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: AAC Test (Read 5015 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC Test

Roberto, when is your next AAC test? I beleive it was to be January? What codecs and bit rates are you testing?

AAC Test

Reply #1 –
Quote
Roberto, when is your next AAC test?

February.

Quote
I beleive it was to be January?


No, in January was the MP3 at 128kbps test, which should start next wednesday.
And, in March/April, AAC winner vs. MP3 winner vs. Musepack, Vorbis and WMA Std.

Quote
What codecs and bit rates are you testing?


I have not decided anything yet, but preliminarily:

-Nero
-iTunes/QuickTime
-Compaact!
-Faac
-NCTU FAAC (if they sort out their licensing issues until then). Else, maybe Winamp.
-Anchor: a surprise

All at 128kbps average (yes, it will be VBR/ABR)

Regards;

Roberto.

AAC Test

Reply #2 –
what about reals aac codec?
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

AAC Test

Reply #3 –
Quote
what about reals aac codec?

Real AAC == Coding Technologies == FhG consumer ~= Dolby consumer == Winamp

AAC Test

Reply #4 –
coool Roberto can't wait.  Just upgraded to Nero 6 for the AAC and am doing some first pass non-blind testing.  (APS versus Normal, not much of a difference to my ears.)

Looking forward to enrolling for some proper testing!

Keep up the good work!

Love,
Fairy

AAC Test

Reply #5 –
Thanks Roberto! I may actually buy one of the new mini-iPods, easpecially if they re-price them at $200. I need a tiny player for working out, where the Nomad Zen Xtra just does not work. I am waiting on your test before I decide to transcode my Monkey's Audio files to M4A with Nero or iTunes. I hope Nero quality has improved because it much easier to transcode with FB2K than to convert my Monkey's Audio files to WAV and then compress with iTunes.

Looking forward to the MP3 test as well. 

AAC Test

Reply #6 –
Quote
-Anchor: a surprise


It will really be a surprise!
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.

AAC Test

Reply #7 –
Quote
Quote
-Anchor: a surprise


It will really be a surprise!

Something from Yogoslavia hits my mind...

AAC Test

Reply #8 –
If Winamp release 5.01 with MP4 support prior to your test, please consider including it  It'll probably be used much more than NCTU-FAAC...

AAC Test

Reply #9 –
@Latexxx

Eh, who knows....
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.

AAC Test

Reply #10 –
Quote
Something from Yogoslavia hits my mind...

Erm... no. An anchor is meant to be the worst sample often (not necessarily always). And I believe Psytel is still better than Faac.


@danchr: I will

AAC Test

Reply #11 –
Either ISO AAC or MP3 would be good anchors

AAC Test

Reply #12 –
My anchor is already more or less decided. I just don't want to discuss it before the official discussion starts

The AAC test discussion will probably start early next month, and the test itself will probably start on February 18th.

AAC Test

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
what about reals aac codec?

Real AAC == Coding Technologies == FhG consumer ~= Dolby consumer == Winamp

We licensed Coding Technologies' aacPlus implementation, but have currently exposed only the AAC baseline part for encoding.  I do not know the details of any of the implementations you mention, but I am slightly confused by your notation.  Does it indicate CT and FhG Consumer sound the same as Dolby Consumer, based on a listening test, or is the same? According to my sources, the Dolby encoder is quite different from CT and FhG, having replaced default Fhg psycho and loop-of-loops ratecontrol with techniques from AC3, while it is not known to us how much CT's implemention differs from FhG... Dolby wrote an AES paper on their consumer encoder, detailing changes and listening-test results.

Note that I am not lobbying for any changes to the planned listening test, I just wanted to point out that these implementations are not entirely identical.
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.

AAC Test

Reply #14 –
Quote
I am slightly confused by your notation. Does it indicate CT and FhG Consumer sound the same as Dolby Consumer, based on a listening test, or is the same?

No. I put the tilde there to indicate they are similar. From information I got from several developers, it seems the AAC standard creators (FhG, Dolby, Nokia, AT&T and Sony) share a good part of their AAC implementation codebase.

Quote
According to my sources, the Dolby encoder is quite different from CT and FhG, having replaced default Fhg psycho and loop-of-loops ratecontrol with techniques from AC3, while it is not known to us how much CT's implemention differs from FhG...


I see.

To the best of my knowledge the CT LC AAC codec is the same as FhG's consumer codec, pretty much as the CT MP3pro codec uses the MP3 fastenc codec as baseline.

Quote
Dolby wrote an AES paper on their consumer encoder, detailing changes and listening-test results.


I see. Then maybe it's their Professional encoder that is similar to FhG's, not the Consumer one. I never got that clarified.

Quote
Note that I am not lobbying for any changes to the planned listening test, I just wanted to point out that these implementations are not entirely identical.


Well, lobby at will if you want, nothing has been decided yet

Thanks for the information.

Regards;

Roberto.

AAC Test

Reply #15 –
Quote
Quote
Something from Yogoslavia hits my mind...

Erm... no. An anchor is meant to be the worst sample often (not necessarily always). And I believe Psytel is still better than Faac.

If Psytel is so good then why not include it in this test. You will not know if it's really better than FAAC until you test it.
Have you done any psytel vs faac listening tests recently?
 

AAC Test

Reply #16 –
Quote
If Psytel is so good then why not include it in this test. You will not know if it's really better than FAAC until you test it.

There are already too many codecs. And Psytel won't be developed ever again. Now, the fight of "Best free AAC encoder" should be FAAC vs. iTunes instead of FAAC vs. Psytel.

Quote
Have you done any psytel vs faac listening tests recently?


No, I never perform listening tests. But I talked to people who did. And, last but not least, I said I BELIEVE it's still better, not that it is.