Hi,
I've been using Nero AAC for years to encode CD's ripped with EAC and now dbPowerAmp, so I was wondering if it's still to be considered the best option (iTunes not being that convenient when it comes to encode CD's ripped elsewhere)?
It hasn't been updated in years (2009). The latest FAAC is slightly more recent (2010), but not recent either. Any source I could find on the question, such as this (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=AAC_FAQ#What.27s_the_best_AAC_encoder.3F) don't seem to have been updated in a long time.
So is Nero AAC still the best choice?
Cheers!
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ening_Tests#AAC (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Listening_Tests#AAC) => 2011 year (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html)
I was looking at said results from 2011, especially this page:
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-96-a/index.htm (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/index.htm)
Where the list the odecs and settings, and at no point did I see information about price or licensing.
Haven't had Quicktime installed on my system for a while now. The last few times I've formatted, I've just skipped on it entirely. My main use for it was watching HD movie trailers, which I now can easily do on youtube.
So here goes the 1st question: Does QuickTime require you to have a "QuickTime Pro" license to use the AAC encoder?
Does Winamp require a "Winamo Pro" license to use Fraunhofer IIS or CT ?
AFAIK, The Nero codec is free (quote: for personal non-commercial and/or technology-evaluation purposes)
iTunes not being that convenient
Does QuickTime require you to have a "QuickTime Pro" license to use the AAC encoder?
You might want to investigate qaac (https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/).
So here goes the 1st question: Does QuickTime require you to have a "QuickTime Pro" license to use the AAC encoder?
Does Winamp require a "Winamo Pro" license to use Fraunhofer IIS or CT ?
AFAIK, The Nero codec is free (quote: for personal non-commercial and/or technology-evaluation purposes)
1. testyou gave you the link to
qaac (free), if you read what's standing under
home you will see what you need to do to use it. So basically you only need to install either iTunes or QuickTime (both free).
2. You don't need Winamp Pro to use Frauenhofer AAC, free version has it included.
3. Nero AAC is for free under the conditions you already mentioned.
So basically you only need to install either iTunes or QuickTime (both free).
no you don't. you only need the itunes or QT installer and you can download
makeportable.zip from the qaac download page. inside is a batch file which can extract the files required by qaac.
You actually have three options (sort by personal preference of best to worst):
Apple AAC (LC, HE, True VBR, no HEv2)
- qaac (https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet). Can be portable, the most updated CLI for Apple AAC.
- qtaacenc (http://tmkk.undo.jp/qtaacenc/). Didn't update since 2011 but uses QuickTime's DLLs so, the CLI is fine and the DLLs are always the latest if you always update QuickTime. It gives the same result of qaac if same DLLs are used, that's why I said you only have three options.
Fraunhofer (LC, HE, HEv2, no True VBR)
- fhgaacenc (https://github.com/tmkk/fhgaacenc). CLI for the official Fraunhofer AAC encoder. It requires proprietary DLLs from Winamp.
- fdkaac (every option but True VBR). Open Source "Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android". You can build/compile your own with this script (fdkaac_autobuild.zip (https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet/fdkaac_autobuild.zip?attredirects=0&d=1)) from the creator of qaac (nu774).
So basically you only need to install either iTunes or QuickTime (both free).
no you don't. you only need the itunes or QT installer [...].
That's what I wrote, that you can install iTunes
or QuickTime and that iTunes and QuickTime are free, or was I wrong using
either...or?
Didn't mentioned the third option, because I wanted to keep it simple and also didn't know about it until yesterday, so I didn't wnat to give false information.
That's not quite what you wrote. You said that you need to install iTunes or QuickTime, marc2003 said that you need to have one of the installers, but you don't install it. Instead you run the script (makeportable.cmd) from the makeportable.zip file, and that extracts only the components you need from the installer.
The same outcome, but with none of the iTunes / QuickTime bloat.
Fraunhofer (LC, HE, HEv2, no True VBR)
- fhgaacenc (https://github.com/tmkk/fhgaacenc). CLI for the official Fraunhofer AAC encoder. It requires proprietary DLLs from Winamp.
