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: How far will AAC plus go? (Read 88245 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #75 –
Quote
Quote
Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering that HE-AAC v2 is pretty new, and that there haven't been any large scale public tests, and considering the difficulty to prove such a generalizing statement about "most people" being not able to distinguish them using listening tests, I wonder what makes you think that this could be established as a fact?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329855"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is my experience and you can try for yourself. Ask your neighbor, sister, mother, etc... as random as possible to listen something @ 32Kbps HE-AAC v2. Please do not interfere with their hearing, mood  or environment if you want a fair result. You will be surprised how most people can not identify what is a good audio quality.

Even more, FM radio is considered acceptable even for hearphonesby most listeners when actually its quality is far from 32Kbps He-AAC v2 and XM Satellite Radio is considered as CD quality by the general audience over 128Kbps MP3. XM Satellite Radio is broadcasted @ 64Kbps HE-AAC, very close in quality to 48Kbps HE-AAC v2.

Anyway audio quality is always subjective, and we can talk about preferences for ages.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #76 –
Quote
32kbps PS AAC is very acceptable for portable playback. This isn't marketing, it's a fact, supported by your own listening tests.

32kbps AAC was rated above or equal to MP3 at 128kbps encoded by FhG, Gogo, iTunes, and Xing.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Could you give some links? I never see such tests. I'm very interested, thanks

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #77 –
Quote
Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you back up your claim please? What's the next step: that AAC with PS at 48 kbps is undistinguishable from MPC --insane or LAME -V0?

Quote
It is my experience and you can try for yourself. Ask your neighbor, sister, mother, etc

We're on HA.org. Several users on this board don't care about untrained opinions.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #78 –
Quote
Quote
Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you back up your claim please? What's the next step: that AAC with PS at 48 kbps is undistinguishable from MPC --insane or LAME -V0?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329876"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Read post #76. Thanks

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #79 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you back up your claim please? What's the next step: that AAC with PS at 48 kbps is undistinguishable from MPC --insane or LAME -V0?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329876"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Read post #76. Thanks
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329877"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Read TOS#8. Claiming that 32 kbps is as good as 128 kbps need ABX results. Results. Not a vague assumption.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #80 –
Quote
Not a vague assumption.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329879"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


More like wishful speculation in that case.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #81 –
This turns out very interesting, especially the '32kbps HE-AACv2 quality' bit.
Personally, while it might be satisfiable in noisy environs, it won't be in quiet places.
So, 32kbps HE-AACv2 might sound fine on certain situations, but from what I've experienced so far, it doesn't sound as good as 128kbps MP3 LAME encodes when using earphones.

But that's just me.

Anyway, I partially agree in some way to Roberto's thinking.
Especially the 'storage is getting cheaper' part.
It's true that most flash-based DAPs nowadays are capable of sporting more than 512MB, or even 1GB, of storage.
This leads to virtually unlimited music on a small, light-weight, DAP.
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](well, personally, I don't hear music on my DAP more than 50 tracks a day, thank you)[/span]

But this doesn't mean 'greater compression at an acceptable quality' techniques'd get obsolete.

Who wouldn't want smaller files that sounds almost indistinguishable from its larger counterparts?
It doesn't matter how much storage you have; some people just want more and there's a market for it like DABs.

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']@Oki[/span]
Btw, thanks for the explanation before.
Though I still have this muddled view of AAC naming standards, but I really appreciate it. =)
Will probably try to figure it out by myself and hoping it's not so far from the truth.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #82 –
I guess, it's a dirty truth but one of the most popular uses for HE AAC will be 5.1-channel movie soundtrack compression for flicks shared through P2P networks. For those folks it cannot ever be quick enough and hence files cannot ever be small enough. Also it is used for homebrew DVD backups through the Nero Digital Package.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #83 –
Gabriel and guruboolez: I pointed out which test I was referring to. (It wasn't anchored - so the comparison is not valid.)

I would really like such an anchored comparison (*new* Nero HE-AAC @ 32, 48 and 64 kbps, together with CT aacPlus and perhaps Vorbis against MP3@128kbps, in a *large* listening test), the results would surely amaze a few people. But I cannot conduct this publicly myself, since I'm hardly a neutral party.

The last such comparison was in 2003, and then HE-AAC at 64kbps scored 3,7 versus 4,3 for LAME.

