I've tested the EZ CD Audio Converter 9.3.2 vs Qaac 2.71
The settings I've used for both encoder is:
Profile: AAC-LC
Bit rate: CBR 64kbps
Channel: Auto
Sample Rate: Auto
EZ CD creates less artifacts than Qaac at low setting.
They updated the encoder with Fraunhofer IIS xHE-AAC Encoder Library 3.5.5. Which performing better than Qaac 2.71.
I've attached the samples. Take a listen.
Software Used:
- EZ CD Audio Converter 9.3.2 (64Bit)
Comes with Fraunhofer IIS xHE-AAC Encoder Library 3.5.5
- dbPoweramp 17.3 (64Bit)
Encoder used: Qaac 2.71, CoreAudioToolbox 7.10.9.0, AAC-LC Encoder, CBR 64
I found less artifacts with EZ CD (Fraunhofer IIS xHE-AAC Encoder Library 3.5.5)
Take a listen. Test by yourself and post your opinion.
Thanks.
I don't think anyone would be surprised that xHE-AAC performs better than AAC-LC at 64hbps.
Fraunhofer aac is at 32 kHz. At least are both LC AAC files... fix that.
Isn't xHE-AAC essentially a new codec compared to what CoreAudio encodes? Are xHE-AAC files even playable by old AAC encoders?
Correct, xHE-AAC is a new codec, but the files that MiGamer5 shared above are all AAC-LC encoded (that Fraunhofer encoder can also encode to the legacy AAC formats).
But why are some people still evaluating AAC-LC at such low rates? That's definitely not the sweetspot for LC, a technology from the 1990s. At 64 kbps stereo and below, HE-AAC and xHE-AAC should sound quite a bit better on most audio samples than AAC-LC.
Chris
Correct, xHE-AAC is a new codec, but the files that MiGamer5 shared above are all AAC-LC encoded (that Fraunhofer encoder can also encode to the legacy AAC formats).
But why are some people still evaluating AAC-LC at such low rates? That's definitely not the sweetspot for LC, a technology from the 1990s. At 64 kbps stereo and below, HE-AAC and xHE-AAC should sound quite a bit better on most audio samples than AAC-LC.
Chris
Oh. Is this new encoder superior to CoreAudio?
QAAC reached maturity between 2011-2013, it is the best encoder for 128kpbs (proven in listening tests here on the forum), however it has run out, so much so that new alternatives such as Opus and xHE-AAC were made.
I think it's hard for anyone to use less than 128kpbs with AAC, it wasn't made for ultra low bitrates, I always use 128kpbs VBR for files, I think it's an excellent size, where I don't find serious artifacts like in MP3 128kpbs.
I find the FDK's approach strange, especially the older versions, it doesn't have a fine quality control, only 5 (QAAC has 15), besides always being a bit behind in quality compared to QAAC from what I see here.
I'm currently testing audio at 64kbps, both on Opus and xHE-AAC (Exhale always), and both feel they are very efficient at this bitrate, I use Opus more for the highest adoption so far, I really like Exhale (thanks to Chris, creator of the encoder), but it would be interesting for an open codec to be a market leader, it would be better for everyone, Netflix has already started to adopt xHE-AAC on its platform, Spotify think it should join Opus in the future (they use Ogg), anyway, we are entering a new era, where AAC has replaced the retired and ''dead'' MP3, long live the future.
Correct, xHE-AAC is a new codec, but the files that MiGamer5 shared above are all AAC-LC encoded (that Fraunhofer encoder can also encode to the legacy AAC formats).
But why are some people still evaluating AAC-LC at such low rates? That's definitely not the sweetspot for LC, a technology from the 1990s. At 64 kbps stereo and below, HE-AAC and xHE-AAC should sound quite a bit better on most audio samples than AAC-LC.
Chris
Hello, first I want to thank your encoder, Exhale is very good, and has a great future, it even forces a ''quality war'' between codecs that may arise in the future, the more the better, that's how AAC hit to maturity so fast.
A question, has Pokiosoft removed its encoder from the program? I didn't see more listed on the site, If they removed it to put the Fraunhofer version of the encoder, I think it's a shame, I should have kept the 2 encoders, I think it's fairer.
A question, has Pokiosoft removed its encoder from the program? I didn't see more listed on the site, If they removed it to put the Fraunhofer version of the encoder, I think it's a shame, I should have kept the 2 encoders, I think it's fairer.
Your better off asking the author of 'EZ CD Audio Converter' about that.
'EZ CD Audio Converter' Ctrl+F brings out testers.