as 24 kbit/s, HE-AAC v2 still produces a quality far higher than that of any other audio codec available.”
The entirely wrong impression of a “a low bitrate codec” arises from the fact that at a low bitrate “HE-AAC v2 still produces a quality far higher than that of any other audio codec available.” No codec exist that can be even comparable at low bitrate.

@TomMix
Maybe I could guess where the misunderstanding of the acc+ v1 comes from but it is better for you to find it by yourself.
Here is a reference from https://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/layer2.htm:
“In most cases, the overall system (digital broadcast systems) capacity is fixed, so there is no chance to extend the number of transmission channels easily.
This is exactly where SBR (Spectral Band Replication) comes into play. By adding SBR to MPEG Layer-2, the bit rate of a particular audio service can be reduced up to 50 % by maintaining the audio quality. Thus, the amount of services in a certain system can be increased by remaining backward compatibility to MPEG Layer-2 decoders - non-SBR receivers may stay in use!”

1st. im that tired after that day so i keep my info short
2nd. ur link to codingtechnologies reference isnt working
and last but not least:
please read about SBR to realize its artificial syntetic highband at the endpoint POSTPROCESSING
please read about AAC to realize its for low bandwidth

lol read this: xm facts

well i am asking myself now: why i havent found the website earlier  
no aac v2, no full cd-quality!
any further questions?

almost three days past now and no response so far. i hope nothing serious happend to spasv  

He's probably tired of the arguments

i hope not.
but im a bit concerned about him because of the statements he makes:  
it is a contradiction against his own screenshots from above where one can see 192kbit/s mp3
up to 18khz ...
and an hec aac v1 xm stream at 64 - 96kbit/s makes up to 20khz and higher
please follow my links to SBR to learn about how aac artificially constructs this hig-band data

Hi,
I am a little bit busy and I need to take a couple of spectra.
For now,
there are mp3 files @192 kbps at 15 kHz bandwidth that you can download here. To me, they are obviously recorded from a FM radio stream.
One can compress a CD rip @192kbps mp3 preserving a 16 kHz bandwidth using a Lame 3.97 encoder.
One can compress a CD rip @192kbps mp3 preserving around 18 kHz bandwidth using a better encoder.
The m4a encoder I use preserves 20 kHz bandwidth.
Finally, the reference “The sound spectrum bandwidth is 20 Hz - 20,000 Hz, while mp3's is 20 Hz - 15,000 Hz : This is an essential difference.” is taken out of the context of a comparison with FM recorded files.
Obviously I have to be more precise but I’ll do this later.

ur very right and i agree, FM radio is limited to 15khz by default.
but where the heck are FM rips on here  
KISS FM is just the name of the station but it is no FM rip it is a HOTBIRD DAB-S rip

btw. have you realized that the statement of xm, they dont have cd-like quality, confirms the bitrate of 64 - 96kbit/s hec aac v1 ?!

Sorry, I made mistake. If I had to be more precise
I would say "The mp3 @192 kbps sound spectrum bandwidth, I have checked,
was 20 Hz - 16,000 Hz",
not  20 Hz - 15,000 Hz

Here is a little problem as an exercise.
• Download: Jimmie Page and Sander Kleinenberg - at USR on XM80[m4a] - 11-Mar-2007 (if you do not have it)
• Download: Sander Kleinenberg - @ USR on XM80 - 11-Mar-2007 (if you do not have it)
• Run a Spectrum Analysis using Sony Sound Forge 8.0 (there is a month free trail version) on both Sander Kleinenberg’s files
• Comment the results

when    will this fight END?!?!?! it doesnt MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!   only thing most ppl look at on here (users) is how big the file size is... 320 creates a problem for a lot of users... filesize is just too big... quality is one thing.. but cmon.. who cares anymore afer this has gone on for so long.... 192 is the optimal bitrate unless you have sonic ears...

**it... just get over it you guys..... i dont download anything over 192 unless its direct sound files.. like espresso's work with the WMC... stuff like that.. the rest.. pfffffft a waste of bandwidth for me...

well u 2 duke it out some more.. just  a thought  

I agree this is not a discussion.
This has not been a discussion since the very beginning

@SoCoJosh
so i introduced the whole thing

and i think we are done.
xm has undoubtable a bitrate of 64 - 96kbit/s of a encrypted hec aac v1 stream
thats all the talk was about. for me at least

@spasv
please, please with sugar on top: dont take any PCM source captured sound to comparsion anymore  
u almost got me with ur graphs
i mean the xm-recorded looked sometimes even bettern than the cd-source  

and by the way: ur uploads encoded with aac lc at 192kbit/s cbr are ... (i wont start another )