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: Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC? (Read 41570 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: singaiya on
Quote from: Gigapod on

We can now put 25,000 songs (with quality way below transparency level) instead of 12,500 (with quality at or above transparency level) on a 60GB iPod. Life is good again! 


That sounds to me like an unfounded quality statement. Are you saying you can abx itunes or Nero AAC at ~128 with regularity, hence they are "way below transparency"?

Hummm, TOS vigilante patrol questioning, I guess it had to happen sooner or later... 

Read my post again, I was talking about bitrates < 100kbps (which I assume to be below transparency) vs. bitrates >= 175kbps (which I assume to be at or above transparency).

BTW to me the term "transparency" means little. Benski used it for the first time in this thread, and I think (hope) he meant "difficult to ABX against original wav".

So where is the "unfounded quality statement"?

Can I go, now? 

Note: Transparency

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #26 –
If the term transparency means little to you, why use it? And why assume levels of transparency at what appears to be arbitrary bitrates, i.e. 96 = way below transparency, 175 = at or above transparency.

Maybe it's just that your statement that 96k is way below transparency seemed hyperbolic. I would interpret that to mean you would rate normal music at a 2/5 in ABC/HR from that statement. With itunes or Nero at 96k. Personally I wouldn't. Guru rated itunes between 3.2 and 3.86 at that bitrate. But without some kind of data from you, it sounds like an unfounded quality statement.

Can you go now? Yes please.

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: singaiya on
If the term transparency means little to you, why use it? And why assume levels of transparency at what appears to be arbitrary bitrates, i.e. 96 = way below transparency, 175 = at or above transparency.

As I explained above, it was Benski who used the expression "well above the range of transparency", to describe bitrates at or above 175kbps, which just so happens to be the default bitrate used by NeroAAC.
Quote
Maybe it's just that your statement that 96k is way below transparency seemed hyperbolic.

That's ridiculous. And I am not being "hyperbolic".
Quote
I would interpret that to mean you would rate normal music at a 2/5 in ABC/HR from that statement. With itunes or Nero at 96k. Personally I wouldn't.

Good for you. But I should stop you right there, because you are "interpreting" lots of things...
Quote
... it sounds like an unfounded quality statement.

Again!

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #28 –
Thanks for all your amazing replies. I am very satisfied. 

Since you guys are arguing about which AAC encoder is better, can someone help me out with the problem of foobar parameter I have. I still want to get some clue how to encode it in order to compare them. 

Thank you all.

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: jonnysun on
...
This is what I put on the customize FAAC parameter

Code: [Select]
-w -q 100 -c 16000 - %d


However, I went the whole way through and showed
Code: [Select]
Error flushing file (Object not found) : file://C:\...........

output: mp4,aac,m4a are all not working for me.

Any problems in my setting, or I need to install?
By the way, I am using foobar2000 0.9.4.1, FAAC 1.24
Thanks for helping.


Hi Jonnysun,

It seems something is not installed correctly, because as far as I can tell your command line parameters are OK. Here is what I suggest you do:
1) Reset all parameters in foobar or reinstall (simpler and like that you are sure to start with a clean install).
2) Download and install the following from rjamorim's website:
a) FAAC v1.24.1 Binary for Win32: http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/faac.zip
b) libFAAC dll for Win32: http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/libfaac.zip
3) Now test the command line encoder (download a) on a wav file using your standard parameters.
4) Reconfigure foobar 2000 and test.
If you have any problems in step 3 then it's faac's problem. If step 3 works but step 4 doesn't, it's a foobar2000 problem.

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: jonnysun on
Is there any differences between NERO AAC encoder and FAAC in quality base? Which of them is currently better?

Also, I have problems using foobar to encode music through FAAC. I've read FAAC Knowledge Base

but it seems not working.

This is what I put on the customize FAAC parameter

Code: [Select]
-w -q 100 -c 16000 - %d


However, I went the whole way through and showed
Code: [Select]
Error flushing file (Object not found) : file://C:\...........

output: mp4,aac,m4a are all not working for me.

Any problems in my setting, or I need to install?
By the way, I am using foobar2000 0.9.4.1, FAAC 1.24
Thanks for helping.