I think a new test would show in what direction HE-AAC can go, as was the original subject here

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #84 –
Quote
Quote
Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you back up your claim please? What's the next step: that AAC with PS at 48 kbps is undistinguishable from MPC --insane or LAME -V0?


Not yet.  Parametric tools run into their limitations at the highest end. They were not designed for a transparency-craving HA crowd. But they will perform fine for everyone else.

Quote
Quote
It is my experience and you can try for yourself. Ask your neighbor, sister, mother, etc

We're on HA.org. Several users on this board don't care about untrained opinions.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329876"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That doesn't unvalidate his statement. Not everybody is a trained listener. I would say most people aren't.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #85 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
It is my experience and you can try for yourself. Ask your neighbor, sister, mother, etc

We're on HA.org. Several users on this board don't care about untrained opinions.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=329876"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That doesn't unvalidate his statement. Not everybody is a trained listener. I would say most people aren't.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330020"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Neverthless, he did a claim that begs for factual proof, like a listening test, and he didn't provide any.

"most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3"

Clear TOS 8 violation there.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #86 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It is my experience and you can try for yourself. Ask your neighbor, sister, mother, etc

We're on HA.org. Several users on this board don't care about untrained opinions.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That doesn't unvalidate his statement. Not everybody is a trained listener. I would say most people aren't.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330020"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Neverthless, he did a claim that begs for factual proof, like a listening test, and he didn't provide any.

"most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3"

Clear TOS 8 violation there.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330021"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I made a statement and I also gave the method to duplicate it, according to TOS #8. It is very easy to implement, do it yourself. It is like asking if someone can identify a diesel engine from a gas engine. Most of the people (mostly in the States) will not be able to differenciate the sound. This last statement was also based on my experience, just asking others.

You could be very surprised if you take ito account the experience from others, ramdom others, even your grandfather or your daughter, with their resources since most people has a medium quality sound system and the quality difference is always masked. For some people, even a CD will sound like 64Kbps WMA and this statement does not mean that 64Kbps WMA has the same quality than a CD.

I can say also that most of the people I know (again from my experience) in Texas, UK and Spain listens WMA @ 64Kbps in theirs portable and car DAP because it is enough and it is the fastest way to download and upload music.

I am sorry if my english is too limited and the real meaning of my sentences are wrongly understood.

It you are reading this, please, test [a href="http://di.fm/aacplus/newage.pls]this stream[/url] using foobar2000 or Winamp 5.1 with your family in their usual listening environment and write if they think if this quality is acceptable or not. Not an ABX test but enough to see if 24Kbps HE-AAC v1 quality is acceptable or not.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #87 –
Quote
Not an ABX test but enough to see if 24Kbps HE-AAC v1 quality is acceptable or not.

Acceptable is not the same as transparency. I found it acceptable. But I cant claim its "better than mp3 in 128" in all situations.

I do think a lot of people cant hear a difference between an original and a 24kbps AAC+ encoded file. But many of them just think "man, that's a really good sound for such a low bitrate!!". But it doesnt mean its better than all other files in LAME 128 VBR fo example. Just acceptable for that bitrate range.

I know you're not talking just about transparency but I'm just saying IMO acceptable sound and tranparent sound are different things and many people claim as if those things had the same meaning.
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #88 –
Quote
I made a statement and I also gave the method to duplicate it, according to TOS #8.


I suspect you didn't understand TOS 8 at all. Let me quote it here:

Quote
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.


The part I emphasized means YOU have the burden of proof - that is, providing the hard data supporting your claim. The thing about posting a sample (method) so that others can reproduce (duplicate) the findings doesn't free you from proving that the majority of people (that's what "most" means) can not identify HE AAC+PS at 32 from MP3 at 128.

If just posting methods was enough, everyone here would go around claiming crazy shit and just reply to anyone contesting it "oh, just follow these steps, you should hopefully come to the same conclusion"

Quote
It is very easy to implement, do it yourself.


Nope, you should do it and provide the results data. As I said, the burden of proof lies on you and you alone.

Quote
This last statement was also based on my experience, just asking others.


So, your method was asking others. Care to clarify? How many people did you ask? Are they a representative group? In what conditions did the test happen? Was it a blind test?

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #89 –
But this situation is a bit different. Oki is claiming that people *can't* hear a difference, which is an impossible thing to prove, even with ABX results, as opposed to saying you CAN hear a difference, which a positive ABX result proves. I suppose he could fire up foobar's ABX utility and randomly click on buttons without even listening to the samples and come out with a failed ABX. That still wouldn't prove that the samples sound the same.

