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: aacplus (Read 7003 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aacplus

IS HE-AAC the same as AAC PLUS only under another name?
0001 0110

aacplus

Reply #1 –
Yes

High Efficiency AAC profile is the name of MPEG-4 profile

aacPlus is the trade-mark of an HE-AAC implementation by Coding Tech.

aacplus

Reply #2 –
can i use it for my music data base @~96kbs or is it only a "internet-format" and should i use higher bit ratees @~160 without HE
i use the nero6 aac-encoder
0001 0110

aacplus

Reply #3 –
I suggest you to wait for the new major release of Nero6 AAC which will have new HE-AAC modes with much better quality at 70-110 kb/s


HE-AAC is parametric tool - which means it is not able to provide "transparent" coding in many cases,  but decreases bit rate considerably - so it is used for huge bit rate savings.

If you are able to store files @160 kb/s,  expect them to be higher quality than HE @96

aacplus

Reply #4 –
I look for best quality to highest compression relationship
I want highest possible kopression with best quality

I know that it parradox
however where is the center
0001 0110

aacplus

Reply #5 –
It is very hard, if not impossible for most people to distinguish between several different, modern audio compression formats like Vorbis or AAC at bitrates > 128 kbps. However, many people here love MPC ( musepack ) for its very transparent sound at bitrates > 160 kbps .....

aacplus

Reply #6 –
Quote
I suggest you to wait for the new major release of Nero6 AAC which will have new HE-AAC modes with much better quality at 70-110 kb/s

May I ask if it will be February release?
mikeson

aacplus

Reply #7 –
Well february is over tomorrow.. i guess you meant March

aacplus

Reply #8 –
Quote
I suggest you to wait for the new major release of Nero6 AAC which will have new HE-AAC modes with much better quality at 70-110 kb/s

Hey Ivan    instead of packing a new version every month, why don't u tweak 2-3 different version of your encoder and give the opporunity to poeple to test them with their own equipment and samples, to choose the best one?

I think an open test method could be done even if the encoder is not open, isn't it?
There are people with good ears and earphones around here and with a lot of time too

I'm not one of them as i don't like to get used to artifacts, else i could not enjoy lossy formats any more

aacplus

Reply #9 –
Major release is major release - it is not regular montly update.

New release will have completely different VBR model (with quality slider, like MPC or Ogg, or Compaact)  and, of course, some new technologies and new AAC profiles.

I can't speculate when it will be available - "soon" is the best term


Quote
Hey Ivan instead of packing a new version every month, why don't u tweak 2-3 different version of your encoder and give the opporunity to poeple to test them with their own equipment and samples, to choose the best one?


I'm afraid that would make too much confusion.  We now have a team that does professional listening tests and parameter tweaking - and we try to make each VBR preset as good as possible for the bit rate range.

aacplus

Reply #10 –
Quote
New release will have completely different VBR model (with quality slider, like MPC or Ogg, or Compaact)  and, of course, some new technologies and new AAC profiles.

Great news!
mikeson

aacplus

Reply #11 –
when will the new release comming?
0001 0110

aacplus

Reply #12 –
When it is done...
mikeson

aacplus

Reply #13 –
Quote
If you are able to store files @160 kb/s,  expect them to be higher quality than HE @96

That means an AAC@160kb/s CBR sounds better than HE@96 CBR, technically. Is that correct, Ivan?
No pain no gain!

aacplus

Reply #14 –
Quote
Quote
If you are able to store files @160 kb/s,  expect them to be higher quality than HE @96

That means an AAC@160kb/s CBR sounds better than HE@96 CBR, technically. Is that correct, Ivan?

