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: AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED (Read 63400 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #75
Quote
To get a meaningful conclusion you have to compare best encoders of the both formats. That's why I am saying to compare LAME --alt-preset standard -Y  with whatever best LC-AAC encoder at 128kbps (currentlly looks like iTune). IMHO, comparing iTune with Fastenc won't be a good choice. But even with vbr mode, it would be interesting to see whether current best LC-AAC at 128kbps vbr can stand up against LAME --alt-preset standard -Y.

What statement did the MPEG Comitee (or something similar): that AAC is 30% more efficient that MP3, or that current AAC encoders are 30% more efficient that current MP3 encoders?
If they were only talking about format, then comparison between different encoders isn't a good way to verify their claims. A technical discussion (comparing tool and specification potential) is probably the only way to see if AAC is that efficient.

Now, if you want to compare lame at 180 kbps to iTunes or Nero at 128 kbps, do it. I'm also interested, and I can perform some tests. But if iTunes isn't as good, what will be the conclusion? That AAC isn't +30% efficient, or just that in the beginning of 2004, AAC hasn't reach his full potential?

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #76
Quote
and i've read many time from Frank Klemm itself that musepack PNS implementation is in "alpha stage" !!!

WTF does PNS have to do with this whole discussion?

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #77
Quote
,Mar 1 2004, 07:56 PM] i see no point to compare again two codecs (LAME and iTunes) that, quality speaking, remained almost the same after the last multiformat test.

Don't want to start a pre-test discussion but:
- lame 3.90 -> 3.95 (two years of development)
- QuickTime 6.3 -> 6.5

I can't say if progress are limited or impressive, but both encoders have progressed.
But two other encoders didn't progress since last test:
- vorbis (official: 1.01 was a bugfix for lowbitrate on some conditions)
- mpc

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #78
Quote
- vorbis (official: 1.01 was a bugfix for lowbitrate on some conditions)

I'll maybe use one of the unofficial tunings.

I will leave that decision to the vorbis enthusiasts though. It makes no difference for me if we go with official or unofficial.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #79
Quote
WTF does PNS have to do with this whole discussion?

PNS is exploited in low bitrate settings with Musepack, even at --quality 4 but it is in alpha stage. Maybe Musepack could perform better at --quality 4 with a final PNS implementation.
Nevertheless, please, let's not begin another comparison AAC/MPC or subband/transform discussion. My analogy was certainly not meant to do that, execuse me if i was not enough clear.
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #80
Quote
Quote
1) iTunes result is nice, but I think our progress is even nicer! In the previous test iTunes clearly beat Nero. Now it's getting quite arguable whether it's really better  Next major Nero release will be very intresting.

Wasn't CBR used for Nero in the last test?

No.
Juha Laaksonheimo

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #81
Quote
,Mar 1 2004, 04:15 PM] PNS is exploited in low bitrate settings with Musepack, even at --quality 4 but it is in alpha stage. Maybe Musepack could perform better at --quality 4 with a final PNS implementation.

Ehm... to the best of my knowledge, PNS wasn't used in my test.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #82
Quote
Quote
Quote
1) iTunes result is nice, but I think our progress is even nicer! In the previous test iTunes clearly beat Nero. Now it's getting quite arguable whether it's really better  Next major Nero release will be very intresting.

Wasn't CBR used for Nero in the last test?

No.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/presentation.html

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #83
Quote
Quote

Wasn't CBR used for Nero in the last test?

No.

Well, it might have been ABR, but to this day Nero claims "Constant Bitrate" when encoding at 128kbps.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #84
Quote
Ehm... to the best of my knowledge, PNS wasn't used in my test.

It's included by default with radio profile.

Regarding the incoming multiformat test, i think we should include something new (i like your idea of including a vorbis unofficial version) because some codecs are almost the same. Regarding LAME and QuickTime changes should not be so radical but obviously we can't tell how significant was the "recent" upgrades for quality. But i suppose this will be discussed later, in the apposite thread.
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #85
If people believe the codecs are almost the same and that doesn't justify a new listening test, I will not conduce it and go straight to the low bitrates test.

I won't replace a winning codec with a loser.

Multiformat test discussion starts next week.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #86
rjamorim, have you made available the decryption key yet? I have a few results that I forgot to submit by the deadline  but I'd like to know how I rated the samples.

Thanks for running the test. Your work is always appreciated!

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #87
I really appreciate this test. I'll still stick with iTunes/QuickTime then  Not that i had any doubt before the test anyway, the results was mostly just as i anticipated it.
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #88
almos the same? whoa! 
I might not be speaking for everyone but IMHO the differences between codecs sometimes is huge! The new listening test should definitely be made.