The Fraunhofer (not Frau
enhofer) encoder doesn't distinguish between CVBR and TVBR. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=100525&view=findpost&p=832511)
Chris
Seems that qaac is the best contender these days. If it uses the Apple AAC encoder, I can see how it can be better than Nero AAC. I'll have to check it out.
Chris,
I've never used the word Frauenhofer. Quote who misspelled not just the last comment.
I don't really care what Fraunhofer uses and what it's called, I was listing the option and Fraunhofer doesn't have any True VBR switch.
Also, Apple AAC-LC performs better.
Also, Apple AAC-LC performs better.
Source?
At least in 2011, Apple and FhG were no different statistically:
(http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/nonblocked_means.png)
Exactly there, Apple is always higher.
Not to a statistically significant degree and therefore not something you can claim with any validity. Exactly my point.
Exactly there, Apple is always higher.
It doesn't perform better though in that test, which is what you claimed.
It doesn't perform better though in that test, which is what you claimed.
You can say statistically it doesn't and yes, I agree but mathematically? It's higher, of course it's
better.
I think you should learn what those pictures mean before trying to explain them.
No. Just go and read about p-values, standard errors, and statistical tests in general and why we use them.
Suffice it to say that according to the decisions made before that test was conducted by its organisers, such differences could be viewed as being due purely to sampling error and other sources of noise, and Apple’s encoder did not perform better than FhG’s to a degree that is valid for drawing conclusions. You don’t get to make decisions on behalf of the organisers about what their test indicates.
Unless you manage in the near future to revolutionise our understanding of how to siphon valid data from the omnipresent confoundments of sampling error and subjective measurements, these posts will be binned.
I think you should learn what those pictures mean before trying to explain them.
In simple words, please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the blu line is where all the listening test of every different person pointed to and the average of all is the little dot. Now, since Apple is higher, it must have sounded better somewhere.
I believe the blu line is where all the listening test of every different person pointed to
Rather than merely believing based upon a very basic assumption, you could research. But why break your back? This is specifically explained on the very page about the tests, above the graphs themselves:
Each vertical line segment represents the 95% confidence interval (using ANOVA analysis) for each codec.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval) In other words, the blue line defines the area within which, as predicted from the finite available data, 95% of all possible observations would fall.
Two means whose confidence intervals do not overlap are considered statistically significant from each other, due to the fact that they can be claimed with high confidence. Two means whose confidence intervals do overlap are considered indistinguishable in statistical terms.
Perfect thanks, I'll do some more research. I don't want to be an audio engineer and probably you too had to study and make wrong assumptions based on something you thought it was correct.
We should also search the forum for the posts where people say Apple is the best one based on that graph and go correct all of them.
I don't want to be an audio engineer and probably you too had to study and make wrong assumptions based on something you thought it was correct.
I’m not an audio engineer either, but regardless and with respect, if I don’t understand a concept, I try not to make conclusive statements about it as though they were facts.
Two means whose confidence intervals do not overlap are considered statistically significant from each other, due to the fact that they can be claimed with high confidence. Two means whose confidence intervals do overlap are considered indistinguishable in statistical terms.
You can't say that "Two means whose confidence intervals do overlap are considered indistinguishable in statistical terms."
If two 95% CI error bars of similar length overlap along less than 25% of their length, it's a significance, with p-value less than 5%.
And even when the overlap is more than 25%, typical results of multiple sample listening tests are highly correlated, and we can further exploit the correlation to extract even more conclusions.
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/200...ont-understa-1/ (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/07/31/most-researchers-dont-understa-1/)
Looking at the result, FhG is worse than Apple CVBR (p=0.005) on the adjusted result.
Maybe the side-order of statistical training I received was inaccurate or at best insufficiently nuanced. So, thanks to that teaching, I might now have to take what I just said to eahm and apply it to myself. Oh well. Sorry and all that. Thanks for the informative link.
