Hydrogenaudio Forums

Lossy Audio Compression => AAC => AAC - General => Topic started by: rizukitomi on 2017-07-18 20:49:49

Title: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: rizukitomi on 2017-07-18 20:49:49
Guys i went through faac site at sourceforge, and i found faac version 1.29 uploaded at 2017-07-17, did someone already try it ? How's the quality guys ? Is there some improvement from previous version (1.28-mod) ?

Note : I got it from here => https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Heliologue on 2017-07-18 21:15:02
Based on the commit history (https://sourceforge.net/p/faac/faac/commit_browser), I wouldn't expect the output quality to vary much, if at all, from the version released in 2009.  The code changes seem related to security bugs, compilation fixes, etc.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: rizukitomi on 2017-07-19 01:54:59
Did you try it? I mean try to use it? Not just look at their commit history at sourceforge, with the gear that i have right now, it doesn't really fit for listening test, that's why I'm asking for someone that would try it for me, so i can get an idea that there is quality improvement over the last version...
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: kode54 on 2017-07-19 03:49:26
And @Heliologue just explained, there have been no quality related changes since 2009.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Fairy on 2017-07-19 11:35:09
Encode the same file with both encoders and check if the stream is identical. Could be the only difference in the output file is the version number in the header. The rest of the changes are probably bugfixes that have nothing to do with the outputfile.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-17 13:55:52
I just released faac 1.29.5 with a few real changes.
Encoding is definitely much faster and quality may also be better with many samples, definitely worth trying.

Also, I just noticed there is noise coding available and it always was a part of standard AAC LC.
Apparently I totally missed it back in the days.
I will try to develop this thing for upcoming releases, it can give a real quality boost, especially at lower bitrates.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: enzo on 2017-08-18 17:01:32
It's great to see some work on FAAC again after such a long time! Especially as you're actually trying to improve quality. Thanks @knik! Looking forward to future improvements! :)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-18 18:17:57
Thanks enzo!
It looks like faac is missing two key AAC features: intensity stereo and perceptual noise substitution, it will be interesting to hear how it performs after implementing these.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Glaublichmann on 2017-08-18 21:41:15
Is the Command Line Switches changed in FAAC 1.29?
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-08-19 02:41:54
It looks like faac is missing two key AAC features: intensity stereo and perceptual noise substitution...

LAME MP3 encoder has no intensity stereo nor PNS ... and yet it's better than FAAC at 64-96 kbps. 
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111029/1319840519

I'm not a dev but as far as I know PNS is only useful at 32-64 kbps. And that ranges belongs to HE-AAC. There is no reason to use LC-AAC instead of HE-AAC at such low bitrates. Intensity may be useful at 96 kbps  and lower ... maybe or maybe not. That will depend how smart implementation will be.   :-X
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-19 09:58:28
Is the Command Line Switches changed in FAAC 1.29?
There were some changes recently.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-19 10:08:31
Quote
LAME MP3 encoder has no intensity stereo nor PNS ... and yet it's better than FAAC at 64-96 kbps. 
Actually, that may be true, faac-1.28 probably is slightly worse than lame @64-96 but what's the point to argue about such ancient versions.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-08-20 18:49:39
I just released faac 1.29.5 with a few real changes.
Encoding is definitely much faster and quality may also be better with many samples, definitely worth trying.
Congratulations!
The encoding speed improvement was confirmed on my Ryzen 5 1600X. The real output bitrate was strange when the input was a short stereo white noise file. It was not so on other files.
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1296-small.png)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Glaublichmann on 2017-08-21 08:25:25
Why the foobar's parametres "--mpeg-vers 4 --q 500 -w - -o %d" (working in FAAC 1.28) doesn't work in FAAC 1.29.6?
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-21 09:03:50
Why the foobar's parametres "--mpeg-vers 4 --q 500 -w - -o %d" (working in FAAC 1.28) doesn't work in FAAC 1.29.6?
That may be related to a recent change not to overwrite existing files by default. --overwrite option enables it.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-21 09:08:37
Congratulations!
The encoding speed improvement was confirmed on my Ryzen 5 1600X. The real output bitrate was strange when the input was a short stereo white noise file. It was not so on other files.
Thanks!
Yes, the bitrates aren't very predictable, I think I need to develop some proper psymodel, that should improve encoding in general and possibly also the bitrates. We'll see.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: IgorC on 2017-08-21 16:16:05
I really wanted to give a try to a new encoder.