It seems to me a gray area RE the TOS, because it is making claims concerning subjective sound quality, but there is no proof I know of that can prove its truth.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #90 –
Quote
Quote
I made a statement and I also gave the method to duplicate it, according to TOS #8.


I suspect you didn't understand TOS 8 at all. Let me quote it here:

Quote
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.


The part I emphasized means YOU have the burden of proof - that is, providing the hard data supporting your claim. The thing about posting a sample (method) so that others can reproduce (duplicate) the findings doesn't free you from proving that the majority of people (that's what "most" means) can not identify HE AAC+PS at 32 from MP3 at 128.

If just posting methods was enough, everyone here would go around claiming crazy shit and just reply to anyone contesting it "oh, just follow these steps, you should hopefully come to the same conclusion"[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330061"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect you didn't understand my statement:

"Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3"

This statement regards the ability of most people to differenciate two levels of quality, not the quality of the codecs. The rest of you dissertation is futile.

By the way, are you suggesting that my statement is a crazy shit?

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #91 –
Quote
"Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330103"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hmm. Where there? Don't you want to be more specific?
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #92 –
Quote
But this situation is a bit different. Oki is claiming that people *can't* hear a difference, which is an impossible thing to prove, even with ABX results, as opposed to saying you CAN hear a difference, which a positive ABX result proves. I suppose he could fire up foobar's ABX utility and randomly click on buttons without even listening to the samples and come out with a failed ABX. That still wouldn't prove that the samples sound the same.

It seems to me a gray area RE the TOS, because it is making claims concerning subjective sound quality, but there is no proof I know of that can prove its truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330080"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't see any gray area or impossibility here.

Set up a test with random people, ABX-ing HE-AAC@32kbps vs MP3@128kbps vs originals.

If you can't make a conclusion from that that MP3@128kbps > HE-AAC@32kbps, then
that may not prove they are "equal", but you *have* shown that an average person can't differentiate them with any kind of significance. And that *is* the point here.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #93 –
No that is not the point. Right now we can't make any assumptions if "most people" can or can't hear the difference. I doubt "most people" have ever heard of HE-AAC let alone tested or listened to it.

Oki made an assumption without providing any sort of test results to back them up and then asked others to prove him wrong. That is cleary not in the spirit of TOS#8, as we can quote from it:
Quote
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims.

Now where did Oki provide objective support for his claims? I am sorry if I missed it, but I only saw him talk about his "experience", which is rather subjective. It is not any more difficult to claim that most people I know can tell the difference.

So now we know nothing more than we knew before. Some people can tell the difference, some people can't. Obviously that is almost always true if we talk about lossy encoders.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #94 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
I made a statement and I also gave the method to duplicate it, according to TOS #8.


I suspect you didn't understand TOS 8 at all. Let me quote it here:

Quote
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.


The part I emphasized means YOU have the burden of proof - that is, providing the hard data supporting your claim. The thing about posting a sample (method) so that others can reproduce (duplicate) the findings doesn't free you from proving that the majority of people (that's what "most" means) can not identify HE AAC+PS at 32 from MP3 at 128.

If just posting methods was enough, everyone here would go around claiming crazy shit and just reply to anyone contesting it "oh, just follow these steps, you should hopefully come to the same conclusion"[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330061"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect you didn't understand my statement:

"Remember that most people out there can not identify 32Kbps HE-AAC v2 and 128Kbps MP3"

This statement regards the ability of most people to differenciate two levels of quality, not the quality of the codecs. The rest of you dissertation is futile.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330103"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is strictly a TOS 8 violation, just like my post is. You must provide the evidence for your claims.

I am willing (and would be happy) to set up such a test. But would anyone believe a good result from a test conducted by a "Nero MP4/AAC developer"? I am sure I would just be wasting my time, since people in this thread have already pointed out I am not to be trusted.

So I will STFU now, and we will try to get the new PS encoder out the door

BTW, I fail to understand how "the level of quality of 32kbps HE-AAC and 128kbps MP3" and "the quality of the codecs" is any different. What do you mean?