Although average score of Apple TVBR is slighty poorer than CVBR with no significance in the 2011 public test and my 2012 private test, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=97913 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=97913)
I'm guessing TVBR is better, with not so much confidence. Both in these two tests, TVBR is slightly poor in score, and substantially less in bitrate. If you look at my bitrate-quality graph, 96kbps area in my test, maybe you can understand what I'm trying to say.
Chris,
I've never used the word Frauenhofer. Quote who misspelled not just the last comment.
Alright,
NePaC and a number of other visitors of this forum except eahm: Fraunhofer (not Frau
enhofer). (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=102533&view=findpost&p=843922) No need to get upset, eahm.
I don't really care what Fraunhofer uses and what it's called, I was listing the option and Fraunhofer doesn't have any True VBR switch.
It doesn't have a Constrained VBR switch, either. What's your point?
By the way, I know that my encoder lost against Apple CVBR in 2011, as Kamedo2 explained (thanks for educating people about the p-values).
Chris
[Fraunhofer] doesn't have a Constrained VBR switch
So Fraunhofer doesn't name their switches according to functionality. What's your point?
(https://imageshack.us/a/img829/6296/7n9c.png)
Just to be sure, am I interpreting the graph correctly?
Just to be sure, am I interpreting the graph correctly?
It's hard to determine
insignificance from a graph, when it's from a typical listening test that have both difficult and easy samples.
The significance is stated in the original data, saying:
CVBR is better than Nero (p=0.000)
TVBR is better than Nero (p=0.000)
FhG is better than Nero (p=0.000)
FhG is worse than CVBR (p=0.005)
CT is better than Nero (p=0.000)
CT is worse than CVBR (p=0.000)
CT is worse than TVBR (p=0.000)
CT is worse than FhG (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than Nero (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than CVBR (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than TVBR (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than FhG (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than CT (p=0.000)
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html)
It's from the bootstrap analysis. It's adjusted for multiple comparison, so it's very likely that the 13 significance statements above is all correct.
[Fraunhofer] doesn't have a Constrained VBR switch
So Fraunhofer doesn't name their switches according to functionality. What's your point?
Not sure what you mean. Let's take an example. If I encode loud rock music or even pure noise with a target VBR rate of
x kbps, I get close to 1.2
x or even 1.3
x kbps. If I encode a sine sweep instead, I get maybe 0.6
x or 0.7
x kbps. See also the bit-rate table of the 2011 test (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html). That's not nearly as constrained as Apple's CVBR, right? So why should I call the mode "Constrained VBR", then? Does nero distinguish between two VBR modes? I see only VBR, ABR, and CBR.
If you guys really need to put another word in front of "VBR", then call it "True VBR", and write, "Fraunhofer supports True VBR". Thank you very much.
Just to be sure, am I interpreting the graph correctly?
Thanks for thinking CVBR vs. FhG is insignificant, but no. A
rule-of-thumb which I use all the time and which works perfectly here is:
- If the confidence bars of one coder overlap with at least the mean score of another coder, then there is no significant quality difference between those coders.
- If the confidence bars of one coder do not overlap with the mean score of another coder, then there is a small but significant quality difference.
- If the confidence bars of two coders do not overlap at all, then there is a large, significant quality difference between the coders.
Chris
This result says that QT TVBR is not significantly better than FhG but QT CVBR is, and no significant difference between TVBR and CVBR.
How should I interpret this?
When I hear the word "better", I imagine of something like ordered relations between them.
However the above means that:
QT TVBR = QT CVBR and QT TVBR = FhG and QT CVBR > FhG
So apparently their relations are not transitive, and the result cannot be considered to form an ordered set.
Or is it possible to consider that there actually is a hidden order and I can derive the result QT CVBR > QT TVBR (or QT TVBR > FhG), which was not directly drawn by statistical comparison but can be indirectly deduced from, assuming transitive relation?