First things first.

"faac.exe --long-help" doesn't work. It took 10 minutes to figure out that it was "--help-long".  It's not documented a proper way.

It's not funny. I deleted a files and never came back to it.

Bye.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-21 16:33:35
"faac.exe --long-help" doesn't work. It took 10 minutes to figure out that it was "--help-long".  It's not documented a proper way.
Bye.
You are a bit late, it was reported already:
https://github.com/knik0/faac/issues/1
And a fix was commited:
https://github.com/knik0/faac/commit/8064528230ac5bb7d3911b79716d6b60430f94ee

But thanks for you your invaluable help anyway.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-08-21 17:35:38
The encoding speed improvement was confirmed on my Ryzen 5 1600X. The real output bitrate was strange when the input was a short stereo white noise file. It was not so on other files.
It was strange on ordinary music tracks, sorry. Setting -b 200 sounds like a 0.9kHz LPF, and the filesize is tiny.
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1296-2.png)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-21 19:14:24
It was strange on ordinary music tracks, sorry. Setting -b 200 sounds like a 0.9kHz LPF, and the filesize is tiny.
Indeed, it's just unusable. Thanks for finding the problem!
It definitely has to be sorted out.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-21 20:27:27
-b option fixed, what a stupid but it was.
Since it was a serious usage problem I just released a new version 1.29.6.2:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.6.2-win32.zip/download
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-08-22 15:29:37
Hooray! It was fixed!
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1296-3.png)
Title: faac 1.29.7
Post by: knik on 2017-08-22 16:29:22
New version with better support for higher bitrates.
This time the binary package contains changelog and help.txt
Please test and report:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.7-win32.zip/download
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: rizukitomi on 2017-08-23 04:43:40
Thanks for the update @knik
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-08-23 15:55:00
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1296-4.png)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-25 20:09:09
Why the foobar's parametres "--mpeg-vers 4 --q 500 -w - -o %d" (working in FAAC 1.28) doesn't work in FAAC 1.29.6?
That may be related to a recent change not to overwrite existing files by default. --overwrite option enables it.
So, in the end it turns out it doesn't work. Windows version has some problem with standard input.
It probably will be fixed in next release.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-08-25 20:45:40
Bugfix release:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.7.2-win32.zip/download
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Glaublichmann on 2017-08-26 01:18:36
Thanks. There are no problems with foobar2000 in FAAC 1.29.7.2 release.
Title: faac 1.29.7.4
Post by: knik on 2017-09-04 11:18:58
New bugfix release. Thanks to all who reported problems.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.7.4-win32.zip/download

Recent changes:
   * allowed even higher bitrates, including ADTS
   * framebuffer size bug fixed
   * removed broken object types: Main and LTP
   * some mp4 atoms fixed for better compalibility
   * stdin seek bug fixed
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-09-04 16:31:26
It worked!
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1297-4.png)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Oel2020 on 2017-09-22 20:04:04

Hello everyone, everything good?

Can anyone with experience help with the following question?

Using Free Audio Converter 1.0.30 what is the best FAAC configuration 1.29.7 using bit rate per channel without Joint-Stereo?

128, 130, 150 ....

Because in the version I used 1.0.28 with FAAC 1.28 I used 128 per channel and the songs got the final quality this way:

247kbps, 265, 270 ....

