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: Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3 (Read 57375 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #25 –
Quote
I am also sorry for delay of the planned "V3.0" release of Nero AAC encoder - as we are all extremenly busy with the Nero Digital development - I can't say much now, but we are planning couple of big surprises that will be announced soon


Ivan, in your opinion - will the improvements coming in 3.0 be of such magnitude that you would recommend waiting on re-encoding any MP3 LAME 3.96.1 PS files to Nero AAC Normal (Fast)?

It seems like with Nero's latest codec release, there is finally reason to switch from a MP3 3.96.1 -V 'X' or iTunes AAC to a Nero VBR setting. Good stuff!

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #26 –
Ahead AAC at internet quality VBR seems to have a lowpass filter of 16 kHz. It may prove to a better comparison to lowpass Vorbis at the same cutoff, and increase the q-level to reach the same average bitrate that was achieved in the test (ie q-level of about 4.75).

It is always good advice, of course, to steer clear of changing the default lowpass value for any given q level for vorbis but, for a test of this nature, I think it would make for a fairer test. Vorbis at q-level 4.25 seems to have a lowpass around 19 kHz.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #27 –
Quote
Quote
I am also sorry for delay of the planned "V3.0" release of Nero AAC encoder - as we are all extremenly busy with the Nero Digital development - I can't say much now, but we are planning couple of big surprises that will be announced soon


Ivan, in your opinion - will the improvements coming in 3.0 be of such magnitude that you would recommend waiting on re-encoding any MP3 LAME 3.96.1 PS files to Nero AAC Normal (Fast)?

It seems like with Nero's latest codec release, there is finally reason to switch from a MP3 3.96.1 -V 'X' or iTunes AAC to a Nero VBR setting. Good stuff!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=261624"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


3.0 should be a significant advancement over the 2.x series, yes.

I'd currently disrecommend encoding files with fast mode despite good results on some tests - it *does* still have known bugs. 2.x non-fast may not be always the best but it's well tested and should have no very bad failure cases.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #28 –
Quote
Ahead AAC at internet quality VBR seems to have a lowpass filter of 16 kHz. It may prove to a better comparison to lowpass Vorbis at the same cutoff, and increase the q-level to reach the same average bitrate that was achieved in the test (ie q-level of about 4.75).

You should request it to vorbis developers themselves.
From my experience, lowering lowpass doesn't change anything to vorbis quality: bitrate doesn't seriously drop, other problems like hiss/coarseness are still there, and this lowpass seems to be more damaging than positive (on harpsichord for exemple, I always find 16Khz a bit annoying, and such lowpass will lower the very good notation obtained by vorbis with this instrument).

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #29 –
IMHO, OggEnc aoTuV b3 - best choise for home music collection.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #30 –
Quote
From my experience, lowering lowpass doesn't change anything to vorbis quality: bitrate doesn't seriously drop, other problems like hiss/coarseness are still there, and this lowpass seems to be more damaging than positive (on harpsichord for exemple, I always find 16Khz a bit annoying, and such lowpass will lower the very good notation obtained by vorbis with this instrument).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=261832"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree completely.  Even at low bitrates, I much prefer Vorbis' output with the lowpass raised.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #31 –
Quote
IMHO, OggEnc aoTuV b3 - best choise for home music collection.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=282236"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you base this on?  Are you somehow trying to invalidate the findings of guru's test simply by saying that you think aoTuV b3 is the best?  Why would you do that?
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #32 –
music_man_mpc,
I based on more things:
1. Supporting with portable players.
2. High quality on low and normal bitrates
3. Open Source, many tunes (now actual Floggy, aoTuV, Archer)
4. Ogg Vorbis is the most popular after MP3 and WMA
and many other things.