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2m5fali.png)
Is b better than a? We can't be sure. In this test, it was. But humans are whimsical, it can be luck. After more extensive tests with more samples, things may turn out to be a > b. If we announce a < b and after a while we change it to a > b, we'll lose creditability. In that case, we should say there are no significant differences, or a ≒ b. Likewise, b ≒ c, c ≒ d, d ≒ e, e ≒ f, f ≒ g. But we can say a < g. It's not likely that a and g having the same average score. a having more score is even less likely.
It seems that I was silently assuming that when a < g and a ≒b and b ≒ g then it cannot be b < a.
But if I understand you correctly, that's a wrong assumption.
Thanks for explanations
Thanks, Kamedo2. That chart and explanation actually made me realize I was also (mis)interpreting the final scores of the very test under discussion, of which I often refer to. Now if I was going to get medieval about "best" AAC codec I would have to consider my type of material and look up the results of individual samples in that test to see how each encoder fared. But... surprise! That just happens to be the case with the bitrate that the test was run under. Maybe the gaps between encoders widens or narrows under different bitrates. It's a good time to rely on one's own ears, I would say.
sidenote: I got to using the QAAC quite a bit lately ( at --tvbr 50), the main reason is the tagging is very much compatible with my player. (C.R.Helmrich- maybe you could look into this for Fhgaacenc when you have extra time, or some other tag-related question comes up? I really like the codec you're involved with )
Some observations.
Let’s compare http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-48-1/results.htm) and
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html)
Itunes AAC encoder was used as high anchor and scored 4.69 in first one but 4.391 in last one. Why is this difference? Sure, these are two different tests. However there were people saying "Man, I could provide a results in previous HA tests at low bitrates like 48-64 kbps, but not for higher bitrates because it’s hard as codecs are already very good at that point"
Some part of these people hasn’t participated in the last AAC 2011’ test. The overall scores would be a bit higher and the difference between competitors would be less if these people could provide results as they would rank pretty high. I’m confident that FhG and Apple would end with > 4.50 scores and insignificant difference like MP3 encoders here http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mp3-128-1/results.htm) . I believe that previous tests of Sebastian Mares are a bit more permissive. That’s not worse or better, it’s just a different approach with a different circumstances.
And hell, in my experience, testing AAC encoders at 96 kbps is actually harder than MP3 at 128 kbps.
Taking a bigger picture across a different bitrates, FhG has the most optimal HE-AAC v1/v2 encoder at 32-64 kbps respectively (according to my internal personal tests), and fine, it was Nº2 at 96 kbps , slightly (I would say very slightly) behind of Apple encoder in the last HA public test. But these two encoders have an excellent quality at 128 kbps (and higher).
Two different liststening tests are exactly this: they're different: different samples, different listeners, different listening situations when the same listener. So different results are a matter of fact, though.they are averaged out a bit because several listeners and several samples are involved. Most critical for the result is sample selection.
Has there been any improvement in the encoder between iTunes 10 & 11? I think the new iTunes interface sucks, but if the encoder has been improved, it might be worth it. Or could the Application Support component from v11 be installed along with v10?
Two different liststening tests are exactly this: they're different: different samples, different listeners, different listening situations when the same listener. So different results are a matter of fact, though.they are averaged out a bit because several listeners and several samples are involved. Most critical for the result is sample selection.
The whole point of the construction of such tests is what the results should be repeatable. Of course the individual subjective ratings will fluctuate, but the averages, and the conclusions after taking into account statistical variance, shouldn't.
This will fail if there are bad biases in the test. It's not unreasonable to assume listeners in our tests are more picky than average, pushing scores down, for example. This affects conclusions about transparency but not so much relative codec ratings.
We try to get the sample selection diverse and varied enough so that it's representative. Another test with a representative but different sample set should produce compatible results. If it does not, our sample selection isn't good enough and needs to be improved.
So I'll state again: different results (that are statistically significant) are very much not a matter of fact. They're an indication something is broken.
Has there been any improvement in the encoder between iTunes 10 & 11?
For that matter you should look up which CoreAudioToolbox version came with the installer of each iTunes version. Looking here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=96970), and knowing the latest one is 7.9.8.
3 (if I recall correctly), there may be some improvements. Whether those are relevant for
you is an entirely different matter.
