Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: CBR AAC Encoder (Read 9371 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #50 –
Using wrong tool for the job. Use sox for the job, then pipe the result to encoder of your choice.
TAPE LOADING ERROR
 

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #51 –
Quote from: itisljar on
Using wrong tool for the job. Use sox for the job, then pipe the result to encoder of your choice.

@itisljar You recommend me using sox for which part of the job? If you mean the cutoff point, I can't get a higher cutoff point this way (I need it for some specific bitrates).

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #52 –
Quote from: Klymins on
I don't want to use that low cutoff, this is just for testing): qaac -c 24 -r 22050 --lowpass 2000 sh44m.wav

Code: [Select]
L:\test>qaac64.exe --ignorelength --no-optimize -c 24 -r 22050 --lowpass 2000 "L:\test\Bird.wav"
qaac 2.82, CoreAudioToolbox 7.10.9.0

Bird.m4a
44100Hz -> 22050Hz
AAC-LC Encoder, CBR 24kbps, Quality 96
[100.0%] 0:29.789/0:29.789 (211.3x), ETA 0:00.000
656861/656861 samples processed in 0:00.141
Overall bitrate: 24.0019kbps
X
korth

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Klymins on
@itisljar You recommend me using sox for which part of the job? If you mean the cutoff point, I can't get a higher cutoff point this way (I need it for some specific bitrates).

I don't understand. You do this:
sox input.wav output.wav lowpass 3300 rate 22050

Afterwards, encode the audio with encoder of your choice.
You can tweak lowpass filter with sinc to get more precise lowpass controls.
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #54 –
Quote from: korth on
Quote from: Klymins on
I don't want to use that low cutoff, this is just for testing): qaac -c 24 -r 22050 --lowpass 2000 sh44m.wav

Code: [Select]
L:\test>qaac64.exe --ignorelength --no-optimize -c 24 -r 22050 --lowpass 2000 "L:\test\Bird.wav"
qaac 2.82, CoreAudioToolbox 7.10.9.0

Bird.m4a
44100Hz -> 22050Hz
AAC-LC Encoder, CBR 24kbps, Quality 96
[100.0%] 0:29.789/0:29.789 (211.3x), ETA 0:00.000
656861/656861 samples processed in 0:00.141
Overall bitrate: 24.0019kbps
[attach type=image]32551[/attach]
I still can't get a lower cutoff with theses two additional commands, should I use the 64-bit version?

Quote from: itisljar on
Quote from: Klymins on
@itisljar You recommend me using sox for which part of the job? If you mean the cutoff point, I can't get a higher cutoff point this way (I need it for some specific bitrates).

I don't understand. You do this:
sox input.wav output.wav lowpass 3300 rate 22050

Afterwards, encode the audio with encoder of your choice.
You can tweak lowpass filter with sinc to get more precise lowpass controls.
I won't be able to get a higher cutoff point with this method, am I wrong?

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #55 –
Quote from: Klymins on
I still can't get a lower cutoff with theses two additional commands, should I use the 64-bit version?
Those were settings already in my script. Shouldn't make a difference.

korth

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #57 –
Shouldn't make a difference
korth

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #59 –
Quote from: Klymins on
I won't be able to get a higher cutoff point with this method, am I wrong?

As long as you're below half of needed sampling rate. For 22050 that's 11024. You can cutoff wherever you are.
Later on, encode it.
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #62 –
Test and see. You've gotten a lot of information.
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #65 –
A certain person's forum membership wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes if greynol were still around.  ::)

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #68 –
Wait, what happened with greynol?
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #69 –
Quote from: Klymins on
Sampling rate and quality are seperate things.
Tell me you don't understand Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem without telling me that you don't understand Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #70 –
Seriously, this facepalm-inducing noise level is a much less severe issue than toxic overmoderation - to the extent that quoting a FAQ item that mod didn't agree upon could send you to the bin. In such an environment it wasn't even tempting to contribute to the wiki when it opened up - and so I didn't.

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #71 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Seriously, this facepalm-inducing noise level is a much less severe issue than toxic overmoderation...
But surely there has to be a sensible middle ground? Baseless nonsense should never be tolerated on any forum that focuses on fact-based truth as it means that post content can no longer be relied upon to be factually accurate.

Does this no longer matter on Hydrogenaudio? If so, this flies in the face of everything it used to stand for and makes it no better than anywhere else.

Re: CBR AAC Encoder

Reply #72 –
Absolutely.  I'll give you an even better argument:
We don't even need to agree on what is the "middle" ground, we could settle for an agreement of what direction a "slight improvement" would be - more moderation or less moderation, relative to now?

I would have a hard time arguing convincingly for "clearly it is less". But frankly, I don't have much argument for "clearly it is more" either. If junk content swamps healthy content, then the forum would surely be under-moderated. But it isn't so much in total - I mean, count the users ... - and it is basically the lower total traffic that makes it look much.

(As far as old days go, let's face it, web forum traffic isn't what it used to be. Generally, and here. HA-specific example: it is only natural that these threads on what is the best lossless audio codec, are down to those few of us who think it is fun, and (other!) niche users.)