Skip to main content

Topic: QT AAC vs Wave ABX (Read 6860 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
My first ABX on my system using Foobar WASAPI event mode->USB-> SPDIF -> M-Audio DSM3 monitors.

wave sample from here (http://productionadvice.co.uk/why-mp3-sounds-bad/comment-page-3/#comment-15387).

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.6
2013/06/14 20:47:35

File A: C:UsersAproDesktop3TalkAboutLove.wav
File B: C:UsersAproDesktop3TalkAboutLove.mp4

20:47:35 : Test started.
20:48:09 : 01/01  50.0%
20:48:53 : 02/02  25.0%
20:49:25 : 03/03  12.5%
20:50:06 : 03/04  31.3%
20:50:43 : 04/05  18.8%
20:51:16 : 05/06  10.9%
20:51:33 : 06/07  6.3%
20:53:03 : 06/08  14.5%
20:53:55 : 07/09  9.0%
20:55:33 : 08/10  5.5%
20:55:58 : 09/11  3.3%
20:56:12 : 10/12  1.9%
20:56:29 : 11/13  1.1%
21:05:47 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 11/13 (1.1%)
QAAC settings -TVBR 92 -q 2. And I must say I was extremely disappointed with QT AAC performance at these high settings.
  • Last Edit: 18 June, 2013, 12:13:16 AM by greynol

  • Dynamic
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #1
It's certainly possible that it's a problem sample that defeats the VBR psychoacoustic models in LAME and QAAC/iTunes/Quicktime.

There will always be problem samples, albeit that they're fairly rare in music. About 15 years ago, samples like fatboy (an excert from Kalifornia by Fatboy Slim) were terrible in most encoders. Good encoders like LAME MP3 / iTunes/Quicktime AAC (and back in those days, Musepack was a leading contender too) were tuned using such problem samples and are a good deal better these days, but there are still certain classes of samples that are difficult.
Dynamic – the artist formerly known as DickD

  • TomasPin
  • [*][*][*]
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #2
It's certainly possible that it's a problem sample that defeats the VBR psychoacoustic models in LAME and QAAC/iTunes/Quicktime.


That's another reason why I had previously suggested the OP should post the sample he used so others could test as well.
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #3
Is the link in his first post broken?
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • TomasPin
  • [*][*][*]
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #4
Is the link in his first post broken?


Sorry, my bad. Completely missed it.

BTW, the claims in that article (most of them at least) are atrocious.
Quote
It doesn’t matter what encoder you use, it doesn’t matter what settings you use or what pre-processing you apply – mp3 just doesn’t cut it. AAC and later, more sophisticated encoders use more advanced encoding methods, and sound better to varying degrees, but mp3 just FAILs.

  • Last Edit: 18 June, 2013, 01:11:51 AM by TomasPin
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/

QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #5
Wouldn't pay any attention to that article, their mind was already made up before the badly performed tests.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #6
Thankfully this topic is not and won't be about the article.

If you wish to discuss it, start a new thread.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #7
QAAC settings -TVBR 92 -q 2.

What version of CoreAudioToolbox was used?

  • TomasPin
  • [*][*][*]
QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #8
I can't seem to distinguish the original from a TVBR q54, quality 96 encode I just made with QAAC 2.18, CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3. But maybe it's just me and my lousy ears... (seriously).
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/

QT AAC vs Wave ABX
Reply #9
QAAC settings -TVBR 92 -q 2.

What version of CoreAudioToolbox was used?


Encoded using Quicktime Pro 7.7.3. not sure about the CA toolbox.