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: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better) (Read 1104 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)


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.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #1
I don't think anyone would be surprised that xHE-AAC performs better than AAC-LC at 64hbps.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #2
Fraunhofer aac is at 32 kHz. At least are both LC AAC files... fix that.
Error 404; signature server not available.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #3
Isn't xHE-AAC essentially a new codec compared to what CoreAudio encodes? Are xHE-AAC files even playable by old AAC encoders?

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #4
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
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #5
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?

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #6
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.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #7
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.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #8
Quote from: agtherluyd
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.

Re: Fraunhofer IIS vs Qaac (Fraunhofer IIS Performing better)

Reply #9
'EZ CD Audio Converter' Ctrl+F brings out testers.
exhaleFLAC

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021