(If you can find some place where they list each corresponding releases I'll thank you kindly; I was unsuccessful at that.)
...This will fail if there are bad biases in the test. It's not unreasonable to assume listeners in our tests are more picky than average, pushing scores down, for example. This affects conclusions about transparency but not so much relative codec ratings.
...So I'll state again: different results (that are statistically significant) are very much not a matter of fact. They're an indication something is broken.
I agree if it's about relative codec ratings. I don't if it is about absolute scores of a codec.
7.9.8.3 is exactly like 7.9.8.2 but I don't remember if 7.9.8.2 is like 7.9.8.1. At this point, wait until Tuesday for the new iTunes then start the test.
Can I safely use FDK within Handbrake? I encode many vids at 32kbps AAC. I am miffed that qaac doesn't have v2 of HE-AAC, but too late to rectify my mistake (hopefully it isn't a large one).
No edit button? Anyway I did a quick test of an M4A of Vangelis' Alpha which I ripped earlier, and apparently the cut-off using Fraunhofer's v2 of HE-AAC (file 2.m4a) is higher than qaac (1.m4a). I guess I'll go with the former for lower-bit encodes.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2lxcze0.jpg)
The cut-off looks nearly the same to me. Which one sounds less annoying?
I'll have to do a personal ABX test from FLAC sources to really determine which is best lol. Btw isn't anything approaching +16kHz better for the human ear?
anything approaching +16kHz
What is this supposed to mean? Semantically, it is hopelessly unclear.
better for the human ear?
Are you insinuating that files with frequencies above 16 kHz sound better or otherwise audibly detectable when compared to files lowpassed around that point, and/or are healthier for the senses? If either, evidence will be needed, personal double-blind listening tests or medical citations respectively.
For that matter you should look up which CoreAudioToolbox version came with the installer of each iTunes version. Looking here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=96970), and knowing the latest one is 7.9.8.3 (if I recall correctly), there may be some improvements. Whether those are relevant for you is an entirely different matter.
I checked 10.7, and it comes with 7.9.8.1. The latest (11.0.5) comes with 7.9.8.3, so I'm not sure it would include major improvements. I'll try and see how iTunes 10 behaves if I substitute the DLL with the latest one.
(If you can find some place where they list each corresponding releases I'll thank you kindly; I was unsuccessful at that.)
I couldn't find anything either. Shouldn't be too hard downloading and inspecting older versions. I'll try and see if I can put that together and post it on the forum.
I extracted the files CoreAudioToolbox.dll and CoreFoundation.dll and put them next to qaac.exe on a computer where iTunes isn't installed. It worked fine.
Also, the same wave file encoded on this PC with CoreAudioToolbox from iTunes 11.0.5 is the same size as that encoded on a PC with iTunes 10.7, so the encoder appears to be the same.
I mapped some of the recent versions of iTunes with the version of CoreAudioToolbox that comes with it:
iTunes CoreAudioToolbox
10.5 7.9.7.8
10.6 7.9.7.9
10.6.3 7.9.7.9
10.7 7.9.8.1
11.0 7.9.8.2
11.0.1 7.9.8.2
11.0.2 7.9.8.2
11.0.3 7.9.8.3
11.0.4 7.9.8.3
11.0.5 7.9.8.3
Is that of sufficient interest to be posted on its own?
I extracted the files CoreAudioToolbox.dll and CoreFoundation.dll and put them next to qaac.exe on a computer where iTunes isn't installed. It worked fine.
mrgou, have you seen makeportable? https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabi...rects=0&d=1 (https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet/makeportable.zip?attredirects=0&d=1)
I'll have to do a personal ABX test from FLAC sources to really determine which is best lol. Btw isn't anything approaching +16kHz better for the human ear?
AAC-HE doesn't really encoder higher frequencies anyway, so you're just looking at harmonic extension of the lower frequencies. Hence, I wouldn't worry much about what the stuff above 11khz looks like unless you're using regular AAC.
mrgou, have you seen makeportable? https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabi...rects=0&d=1 (https://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/cabinet/makeportable.zip?attredirects=0&d=1)
Nice, thanks!
