Skip to main content

Topic: FDK AAC vs FHG AAC (Read 13153 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Firstly, both encoders are from Fraunhofer, so what gives? How come Fraunhofer has 2 "similar" AAC encoders out there? I know that one is bundled with Winamp and the other is for Google Android and is open source, but is that the whole issue? Were they developed by 2 different teams?

Secondly, in a nutshell, which would be considered the superior one? From what I've been reading, the FDK AAC encoder had some considerable bugs and shortcomings, some of which were fixed in the custom implementations (with it being open source), but were the problems due to the original Fraunhofer code or due to the initial implementations?
And in any case, I ask the initial question again: Best FDK AAC x FHG AAC for general purpose/LC/HE/HE2 encoding, which is better??
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2013, 07:57:34 AM by Makaveli7184

  • C.R.Helmrich
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #1
Were they developed by 2 different teams?

The underlying coding approach is the same ("FastEnc"), but these are two implementations by different teams. In the FDK encoder, some optimizations were made, so it should run much faster on embedded devices than the Winamp encoder.

Quote
Secondly, in a nutshell, which would be considered the superior one? ... Best FDK AAC x FHG AAC for general purpose/LC/HE/HE2 encoding, which is better??

For general-purpose encoding on regular AMD/Intel hardware, the Winamp encoder makes more sense, because it gives slightly better quality on difficult material (especially "killer" items), and the VBR bit-rate distribution is also better tuned.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #2
Secondly, in a nutshell, which would be considered the superior one?


I ran quite a few tests between the two implementations from flac sources in foobar.

The conclusion I made was:

1. FHG is nearly twice as fast on my 64 bit PC.
2. FHG has better tuned presets and didn't trip up on problem samples encoded at lower vbr bitrate targets (presets)
3. FDK vbr bitrates can frequently spike pretty high even on seemingly 'easy' pop music samples. (target bit rates aren't that easy to aim for)

All in all, I think FHG is totally 'ready' to be used on a daily basis for encoding my CD ripped lossless files and it just makes more sense than FDK on x86 hardware. Oh, and it's my go to aac encoder nowadays
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2013, 10:08:11 AM by ManekiNeko

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #3
Chris, thanks for explaining.

ManekiNeko, nothing against FhG, in fact I really like it but did you find anything wrong with the Apple AAC encoder or you use FhG for convenience?

Also I have the feeling they didn't want to make FDK good just because it's open source?
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2013, 12:36:44 PM by eahm

FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #4
Chris, thanks for explaining.

ManekiNeko, nothing against FhG, in fact I really like it but did you find anything wrong with the Apple AAC encoder or you use FhG for convenience?

Also I have the feeling they didn't want to make FDK good just because it's open source?


As Apple AAC encoder was the topic of the OP, I didn't comment on it. Now that you bring the subject up, I do also like both but yes, I prefer FHG over qaac as a matter of convenience - I don't have to have any Apple stuff on my PC any more (nothing against Apple, I just don't have any of their devices or buy from iTunes). FHG also encodes faster than Apple's (qaac/qtaacenc). Sonically, I have never experienced any tracks where Apple's sounds better than FHG's or vice versa (bit for bit).

Regarding FDK, I don't think the fact that it's open source has anything to do with it. With time becomes more tuning. Also, the 2 different aac encoders are targeted towards different architecture, and as a result, FHG runs blazingly fast on my Core i5 PC  I haven't bothered spending any time AB comparing FDK as I am happy with the above encoders that we have now.

At the end of the day, it's great that we finally have a decent open source aac encoder.
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2013, 10:14:21 PM by ManekiNeko

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #5
Well, qaac can be portable the same way fhgaacenc can. You don't need to install anything from Apple. That said, I don't prefer qaac because it's better, I only use it because it's more convenient to me.
  • Last Edit: 07 April, 2013, 10:09:27 PM by eahm

  • Larson
  • [*][*][*]
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #6
http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...FDK-AAC-Encoder

FDK AAC is now used in dbpoweramp and replaces Nero

  • tev777
  • [*][*][*]
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #7
FDK AAC is now used in dbpoweramp and replaces Nero


Is this a stand alone encoder or does it require dbpoweramp?
--
Eric

  • sluggy
  • [*][*]
FDK AAC vs FHG AAC
Reply #8
FDK AAC is now used in dbpoweramp and replaces Nero


Is this a stand alone encoder or does it require dbpoweramp?


You can use it as a stand alone, go to https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet, and download fdkaac_autobuild.zip and follow instructions.