And with FAAC 1.29.7 when choosing which rate per channel the songs have the same qualities for example:

130 per channel result = 260kbps.

What is the best bitrate per channel setting in FAAC 1.29.7 without Joint-Stereo?

I apologize for extending the text too much.

Thank you!
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: saratoga on 2017-09-22 22:51:42
Using Free Audio Converter 1.0.30 what is the best FAAC configuration 1.29.7 using bit rate per channel without Joint-Stereo?

I don't think there are any good settings for that.  You should use joint stereo and probably a more mature AAC encoder.  Even with the improvements, FAAC is still probably not the best choice. 
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-09-23 08:32:22
Even with the improvements, FAAC is still probably not the best choice. 
It was true as of 1.29.7.4.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-09-23 11:12:54
If you want bulk encode with faac don't do it yet, better wait for upcoming releases.
Encoding improvements are underway.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Oel2020 on 2017-09-25 22:06:21
So should I use FAAC 1.28 for now?

Thanks!
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: enzo on 2017-09-25 22:15:34
So should I use FAAC 1.28 for now?
FAAC 1.29.7 will be better than 1.28, but until quality improvements arrive, it's best to use a different encoder if possible. You can use Apple's Core Audio AAC Encoder with fre:ac 1.1 Alpha if you have iTunes installed. The Core Audio encoder seems to provide the best quality at the moment.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-09-26 10:19:11
The Core Audio encoder seems to provide the best quality at the moment.
Damn, installing the thing on Linux is not that easy. I just had to download a whole bunch of dlls before qaac agreed to work.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-09-26 21:07:37
The Core Audio encoder seems to provide the best quality at the moment.
Damn, installing the thing on Linux is not that easy. I just had to download a whole bunch of dlls before qaac agreed to work.
You can use the FDK-AAC encoder on Linux. The quality is comparable to that of the mighty Core Audio encoder maintained by Apple.
NeroAACEnc, used to be distributed as Win/Linux binaries, also works. The quality is lower than the Apple/FDK/FhG encoder.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-09-27 15:35:43
Indeed, FDK-AAC is not bad, native Linux binary of reasonable size as opposed to 28M for qaac.
Title: FAAC 1.29.7.7
Post by: knik on 2017-09-28 14:01:08
Because in the version I used 1.0.28 with FAAC 1.28 I used 128 per channel and the songs got the final quality this way:

247kbps, 265, 270 ....

And with FAAC 1.29.7 when choosing which rate per channel the songs have the same qualities for example:

130 per channel result = 260kbps.
I just modified that functionality to allow some bitrate variation. The updated bitrate control code generally seems better.
Now with 128 per channel, you can get something like 263, 281 ...

New version:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.7.7-win32.zip/download

Note that sourceforge had some issues last days, hopefully it will work today.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-09-30 18:40:23
You can use the FDK-AAC encoder on Linux. The quality is comparable to that of the mighty Core Audio encoder maintained by Apple.
It may be even better than that. I just did a couple of quick listening tests (60-80kbps AAC-LC) and it looks like FDK sounds better than Core Audio.  :)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: eahm on 2017-10-02 06:39:48
I just did a couple of quick listening tests (60-80kbps AAC-LC) and it looks like FDK sounds better than Core Audio.  :)
Can you provide some ABX logs?
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-10-02 11:28:19
ABXing CoreAudio AAC-LC @ 80k is too easy.
Previously I was trying two test samples That_s_What_I_Get and Home_Computer but the latter is a joke so for this ABX I took That_s_What_I_Get@80k
Encoding:
./qaac.sh -v 80 ~/tmp/web/aactest/That_s_What_I_Get.wav -o q1.m4a
./aac-enc -t 2 -r 80000 ~/tmp/web/aactest/That_s_What_I_Get.wav f1.aac

ABXed with 'abx' on linux one sample encoded with FDA, one with Core.
Result: 10/10 but that's just too easy due to annoying CoreAudio artifacts.