Do you think I can assume that qaac will use the DLL's it finds in the same folder in priority over those installed by iTunes? That would make it possible to keep using the latest iTunes encoder while not upgrading iTunes itself.
Do you think I can assume that qaac will use the DLL's it finds in the same folder in priority over those installed by iTunes? That would make it possible to keep using the latest iTunes encoder while not upgrading iTunes itself.
That was my worry, it was probably using the ones installed with iTunes but I can't test right now, let's see if nu774 sees this post and comments.
AAC-HE doesn't really encoder higher frequencies anyway , so you're just looking at harmonic extension of the lower frequencies. Hence, I wouldn't worry much about what the stuff above 11khz looks like unless you're using regular AAC.
HE-AAC isn't meant for transparency but most of people exaggeratedly beleive that it's a kind of "fake" algorithm that generates high frequencies (almost) from nothing. I'm not a developer but my basic knowledge of HE-AAC indicates that SBR is actually advanced form of
prediction of HF from LF. There is an envelope adjustment and a residual coding that adds a missed HF's components.
Not trying to be a smart hat, I just think that HE-AAC (and Opus) can do a decent job preserving a high audible bandwidth (and quality as well) on a reasonable range of bitrates.
Do you think I can assume that qaac will use the DLL's it finds in the same folder in priority over those installed by iTunes? That would make it possible to keep using the latest iTunes encoder while not upgrading iTunes itself.
I'm afraid it's too qaac specific a question and becoming off-topic, but your question is answered here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....85135&st=56 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=85135&st=56)
AAC-HE doesn't really encoder higher frequencies anyway , so you're just looking at harmonic extension of the lower frequencies. Hence, I wouldn't worry much about what the stuff above 11khz looks like unless you're using regular AAC.
HE-AAC isn't meant for transparency but most of people exaggeratedly beleive that it's a kind of "fake" algorithm that generates high frequencies (almost) from nothing. I'm not a developer but my basic knowledge of HE-AAC indicates that SBR is actually advanced form of prediction of HF from LF.
My knowledge of AAC-HE comes mostly from optimizing the SBR code in libfaad, which is just a decoder so I may have missed things. My understanding of the code is that you are essentially using a filterbank to mirror the lower frequencies onto higher frequencies, than using side channel information to coarsely scale the mirrored data so that the approximate power is correct. In this sense I think its fair to say that it doesn't encode the higher frequencies, rather it tells you how to compute something that will sound natural enough to be acceptable, but is not necessarily accurate or even all that similar sounding. IIUC, if you really have a signal where the higher frequencies are sufficiently uncorrelated with the lower frequencies, you can't actually encode them with HE.
That said I don't fully understand how all of the side channel bits in HE mode actually work, so I could be mistaken.
anything approaching +16kHz
What is this supposed to mean? Semantically, it is hopelessly unclear.
better for the human ear?
Are you insinuating that files with frequencies above 16 kHz sound better or otherwise audibly detectable when compared to files lowpassed around that point, and/or are healthier for the senses? If either, evidence will be needed, personal double-blind listening tests or medical citations respectively.
Please enlighten me. I see a lot of encodes that cut off at around the 16kHz mark, with higher bitrates retaining a higher threshold. 20kHz ceiling is optimal but most of us can't hear that well to begin with. For non-audiophiles HE-AAC can save tons of space for non-musical material.
Please enlighten me.
What you meant by “anything approaching +16kHz” is unclear:
Btw isn't anything approaching +16kHz better for the human ear?
I was asking whether you were stating that frequencies about 16 kHz should be preserved on the basis of audibility. But you already said it yourself:
I'll have to do a personal ABX test from FLAC sources to really determine which is best lol.
Unless someone proves to themselves with a double-blind listening test that they can hear frequencies above 16 kHz in normal material representative of their needs, they should accept this cutoff frequency when a known well-designed encoder chooses it.