For guru's best choice is MPC, only after 224kbps.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #33 –
And AAC:

1/ is supported on the most popular portable player
2/ (much) better quality on low bitrate
3/ much better multichannel efficiency
4/ audio standard, supported by hundred industrials (MPEG-4) and some serious industrial projects (DVD audio)
5/ no buggy hardware players (iRiver's usual bitrate limitation... for VBR encoding: very useful, thanks)
6/ open-source projects
7/ much more development (faster progress)


Anyway, I've created this topic for sharing my experience about Nero and latest aoTuV beta 3 QUALITY. Feel free to post your results, they're welcome. But honestly, your basic opinions about open-source superiority are totally useless.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #34 –
I'd personally like to believe in the superiority of open source, but guruboolez does indeed have very valid points.  AAC is so good at low, low, bitrates that it just plain *excites* me!

Ogg is certainly superior to MP3 in most ways, except for universality of support.  But to me, at least, it seems that AAC support is even more lacking in most software and hardware.  Hopefully this situation will change, and also, hopefully more free encoders and SDKs will become available for it.  Only then will it truly be better than Ogg Vorbis, in my books. (And hopefully lose the image of its seemingly inextricable association with Apple)

Is it likely that these things will happen in the next year or two, for those in the know?

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #35 –
Quote
Ogg is certainly superior to MP3 in most ways, except for universality of support.  But to me, at least, it seems that AAC support is even more lacking in most software and hardware.  Hopefully this situation will change, and also, hopefully more free encoders and SDKs will become available for it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284060"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There are 'free' de/encoders and then there are free de/encoders.  Last I looked into the licensing issues, AAC was covered in patents up the wazoo.  There may be limited patent grants for certain classes of free de/encoders but it's pretty stiff for commercial vendors.  I think this is quite a drag for widespread support.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #36 –
Quote
And AAC:


8/ is heavily patented

Anyway, to all: please stay on technical consideration, not political. 

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #37 –
I thought it was patented, but certain things people have said has made it seem like a moot point, and that there is open development of AAC going on.

Does the patenting of AAC result in the same issues of licensing and usage flexibility that Fraunhoffer's MP3 had/has?  This could be a problem.  But in any case, it doesn't seem to have been a big preventative agent for MP3 catching on in a big way. 

@PatchWorks:  Sorry... I guess this is political more than technical, but if it in any way inhibits development and/or adoption of the codec, then that would have a technical impact on AAC, I'd think.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #38 –
Quote
Does the patenting of AAC result in the same issues of licensing and usage flexibility that Fraunhoffer's MP3 had/has?


Yes, very similar.

Quote
  This could be a problem.  But in any case, it doesn't seem to have been a big preventative agent for MP3 catching on in a big way.  
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284419"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


MP3 caught on in a big way BEFORE Fraunhoffer started kicking up a licensing fuss (sceptically, that was a shrewd business move).

But it's certainly NOT of irrelevance when comparing codecs to also compare the licensing of those codecs.  It's vital.  A codec can be the best thing in the world, but if the cost (in money or freedom - I'm not a free software zealot but I think that license education is incredibly important) of using it in a certain context is prohibitive then its worth in the comparison immediately becomes nil for those classes of uses.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #39 –
n.b. If interested, do a google search for 'via aac patent pool'.  You'll find a link to the licensing costs (for both encoding and decoding) of HE AAC.  I think that's enough reading material for people interested in practical deployment, and most probably my last comment on such on this thread.

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #41 –
Damn... that's not so good

Given all of that, I'm surprised how much activity there is here in regards to AAC development.  I'm guessing that is because many of the key people here get paid for it.  Not that it's a bad codec, but if something like Ogg Vorbis is capable of achieving similar capabilities, why is there so little progress made in it?  No money in free software?

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #42 –
Quote
http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/Dolby.txt

:ph34r:
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=284437"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
??? So how is it that you are still carrying AAC encoders and decoders at RareWares?

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3

Reply #43 –
Quote
??? So how is it that you are still carrying AAC encoders and decoders at RareWares?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286424"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Back then, that e-mail was only FUD, since the files were hosted in Brazil and we don't recognize foreign software patents here.

Later Dolby stopped licensing AAC in favour of their VIA Licensing subsidiary, and the guys at VIA seem much nicer, as they never sent me threats. That's why I moved the files to the US RareWares server.

If I ever get threats again, I'll just move the files back to Brazil.