Yes. HE is useful up to 128kbps. Above that just normal LC-AAC is used.

aacplus

Reply #15 –
I actually have a discussion tih karl-lillevold about He-AAC for movies. I think that VBR can be much better for movies than CBR because there can be saved much space during silent passages. He thinks that the bitrate doesn't changes so much even in silent scenes (he said that the bitrate won't be i.e. 12kbps on silent passages). I think for lowbitrate there should be a advantage if I use Nero-VBR-AAC+ instead of Real-CBR-AAC+.
So, aac-developer, I ask you. What's you opinion? Is there a way for me to find it out?

Greets
Big_Berny

aacplus

Reply #16 –
Quote
I actually have a discussion tih karl-lillevold about He-AAC for movies. I think that VBR can be much better for movies than CBR because there can be saved much space during silent passages. He thinks that the bitrate doesn't changes so much even in silent scenes (he said that the bitrate won't be i.e. 12kbps on silent passages). I think for lowbitrate there should be a advantage if I use Nero-VBR-AAC+ instead of Real-CBR-AAC+.
So, aac-developer, I ask you. What's you opinion? Is there a way for me to find it out?

Both are true. The bitrate will not drop _that_ much during silent passages (because they often aren't _really_ silent...and background noise does eat bitrate too). But VBR will allow the encoder to put the bits where they are most needed better than CBR mode can.

If you have a target size to encode to, VBR may be a problem as you can't reliably predict how large the output will be.

There will be quality differences between the HE-AAC encoders, too. Recent tests results (Rjamorims test) have shown Nero AAC to deliver significantly better quality than Real AAC, and that should extend to the HE-AAC mode as well.

aacplus

Reply #17 –
I am curious too, how great the variability of VBR HE-AAC is, since I do not know audio nearly as well as video. Here's what I wrote last in the doom9 thread:

"you are quite right in that if you first encode the audio, you can use what is left for video. It is just that the variability of a VBR audio codec is not as large as for instance for video. Even during "silence" there will be background noise and sounds that the codec will faithfully try to reproduce with a much higher bitrate than you might think."
Sr. Codec Engineer (video) | RealNetworks Codec Group | helixcommunity.org 
This information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,  grants no rights, and reflects my personal opinion.

aacplus

Reply #18 –
@Garf: Let us forget the different encoders (Real and Nero) for a moment.
Do you think that we can here a difference between a CBR- and a VBR-audiofile from a movie at i.e. 64kbits or even 48kbits? Is the variation big enough to hear a difference? I would say yes, because on normal songs some of us can already hear a difference between CBR and VBR and on audio from movies the difference between complexe and non-complexe parts is much bigger, isn't it? So the VBR should work even better on audio from movies...

Big_Berny

Between: It would be cool if you could add in Nero a specail profile for this kind of audio! I think the characteristics on these audio-files is not as comparable with normal music...

aacplus

Reply #19 –
Two things:

1) About audiblity of difference: Test it  I don't know myself. In my personal opinion movie MPEG4 artifacts are generally much more 'visible' than AAC audio artifacts are audible, so I don't generally notice much problems with movie audio while I'm distracted with video artifacts.

2) Nero AAC should have no problems with characteristics of movie audio as it's tuned for a wide variety of material, including movies. Don't forget we use it in Recode 2

aacplus

Reply #20 –
Quote
1) About audiblity of difference: Test it  I don't know myself. In my personal opinion movie MPEG4 artifacts are generally much more 'visible' than AAC audio artifacts are audible, so I don't generally notice much problems with movie audio while I'm distracted with video artifacts.

That's right, no doubt. But perhaps "Nero VBR HE-AAC Preset Portable 30-40" is as good or better than "Real AAC+ 64kbits"! Then I could use the saved 20kbits for the video and that would result in better video quality! Altough I don't think that 20kbits make a big difference, a very low bitrate-movies you can perhaps see a difference...

Big_Berny

aacplus

Reply #21 –
>>Garf: If you have a target size to encode to, VBR may be a problem as you can't reliably predict how large the output will be.
I have a great solution for you - use two passes
And don't forgot to transfer 5$ - for the idea !
(This is a joke, but it has some truth beneath)