This command line works for me in foobar2000 v0.9.4.1 with faac v1.25: -w -q 10 -c 16000 - -o %d

It appears the only difference other than the -q setting is the " -o " to make the output file.
The only thing I see that might help your command line is to include the command for the output file, "-o". Try this: -w -q 100 -c 16000 - -o %d

At the low -q setting I'm using, it is very clear to me that the Nero encoded files (-ignorelength -q 0.17 -if - -of %d) sound better than the faac encoded files. No testing involved, just my perception and opinion.

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Gigapod on
Quote from: singaiya on

If the term transparency means little to you, why use it? And why assume levels of transparency at what appears to be arbitrary bitrates, i.e. 96 = way below transparency, 175 = at or above transparency.

As I explained above, it was Benski who used the expression "well above the range of transparency", to describe bitrates at or above 175kbps, which just so happens to be the default bitrate used by NeroAAC.


I really don't see how thats even an answer to his question.  If your point is valid, why are you being so evasive about it?  Shouldn't you be able to simply explain your justification directly rather then argue that someone else said something that was marginally similar to one specific part of your claim?

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #32 –
I read Mike's post and out of morbid curiousity decided to read the entire thread.

The claim regarding the upper limit was made by benski, so don't go trying to pin it on Gigapod.
Quote from: benski on
Sure 175kbps (and 225kbps for MP3) is well above the range of transparency.

However, Gigapod, you are not in the clear since you were the one who fabricated the other half of the statement for which you are being taken to task for:
Quote from: Gigapod on
...bitrates below 100kbps...

We can now put 25,000 songs (with quality way below transparency level)
You were much better off aksing people for proof that FAAC was inferior to Nero until you decided to propose an arbitrary measure of quality to refute a test presented to you.

What I find interesting is that guruboolez's test shows iTunes to be better than Nero at the given bitrate.  Considering that the iTunes version can also provide gapless playback for iPod users, I think the choice for some might be a no-brainer ("free as in freedom" or not ).

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #33 –
My test is 15 months old (summer 2005). Current Nero Digital AAC is very different from the tested one (CLI encoder, no fast/normal quality mode...) and would certainly perform better.
However faac poor results are still a reality...
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
My test is 15 months old (summer 2005). Current Nero Digital AAC is very different from the tested one (CLI encoder, no fast/normal quality mode...) and would certainly perform better.
However faac poor results are still a reality...

Repeating that ad nauseam is not going to change the fact that you only compared FAAC to other AAC encoders at low bitrates. The current stage of development of FAAC does not include many of the tools in the AAC toolbox that would provide better quality encodings at the lower bitrates.

Quote
... until you decided to propose an arbitrary measure of quality to refute a test presented to you

Please... I didn't "propose" any "arbitrary measure of quality".

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
...
I really don't see how thats even an answer to his question.  If your point is valid, why are you being so evasive about it?  Shouldn't you be able to simply explain your justification directly rather then argue that someone else said something that was marginally similar to one specific part of your claim?

The interrogation continues...
My "claim", apparently, is the first phrase in this paragraph (hate quoting myself, but here it goes anyways):

Quote
We can now put 25,000 songs (with quality way below transparency level) instead of 12,500 (with quality at or above transparency level) on a 60GB iPod. Life is good again! 


... which was supposed to be humorous (see the little smiley at the end of the paragraph?), but then, some people seemed to have a problem with it... or with my "hyperbolic" style... 

This thread is becoming a little kafkaesque, so perhaps we can go back to helping the person who started this thread, and asked a question?

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: LCtheDJ on
...
It appears the only difference other than the -q setting is the " -o " to make the output file.
The only thing I see that might help your command line is to include the command for the output file, "-o". Try this: -w -q 100 -c 16000 - -o %d
...


I think LCtheDJ nailed it. Can you try adding the -o, Jonnysun?
 

Any Quality difference between NERO AAC and FAAC?

Reply #37 –
um... faac 1.25 is essentially 1.24+ with bug fixes from the unix world applied.

QUALITY hasn't changed much since knik left development ~ 1.23.5 in 2004 so the FAAC results from the AAC 128v2 test are still relevant:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128v2/presentation.html

i found FAAC to be poor <80 and decent >110.

IF you are going to use FAAC you definitely need to do some ABX tests to find out what works for you...


later