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: 128 QuickTime AAC comparison (Read 4433 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

I believe rjamorim said is was 20?
Example: 128 QT AAC is comparable to 148 Lame MP3

I am not sure I would like a verification or correction, please?
Some people said it was higher, though I don't think the compression is that good?

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #1 –
Quote
I believe rjamorim said is was 20?

Moi?

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #4 –
Quote
Note: This is obviously not true for lame 3.90.x. See http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

Gotta keep in mind the settings are completely different from one test to another. On that test I used ABR, on the recent 128 test I used VBR.

Besides, I'm using another version of QuickTime AAC in the recent test. God only knows how they managed to make it sound worse.

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #5 –
I apologize for the incorrect comment.
No further questions

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
Note: This is obviously not true for lame 3.90.x. See http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

Gotta keep in mind the settings are completely different from one test to another. On that test I used ABR, on the recent 128 test I used VBR.

Besides, I'm using another version of QuickTime AAC in the recent test. God only knows how they managed to make it sound worse.

They've changed it again in QT 6.6. Is anyone willing to do a listening test? I would but 128kbps AAC is transparent to me so I wouldn't hear a difference.

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #7 –
Quote
They've changed it again in QT 6.6. Is anyone willing to do a listening test? I would but 128kbps AAC is transparent to me so I wouldn't hear a difference.

I think it's too early to conduce another AAC@128kbps listening test. Too few development has happened since the last test: Nero remained more or less the same at mid-high bitrates since all focus is going to low bitrates, knik stopped working on FAAC, not much happened with Compaact! either...

Besides, QuickTime 6.6 hasn't even been officially released yet. It's not a good idea to test a beta encoder because, if it loses the test, you can never know if the reason is some experimental new mode or just plain bad encoder design.

I think a new AAC test would only be warranted late this year, or early next year.

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #8 –
Quote
Quote
They've changed it again in QT 6.6. Is anyone willing to do a listening test? I would but 128kbps AAC is transparent to me so I wouldn't hear a difference.

I think it's too early to conduce another AAC@128kbps listening test. Too few development has happened since the last test: Nero remained more or less the same at mid-high bitrates since all focus is going to low bitrates, knik stopped working on FAAC, not much happened with Compaact! either...

Besides, QuickTime 6.6 hasn't even been officially released yet. It's not a good idea to test a beta encoder because, if it loses the test, you can never know if the reason is some experimental new mode or just plain bad encoder design.

I think a new AAC test would only be warranted late this year, or early next year.

Oh I didn't mean a formal test, I was just wondering if someone who could hear the "ringing" before could listen and say whether it was still present. It looks like they're heading for a VBR codec in the next release anyhow.

128 QuickTime AAC comparison

Reply #9 –
And VBR encoding isn't even available in the 6.6 preview build.