My knowledge of AAC-HE comes mostly from optimizing the SBR code in libfaad, which is just a decoder so I may have missed things. My understanding of the code is that you are essentially using a filterbank to mirror the lower frequencies onto higher frequencies, than using side channel information to coarsely scale the mirrored data so that the approximate power is correct. In this sense I think its fair to say that it doesn't encode the higher frequencies, rather it tells you how to compute something that will sound natural enough to be acceptable, but is not necessarily accurate or even all that similar sounding. IIUC, if you really have a signal where the higher frequencies are sufficiently uncorrelated with the lower frequencies, you can't actually encode them with HE.
That said I don't fully understand how all of the side channel bits in HE mode actually work, so I could be mistaken.
Reasonable.
LC-AAC requires 96 kbps to be on par with MP3 at 128 kbps, that's 25% of a bitrate reduction.
HE-AAC 48 kbps is on par with LC-AAC 64 kbps, that's another 25% of a bitrate reduction (though on low bitrates only). Still, it's all good.
P.S. Hydrogenaudio auditory is different from an average user. High quality HE-AAC (as FhG) shoud be approaching a 4.0 score at 64 kbps.
I extracted the files CoreAudioToolbox.dll and CoreFoundation.dll and put them next to qaac.exe on a computer where iTunes isn't installed. It worked fine.
Need more than 2 dll files. Edit: Illegal redistribution of patented, copyrighted material removed.
I installed sandboxie (http://www.sandboxie.com/) and I download QuickTime (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/) because I've got some errors with iTunes.
Installed QuickTime into sandboxie and I copied dll files from (sandboxie) C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Apple\Apple Application Support\.
Need more than 2 dll files.
The PC I ran it from with these two doesn't have any iTunes installed. But maybe it worked because I was using a basic command (qaac -v 110 -o out.m4a in.wav), with no tagging or anything special. It would make sense if it threw an error if I used a tagging parameter about missing the Unicode libraries.
Thanks for the tip about sandboxie!
mrgou, I believe you need to edit and remove the link in the quote, Apple's proprietary DLLs are included in that package. Same reason why nu774 linked "makeportable" instead of the package.
mrgou, I believe you need to edit and remove the link in the quote, Apple's proprietary DLLs are included in that package. Same reason why nu774 linked "makeportable" instead of the package.
Done, thanks for the heads up!
Is there any consensus on what format is best at ~256kbps or higher? ie, Nero vs Apple AAC, etc? At that bitrate does it matter? I'd prefer to encode through foobar, so I was thinking of Nero, but the plot on the first page has Nero at the bottom of the pack at 96 kbps.
Is there any consensus on what format is best at ~256kbps or higher?
On this forum? I don't believe so.
At that bitrate does it matter?
For all but a minuscule proportion of killer samples, and possibly people who are both trained and gifted to be able to spot artifacts, no. For those situations where it might matter, I doubt one single codec does better than all the rest. I have not seen any worthwhile data that indicates a clear winner, though that doesn't mean there isn't any. That said, this type of speculation is pointless, just as it is pointless to ask people who do not have another person's ears to tell that person what he hears. The bottom line is if you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter. If you can then you are in a unique position to choose accordingly.
I'd prefer to encode through foobar, so I was thinking of Nero, but the plot on the first page has Nero at the bottom of the pack at 96 kbps.
Foobar2000 can be configured to use QAAC (a command line program to encode using Apple Quick Time) and any other codec that works from the command line.
Hi all (and sorry about my English)
I think what the best AAC encoder in high bitrates is FAAC, with "Main" profile, q=450..500. All other (QAAC, FhG, Nero, CT_AAC) haven't switсh "Main" and use only LC-, HE- profiles. LC was fast and easy decode by portable devices in early 2000-x, but will always gives you pure end-quality..
Now, MPEG4 .m4a and .aac "Main" files didn't playable on iPod, QuickTime and many other hard&soft players - need to use MPC (compatibility 100 %) or foobar2000 (compatibility unknown %). I hope test's will confirm my personal experience.
aac encoders don't have "main" profile, that is related to video encoding (baseline, main, high).
