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: 48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition (Read 155253 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #100 –
Quote
Actually a smart idea will be to do a small pre-test[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=351910"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The pre-test of the pre-test? :B

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #101 –
Well yeah - otherwise I have no clue which mode to chose and to be absolutely sure

And it would actually mean a lot to see how VBR is useful at this bitrate.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #102 –
radio streaming related: just to mention that 'radio out -> encoder' is not perfect path in most cases (for the encoder), some of my tests with real/he-aac confirm that (i could get nice quality with cd sourced samples, but when the actual radio stream was the source all kind of problems were noticable), so in real world this kind of test may be just wishfull theory thats not really usefull.
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #103 –
As the 3gpp reference code only runs on 48kHz samples, we have 2 choices:
*patch it to accept 44.1kHz
*resample input to 48kHz, encode with 3gpp, and resample to 44.1kHz after decoding.

I do not really like the idea of patching it to accept 44kHz, as it could fool its psychoacoustics.
I think that the resampling option is acceptable. The quality decrease because of the 2 resampling steps should be (I think) minor compared to the encoding @ 48kbps.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #104 –
Quote
I think that the resampling option is acceptable. The quality decrease because of the 2 resampling steps should be (I think) minor compared to the encoding @ 48kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=356797"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #105 –
48 kbps Nero AAC mode should be testable next week - I'll organize a small "nero pre-test" which consists of:

HE-AAC:

- 48 kbps CBR
- 48 kbps VBR-1
- 48 kbps VBR-2
- 48 kbps ABR

PS-AAC:

- 48 kbps CBR
- 48 kbps VBR-1
- 48 kbps VBR-2
- 48 kbps ABR

VBR-1 and VBR-2 are both based on quality control, but their scaling is different.

Winners could definitely be used in the upcoming AAC 48 kbps test.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #106 –
Quote
I do not really like the idea of patching it to accept 44kHz, as it could fool its psychoacoustics.


If I remeber correctly the last updated 3gp  is already  patched  to accept as input 44.1 khz. However developer said something about psy problems.
3gp supports PS only up to 36 kbit/s.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #107 –
I'd like to put an additionnal rule for this test:
Contenders encoders should be publically available at least 15 days before the start of the test.

This would avoid "rushed" encoders with changes made in the last hours before the test.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #108 –
By "public", you mean "officially" or not?

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #109 –
I would propose the subsequent codec releases on HA, until the entire codec is finalized.  We do have a clear and firm release date of the new encoder (fully done and optimized) - but we can finish the coding modes one by one, for the tests - e.g. 5.1 and downsampled SBR are not yet done, SBR is being tuned etc....  and they cannot be done in a week.

I would of course try to respect the 2-week deadline for the modes under test - so proper testing and verification could be done - for example, if we set 48 kbps SBR test to mid-February, I can make sure the finalized 48 kbps coding mode will be ready 2 weeks before, with no changes permitted.

I am sorry that I cannot offer anything better - as the next "official" release of the encoder will be quite a big departure from the earlier strategy and model of usage, and it would take extra time to properly integrate it in other applications.

What I would do - I'd like to do a 1-week or 7 day "nero only" test, maybe at the end of this week, for the best coding mode of Nero Digital AAC - winner would be integrated in the codec that would be ready for testing on February 1st, so the real 48 kbps AAC test could start at February 15th.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #110 –
I had Garf's recent complaint about WMAPro vs HE-AAC listening test in mind. He considered as unfair to oppose an unavailable encoder (WMAPro 10+) to the lastest public release of the direct contender (Nero).
Wouldn't therefore be also "unfair" to reproduce the same attitude? Shouldn't we use public release for all encoders or ask to all companies if their ready to send us the lastest development version of their product wr're going to test?

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #111 –
Well,

It is up to the organizer of the test to decide - for sure, but here are few points from my side:

- New encoder from Nero is currently being finalized and it is about to be released in a short time - testing something which is older would miss the chance to test the encoder that will completely replace everything older, and also be of higher quality (it is not "mumbo jumbo" these claims can be easily proved by anyone willing to do the test between beta AAC encoder, and the old one).

- It is up to the nature of the test - do the test wants to help development of the codecs, or just reflect the "commercially and officially available state of the art" -  I always thought it was the first, and am for testing of anything that can be publically be put online with the commitment that it will be used in the future public release of the software, which you can pretty much get from me (yes, it is official

Also, there are examples of other codecs with similar methodology - for example, Vorbis codecs usually used in the test is not "official vorbis codec" / Xiph Approved but still - development builds - so it could be argued that we should only use "official Xiph Approved SVN build" of Vorbis, which I also find to be absolutely not a good idea - and I am all against that.

For sure, I have no reasons not to include the new AAC encoder in the "official release" of software available at www.nero.com  - it is just the change that needs to be done is quite big and it needs to fit in the release schedule of the entire product line (so, not just depending on myself  - but IMHO it would be very unfortunate to skip the opportunity to test something quite novel and better and that would be available very soon.

So, my 2 cents - use whatever is:

a) Available publically, or donated to HA for testing purposes without restrictions

and/or

b) Forked/beta projects, regarded by developers or by some other conclusion (DBT test) as the best implementation of the particular codec (e.g. Vorbis independent builds)

As for WMA10+ - I would really like it to be also included in the test, if Microsoft wants to publish it by some acceptable means, and give people right to use it, like we do for the beta Nero AAC builds (basically we give people same rights to use them as for the "official" codecs)... I would be the first to support such test.