BTW, I'm quite happy with how well I (sknop) did in the test. 

I apreciate your efforts, Roberto.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #89
The conclusions from my tests (too many ranked references):

- Don't test codecs at 0:00. (local time  )
- Train some more on AAC: I don't have some of the codecs.  (esp. iTunes and Real, Compaact can be tricky also)
- Do more ABX tests.

I usually test Vorbis, MP3 and lower MusePack (up to 5)

I vote for adding ABX test tracking in ABC/HR.
But how to parse it? Only take the best test into consideration?
ruxvilti'a

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #90
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
1) iTunes result is nice, but I think our progress is even nicer! In the previous test iTunes clearly beat Nero. Now it's getting quite arguable whether it's really better  Next major Nero release will be very intresting.

Wasn't CBR used for Nero in the last test?

No.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/presentation.html

Damn. I remembered that wrong. Sorry about that.
Anyway, for Roberto: Nero had no ABR at that time. ABR coding is used by default in Recode2, but not in normal Nero 6's encoder.
Juha Laaksonheimo

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #91
Quote
Damn. I remembered that wrong. Sorry about that.

It's OK.  I was pretty sure when I wrote the origonal post, but you had me second guessing myself for a minute.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #92
I'd just like to apologise to Roberto for not taking part.  After managing to spot one codec/sample out of 5 tests I gave up.  I meant to try again over the weekend but found I couldn't use earbuds 
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #93
Partial quote from a slashdot post here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98809&cid=8430289 :

Quote
Fundamentally, even the most "discriminating" audiophiles cannot tell the difference between 16-bit, 44.1kHz PCM (Pulse Code Modulation - e.g. AIFF, WAV, in the computer world) and the 1-bit, 2.7GHz DSD bitstream of SACD... nevermind the minute differences betweeen various AAC-enabled codecs. Hell, I would challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference between 16-bit PCM and MPEG-4 AAC. The AES (Audio Engineering Society) has stated that MPEG-4 AAC is perceptibly indistinguishable from uncompressed 16-bit, dual channel PCM (e.g. CD-DA spec audio).and I would wager any experienced audio engineer's pair of ears (my own included) against any consumer "audiophile" any day of the week. My advice to the idle rich? Don't buy the $45,000 pair of speakers... instead buy yourself better hearing and some common sense. My personal preference? MPEG-4 AAC. As a content creator intensely familiar with a variety of media standards including AES, NTSC, ISO, ITU-R/CCIR, etc. I believe MPEG-4 w/AAC (not Quicktime MPEG-4, mind you, but straight MPEG-4) is the superlative format for compressed audiovisual media. However, for critical listening, only uncompressed audio is the way to go.


A little off topic, but this WAS a post about this test.  My question is, what is this "straight MPEG-4 AAC" that this guy is talking about?
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #94
Quote
My question is, what is this "straight MPEG-4 AAC" that this guy is talking about?

Excuse my french, but this guy is "plein de merde".

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #95
 
What did you learn during your french séjour? Not poetry

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #96
Yeh, I've just been reading the whole topic at Slashdot, and most of the people there don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #97
Quote
Quote
My question is, what is this "straight MPEG-4 AAC" that this guy is talking about?

Excuse my french, but this guy is "plein de merde".

I figured.  Just wanted to make sure.
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #98
Quote
Quote
My question is, what is this "straight MPEG-4 AAC" that this guy is talking about?

Excuse my french, but this guy is "plein de merde".

Good one Roberto.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

AAC at 128kbps v2 listening test - FINISHED

Reply #99
Don't know if I could differenciate PCM 44100/16 bits from straight MPEG-4 encodings... but here is the overview of my notation for non-mythological AAC encoders:

http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/128AAC2.html


My own results are more constrasted than the overall results.

- Faac and compaact are often the worse encoders (Compaact 5 times, faac three times)
- Real has to my ears different problems. Suffers more from lowpass than other annoying artifacts. I'd like to hear Real encodings lowpassed to ~16000 hertz.

- Nero sounded very bad on two files (the two classical music ones...), but was generally good ranked (two time BEST, and six time SECOND).
- iTunes is not hegemonic, but to my ears, the best AAC encoder I've tested at this bitrate.


There wasn't any low anchor, and therefore notation is sometime very low. But even with low anchor, some encodings sounded very bad to my ears (irritiating to very irritating).

(P.S. Thanks Roberto for the files you've sent me)