f1.aac actually has a little lower bitrate than q1.m4a so FDK is definite winner here.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: eahm on 2017-10-02 22:33:08
Thanks for this, what do you think about FhG/Winamp vs FhG/FDK? FhG/Winamp is so fast when converting.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: eahm on 2017-10-03 01:55:58
Yeah, not going to happen for now, FhG/FDK gives me ~160-170x and FhG/Winamp ~400x, I don't use lossy much anymore but speed is very convenient.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-10-03 08:32:32
The "afterburner" fdk option makes difference, about twice slower but produces a little better sound.
I just ABXed @80kbps afterburner vs nonafterburner 9/10.

Maybe Winamp has this option disabled. I don't know.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: 2012 on 2017-10-03 22:20:42
Encoding:
./qaac.sh -v 80 ~/tmp/web/aactest/That_s_What_I_Get.wav -o q1.m4a
./aac-enc -t 2 -r 80000 ~/tmp/web/aactest/That_s_What_I_Get.wav f1.aac


Passing --lowpass 14000 to qaac and -r 84000 to aac-enc would probably provide a better comparison.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-10-07 14:39:34
I confirmed that the new version faac-1.29.7.8 is getting even faster.

https://github.com/knik0/faac
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1297-8.png)

Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-10-09 17:38:43
Very nice graphs  :)

I have just uploaded 64-bit version and I think it may be a little faster than -win32:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.7.8-win64.zip/download
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-10-09 22:18:57
Great, it's even faster.
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac1297-864.png)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-10-21 17:21:05
faac-1.29.8 was buggy, 1.29.8.2 is much better:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.8.2-win64.zip/download

Noticeable changes since 1.29.7.8:
- implemented short windows grouping
- rewritten mid/side coding (makes very audible difference at lower bitrates)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-10-21 19:00:35
Sounds promising. I will check it later.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-10-22 07:37:36
1.29.8.2 is very fast, to the point I'm running out of the legend space!
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac12982.png)

However, I've got many errors while playing the output on foobar2000 v1.3.15.
It happens on many bitrate settings, on many tracks including white noise, sine waves, and music tracks.

Code: [Select]
File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_16.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_24.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_32.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_40.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_48.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_56.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 236 of 236
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_whit_64.mp4"


File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 863 of 863
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_sine_16.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 863 of 863
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_sine_24.mp4"


File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4009 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4010 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4011 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4012 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4013 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4014 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4015 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4016 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4017 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4018 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4019 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4020 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4021 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4022 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4023 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4024 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4025 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4026 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4027 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4028 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4029 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4030 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4031 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4032 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4033 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4034 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4035 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4036 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4037 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4038 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4039 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4040 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4041 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_512.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4009 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4010 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4011 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4012 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4013 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4014 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4015 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4016 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4017 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4018 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4019 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4020 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4021 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4022 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4023 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4024 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4025 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4026 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4027 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4028 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4029 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4030 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4031 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4032 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4033 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4034 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4035 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4036 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4037 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4038 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4039 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4040 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"

File verification error: Decoding error: Unsupported format or corrupted file, frame: 4041 of 12921
"C:\vbrtest2\FAAC_vk_12982_64_7s40_192.mp4"
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-10-22 08:19:46
Very interesting finds. Could you upload a couple of those corrupt files somewhere.
Edit:
Never mind. There were a couple of relevant bugs actually and I think I quashed them all.
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-10-23 09:57:27
1.29.8.2 is very fast, to the point I'm running out of the legend space!
I'm afraid I have a plan to speed it up even more, like several percent. Maybe you could remove faac-1.28 and put legend to the bottom.

Anyway, new bugfix release:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.8.3-win64.zip/download
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-11-02 11:14:56
Another bit of faac progress:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faac/files/faac-src/faac-1.29/faac-1.29.9-win64.zip/download

- initial version of Intensity Stereo
- initial version of PNS
- speed increase

Contrary to popular belief PNS is not that bad. It's more subtle than SBR and allows to throw some noise here and there unobtrusively. Overall, it sounds better than I expected.