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #95 –
Quote
Quote
But this situation is a bit different. Oki is claiming that people *can't* hear a difference, which is an impossible thing to prove, even with ABX results, as opposed to saying you CAN hear a difference, which a positive ABX result proves. I suppose he could fire up foobar's ABX utility and randomly click on buttons without even listening to the samples and come out with a failed ABX. That still wouldn't prove that the samples sound the same.

It seems to me a gray area RE the TOS, because it is making claims concerning subjective sound quality, but there is no proof I know of that can prove its truth.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330080"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't see any gray area or impossibility here.

Set up a test with random people, ABX-ing HE-AAC@32kbps vs MP3@128kbps vs originals.

If you can't make a conclusion from that that MP3@128kbps > HE-AAC@32kbps, then
that may not prove they are "equal", but you *have* shown that an average person can't differentiate them with any kind of significance. And that *is* the point here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330113"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactly. I suppose the correct way to prove that point would be conducing a blind test with a handful of representative samples and maybe 20 listeners. If more than 50% of them can't listen to the difference, I suppose that's enough proof to claim "most people out there can not identify..."

That's what statistics is all about. When people claim "most americans have a television at home", they didn't ask every single american if he/she has a TV set at home. They took a small, representative group and extrapolated the research results.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #96 –
Quote
It is strictly a TOS 8 violation, just like my post is. You must provide the evidence for your claims.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330115"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is impossible to do that. you can not ABX with a radio receiver, and it is really complicated to do that with a car stereo while you are driving... It is easier just asking if they think if this is acceptable or not. Most people are not doing an ABX test when they are buying a sound system, it they think it sounds good, they buy them. I am not talking about the quality of a codec, but the quality of the sound systems, environments and requirements of the people. If you want to extrapolate the philosophy of an ABX test to the rest of your life then it is better to do a blind taste before selecting a meal from the menu. From my personal point of view this issue has nothing to do with TOS #8.
Quote
So I will STFU now, and we will try to get the new PS encoder out the door [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330115"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
GREEEAT!!!!

Quote
BTW, I fail to understand how "the level of quality of 32kbps HE-AAC and 128kbps MP3" and "the quality of the codecs" is any different. What do you mean?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330115"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is the same, and has nothing to do with the codec quality.

The meaning is: Most people has a medium quality sound system with a non optimal listening environment (car stereo, the noise of their children in a home, The working noise in the office and the traffic noise while walking on the street). This happens most of the time to most of the people and they can't hear the difference in their normal environment. An ABX test is artificial and valid only for backing up some hypothesis, trying to give a more objective view of a subjective perception under a unique controlled environment.

I am not saying 32 @ HE-AAC v2 is the same in quality than 128Kbps MP3.

Sorry for my limited english.

Regards,
Oki

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #97 –
Quote
I am willing (and would be happy) to set up such a test. But would anyone believe a good result from a test conducted by a "Nero MP4/AAC developer"? I am sure I would just be wasting my time, since people in this thread have already pointed out I am not to be trusted.

So I will STFU now, and we will try to get the new PS encoder out the door
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330115"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'd be very interested in the results from such a test and happily accept the results even when it is conducted by a part who has economic interest in the outcome, as long as the testing methodology is fair and transparent.

Two requierements on such test:
* don't cripple mp3 by using anything but the best encoder
* don't use a not-yet-released version of any encoder (specifically Nero)

So, continue to work on the new PS encoder, but after it's ready for release, please come back and start that listening test.

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #98 –
Quote
* don't cripple mp3 by using anything but the best encoder
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330125"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


These kind of things are an issue, because there is *always* someone popping up to point out that whatever you used is (in their eyes) not optimal, hence your test is invalid, whine whine...

How far will AAC plus go?

Reply #99 –
Quote
Exactly. I suppose the correct way to prove that point would be conducing a blind test with a handful of representative samples and maybe 20 listeners. If more than 50% of them can't listen to the difference, I suppose that's enough proof to claim "most people out there can not identify..."

That's what statistics is all about. When people claim "most americans have a television at home", they didn't ask every single american if he/she has a TV set at home. They took a small, representative group and extrapolated the research results.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330117"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with you on that, but how can I set up a blind test while driving, while at the office, while I am playing with my daughter...? You really need to ABX several persons but what about the testing environment? A blind test requires the same environment and my point is that environment masks the quality of the codec.

I would like to see a blind test under real conditions since all the test described in HA were performed under the best fidelity achieveable.

Regards,
Oki