But, if MS is unvilling to do so (publish WMA10+) - I don't think we should limit others who are really willing to give out the beta codecs, and cooperate with the HA community in making the software better - IMHO it is the point of HA community, to make the audio coding actually progress over the time.  Limiting the test would be a step in the very wrong direction.

Just my 0.02 euros

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #112 –
Here is my proposal:

*You make a pre-test related to your codec, and this test is independant of the "official" 48kbps aac test.

*Contenders of the 48kbps aac test must submit their competitors by the 5th of February, 2006 (23:59 gmt).

*The public 48kbps aac test will start on the 20th of February, 2006.  Samples choice will still be discussed between the contenders submission and start of the test. This way we will not have encoders specially tuned for a specific set of samples. (it would be very unlikely to happen, but this way we are sure about it)

To be accepted, a codec contender must either:
a) be publically available inside a full usable product (the product can be the encoder itself if it is a command line version)

b) be publically available as a "48kbps test-specific version" . In this case, developpers have three monthes after the end of this test to package the contender in something that would fit into rule "a)". The final packaged encoder must produce identical results as the version used in the test.
Compliance results for this rule will be clearly mentionned on the test pages.

This is quite restrictive, but prevent "fooling" potential users by presenting test results that would not be representative of the real product.

Practically, it means that Nero would have a 3 monthes delay to incorporate the tested encoder mode into the Burning Rom suite. This have to be into an official release. Of course, there can be other subsequent releases after this one, but this is outside of our current scope.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #113 –
Gabriel,

I agree with the terms and conditions of the test, the deadline and the requirement to publish the codecs "officially" in the 3 months time frame.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #114 –
Quote
I had Garf's recent complaint about WMAPro vs HE-AAC listening test in mind. He considered as unfair to oppose an unavailable encoder (WMAPro 10+) to the lastest public release of the direct contender (Nero).
Wouldn't therefore be also "unfair" to reproduce the same attitude? Shouldn't we use public release for all encoders or ask to all companies if their ready to send us the lastest development version of their product wr're going to test?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=357548"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Didn't we always publish our encoders?

They're not always in Nero itself yet, but you can still *get* them and test for yourself.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #115 –
I would like to submit Opticodec-PC FE Enterprise 30-day Evaluation for the default CT entry for the 48kbps test.  Posted to streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com by Charles Hintz Orban/CRL Sr. Engineer/Customer Support on 1-17-06.  This commercial product is scheduled for release 2-15-06.  It has both GUI and CLI for CT aacPlus v2 encoder.  It supports MPEG-2 ADTS (.aac),  MPEG-4 (.mp4 & .m4a),  3GPP (.3gp) file formats.  Available for download here

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #116 –
Quote
I would like to submit Opticodec-PC FE Enterprise 30-day Evaluation for the default CT entry for the 48kbps test.  Posted to streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com by Charles Hintz Orban/CRL Sr. Engineer/Customer Support on 1-17-06.  This commercial product is scheduled for release 2-15-06.

Does it mean that Apple will support HE-AAC in QuickTime?
The codec has very similiar characteristics with Winamp 5.12 AAC+2 and CT AAC+2 enabled in CD-DA poikosoft. Lowpass, aac/mp4/m4a containers, 44.1 and 32 khz, CBR ..etc. Maybe it's updated version but still the same encoder.
Nullsoft says there should be a new version soon.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #117 –
Quote
I would like to submit Opticodec-PC FE Enterprise 30-day Evaluation for the default CT entry for the 48kbps test.  Posted to streaming-server-users@lists.apple.com by Charles Hintz Orban/CRL Sr. Engineer/Customer Support on 1-17-06.  This commercial product is scheduled for release 2-15-06.  It has both GUI and CLI for CT aacPlus v2 encoder.  It supports MPEG-2 ADTS (.aac),  MPEG-4 (.mp4 & .m4a),  3GPP (.3gp) file formats.  Available for download here
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=358762"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hey,

they don't work in Win 2k SP4..Only for Win XP?

thx and best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

EDIT: Please see screenshot for the error message:

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #118 –
Reminder:
by the 5th of February, 2006 (23:59 gmt)

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #119 –
As a note - the HE-AAC encoder in Winamp 5.2 Beta is "final".  Any changes made to the encoder between now and the final version will all be in the "front end" (config UI, mp4 container handling, etc).

Although I suspect you'll be using one of Coding Technologies' "commercial" encoders instead of the one within Winamp.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #120 –
I will use the one included into winamp, because of its easy availability to users.
If you suggest 5.2 beta, then I will use this one.

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #121 –
48kbps AAC test

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #122 –
Is it possible to extend the deadline for the codec submissions to 6th, 23:59 GMT - unfortuntely due to some internal delays, and completion of Nero listening test, our new 48 kbps codec won't be ready until 6th (Monday)

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #123 –
Well, yes 

48 kbps AAC Encoders Test - Q1 2006 Edition

Reply #124 –
Question regarding Winamp: is it possible to encode into HE-AACv2 directly from wav files, or do I have to fool Winamp into thinking that it's ripping from a cd?