What AAC encoder is the best?

Topic: What AAC encoder is the best? (Read 12255 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What AAC encoder is the best?

2011-06-09 15:40:07

Which encoder is the best at a given bitrate, such ~245kbps?

What AAC encoder is the best?

Reply #1 – 2011-06-09 15:49:13

Modern AAC encoders (e.g. Nero, iTunes) should be perceptually transparent at this bitrate for virtually all types of music (save for the rare problem sample). So in this sense no one may be considered to be the "best."

What AAC encoder is the best?

Reply #2 – 2011-07-19 19:50:18

I think that all commercial encoders such as Nero, iTunes, Coding Technologies aacPlus, Fraunhofer, and Dolby Pulse will give you same-transparent quality at that bitrate.

If you want to see how the AAC encoders performs at lower bitrate (96bkps) against each other, I suggest that you check the AAC public listening test: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=89765

What AAC encoder is the best?

Reply #3 – 2011-07-20 01:14:32

I'm encoding my entire FLAC into 320 AAC with NeroAAC. I wanted to use qtaacenc but the thing is it's still rather shakey from what I've seen and Nero specifically designed theirs to be a command line encoder, soooo I had to choose that over qtaacenc. I really hope MP5 isn't released for a very very long time if it ever is lol

What AAC encoder is the best?

Reply #4 – 2011-07-20 08:52:05

Quote from: SamDeRe81 on 2011-07-20 01:14:32

I really hope MP5 isn't released for a very very long time if it ever is lol

The standard for a new AAC-like codec will be published early next year But don't worry, at your target bit-rate it won't sound better than AAC.

Chris

What AAC encoder is the best?

Reply #5 – 2011-07-20 13:08:13

Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on 2011-07-20 08:52:05

Quote from: SamDeRe81 on 2011-07-20 01:14:32
I really hope MP5 isn't released for a very very long time if it ever is lol

The standard for a new AAC-like codec will be published early next year But don't worry, at your target bit-rate it won't sound better than AAC.

Hello, Chris. Good to know you keep following HA. Do you think there is a chance that USAC reference software and drafts will be publicly available before release of the standard as it happens with h265?

AFAIK USAC keeps using MDCT based coding for audio content. One of CELT benefits is VQ which allows to efficiently handle excessive resolution of high frequencies. I think whether one could get rid of this excessive resolution using some kind of modified transform e.g. somewhat like splitting the signal into HF and LF band and using shorter windows for HF?

What AAC encoder is the best?

Reply #6 – 2011-07-20 19:33:42

Hi Alexander, thanks for your interest.

Quote from: .alexander. on 2011-07-20 13:08:13

Do you think there is a chance that USAC reference software and drafts will be publicly available before release of the standard as it happens with h265?

Unfortunately I don't think MPEG will publish anything before USAC (that name will probably change) reaches the International Standard stage. But if they do, I'll let you know.

Quote

AFAIK USAC keeps using MDCT based coding for audio content. One of CELT benefits is VQ which allows to efficiently handle excessive resolution of high frequencies. I think whether one could get rid of this excessive resolution using some kind of modified transform e.g. somewhat like splitting the signal into HF and LF band and using shorter windows for HF?

Correct, for musical content, an AAC-like core codec is used as before. There are also two different types of bandwidth extension which follow exactly what you describe: compared to the MDCT-based LF codec, the HF extension operates in a pseudo-QMF domain with higher time resolution. The HF coding is fully parametric, which is a bit unflexible but works well enough.

Chris

Notice