With all the recent changes it looks like faac starts to be usable at low bitrates, e.g. faac --over -b40 -c10000
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: Kamedo2 on 2017-11-17 12:31:06
Look at this! The new version is even faster!
(https://ss1.coressl.jp/listening-test.coresv.net/img2/faac12992-en-small.png)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: knik on 2017-11-17 12:52:08
Great. Thanks!
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: yermak on 2017-12-27 13:51:20
[SOLVED]

Hi,

Tried to use the latest 64-bit version for windows 1.29.9.2.
Conversion speed is impressive on my sample file shows about 130x encoding speed.
However, there is a major issue with raw input (PCM) on 64-bit, after encoding sound is corrupted, i can hardly hear the voice which is almost suppressed by noise.

Older version i have (1.26.1 32 bit) works ok (but speed is about 25x), 32 bit version 1.29.9.2 works ok, but shows the speed about 22x.

My sample file: 2 channel 44100 decoded from 160kb mp3 file.
I tried:
passing -P with and without -C -R
passing quality settings (however, i don't think it matters)
passing stream via pipe and passing via file
packaging stream to wav and passing it to faac as stream via pipe and as file (omitting -P), works well.
I tried to produce pcm file via ffmpeg and via my program - neither works.

For me packing to wav not an option, are there any other ideas?

Thank you

UPDATE: Solved, 64-bit version has bigendian by default, had to switch with -X option
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: hans-jürgen on 2019-03-05 16:37:38
I just released faac 1.29.5 with a few real changes.
Encoding is definitely much faster and quality may also be better with many samples, definitely worth trying.

Also, I just noticed there is noise coding available and it always was a part of standard AAC LC.
Apparently I totally missed it back in the days.
I will try to develop this thing for upcoming releases, it can give a real quality boost, especially at lower bitrates.

Wow, and it seems I totally missed this posting, knik! ;) Just downloaded the new FAAC version, might even check it with ye olde listening test samples.

Also very nice that Audiocoding.com is back up again, did Menno do that? Maybe the old Audiocoding site wiki is still available somewhere as well? Neither Sourceforge nor GitHub has one, HydrogenAudio only a short one.

Last but not least: does YouTube still use FAAC for AAC/MP4 encoding? ;)
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: magicgoose on 2019-03-06 09:40:06
did you just bump 2 year old thread?
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: lvqcl on 2019-03-06 19:09:39
Last but not least: does YouTube still use FAAC for AAC/MP4 encoding? ;)
Why use faac if it can use better FDK-AAC ?
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: m14u on 2019-03-06 19:17:17
Why use faac if it can use better FDK-AAC ?
where can read about it ?
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: lvqcl on 2019-03-06 20:05:18
For example, an older version of https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AAC , available at http://archive.is/SnQzp :
Quote
Which encoder provides the best quality?
For AAC-LC the likely answer is: libfdk_aac > Native FFmpeg AAC encoder (aac) > libfaac
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: mpuzirew on 2019-03-06 21:21:54
Last but not least: does YouTube still use FAAC for AAC/MP4 encoding? ;)
No. Youtube doesn't use neither FAAC nor FDK-AAC. Most probably it uses coder licensed from FhG, identical to proprietary FhG-AAC coder from Winamp (not FDK). https://audiophilesoft.ru/publ/my/youtube_audio_quality/11-1-0-285 (The article is quite old. But as far as I can guess, the AAC encoder on Youtube has hardly changed since then).  
Title: Re: how good is the quality of new faac 1.29 (2017-07-17) ?
Post by: m14u on 2019-03-06 21:39:55
For example, an older version [...]
"how good is the quality of new faac 1.29"
any test with 1.28.* will be deprecated.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019