Hi all (and sorry about my English)
I think what the best AAC encoder in high bitrates is FAAC, with "Main" profile, q=450..500. All other (QAAC, FhG, Nero, CT_AAC) haven't switсh "Main" and use only LC-, HE- profiles. LC was fast and easy decode by portable devices in early 2000-x, but will always gives you pure end-quality..
Now, MPEG4 .m4a and .aac "Main" files didn't playable on iPod, QuickTime and many other hard&soft players - need to use MPC (compatibility 100 %) or foobar2000 (compatibility unknown %). I hope test's will confirm my personal experience.
FAAC pretty much sucks at most bitrates according to all the listening test that have been done. I personally can only tolerate it at >= 192Kbps.
Do you have proof that the 'Main' profile of FAAC will give better quality than 'LC' profile of other encoders at those bitrates?
aac encoders don't have "main" profile, that is related to video encoding (baseline, main, high).
Wikipedia says differently:
Main Profile (Main) – like the LC profile, with the addition of backwards prediction;
I hope test's will confirm my personal experience.
FAAC pretty much sucks at most bitrates according to all the listening test that have been done. I personally can only tolerate it at >= 192Kbps.
Do you have proof that the 'Main' profile of FAAC will give better quality than 'LC' profile of other encoders at those bitrates?
I don't hears FAAC at low bitrates, I only say what FAAC is the best at max quality 500% AND "Main" profile, f=22050. Bitrate then usually around ~315 kbps.
All parameters in GUI for command line. Better when all other AAC encoders.
Provide us with evidence that you can distinguish FAAC from the other AAC encoders at 315 kbps via a double blind listening test or your claims are meaningless.
testyou
DBT is may be fake, because it founded on the mistaken assumptions. And, if you don't agree to the first, secondly, can't be useful then quality really "near CD-audio".
testyou
DBT is may be fake, because it founded on the mistaken assumptions. And, if you don't agree to the first, secondly, can't be useful then quality really "near CD-audio".
I have no idea what you just said.
testyou
DBT is may be fake, because it founded on the mistaken assumptions. And, if you don't agree to the first, secondly, can't be useful then quality really "near CD-audio".
On the contrary, so far DBTs have been very reliable means to assess codec performance. Regarding the initial question, we have conducted double blind tests in the past at 96kbps (see http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-96-a/index.htm (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/index.htm) ), where Apple's, FhGs and Winamp's encoders were scored very closely, Nero being slightly behind, and FAAC being used as low anchor! That being said of course that doesn't mean that FAAC will perform equally bad at high bitrates, but at the bitrates you quote, at 315 kbps, its main contenders will definitely be transparent, except for singular killer samples. I don't know if that is or is not true for FAAC either, but there is hardly a point to use FAAC if you can just use an encoder which produces much better results also at lower bitrates.
At 96 kbps makers of encoders try to do just attractive, good-looking sound. This is also not fair, and it is time to test codecs in high bitrates, I think.
This is wrong for all modern codecs I know. They all aim for the same sound as at very high bitrates: transparency.
Chris
WTF is good looking sound?
WTF is good looking sound?
Most modern popular music, where looks (and amount of bare skin) matters more than musical talent?
Have read this all, and question remains.
Since last tests Apple CVBR and TVBR participated (2011-2012), has the encoder obtained significant improves?
Are that unsignificant lag of TVBR retains?
Check out the qaac (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=85135) thread. Apple continues to release new iTunes and QuickTime versions, but CoreAudioToolbox remains either unchanged or appears with a new version number that still produces bit-identical files to the previous version each time. AAC development seems to have ended in both the Apple and Nero camps now.
Did anybody compared qaac with libfdk and can say which one is "better"? Can't decide^^
WTF is good looking sound?
I have no idea, but I'd
assume, that when looking at the spectral analysis diagram, there are no distortions visible?
"good sounding sound" sounds like a mouthful, so I believe that's what some people refer to with
"good looking sound".