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: What's the best AAC encoder today? (Read 73933 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #25
Although average score of Apple TVBR is slighty poorer than CVBR with no significance in the 2011 public test and my 2012 private test, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=97913
I'm guessing TVBR is better, with not so much confidence. Both in these two tests, TVBR is slightly poor in score, and substantially less in bitrate. If you look at my bitrate-quality graph, 96kbps area in my test, maybe you can understand what I'm trying to say.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #26
Chris,
I've never used the word Frauenhofer. Quote who misspelled not just the last comment.

Alright, NePaC and a number of other visitors of this forum except eahm: Fraunhofer (not Frauenhofer). No need to get upset, eahm.

Quote
I don't really care what Fraunhofer uses and what it's called, I was listing the option and Fraunhofer doesn't have any True VBR switch.

It doesn't have a Constrained VBR switch, either. What's your point?

By the way, I know that my encoder lost against Apple CVBR in 2011, as Kamedo2 explained (thanks for educating people about the p-values).

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #27
[Fraunhofer] doesn't have a Constrained VBR switch

So Fraunhofer doesn't name their switches according to functionality.  What's your point?


Just to be sure, am I interpreting the graph correctly?

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #28
Just to be sure, am I interpreting the graph correctly?

It's hard to determine insignificance from a graph, when it's from a typical listening test that have both difficult and easy samples.
The significance is stated in the original data, saying:
Code: [Select]
	CVBR is better than Nero (p=0.000)
TVBR is better than Nero (p=0.000)
FhG is better than Nero (p=0.000)
FhG is worse than CVBR (p=0.005)
CT is better than Nero (p=0.000)
CT is worse than CVBR (p=0.000)
CT is worse than TVBR (p=0.000)
CT is worse than FhG (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than Nero (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than CVBR (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than TVBR (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than FhG (p=0.000)
low_anchor is worse than CT (p=0.000)
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html
It's from the bootstrap analysis. It's adjusted for multiple comparison, so it's very likely that the 13 significance statements above is all correct.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #29
[Fraunhofer] doesn't have a Constrained VBR switch

So Fraunhofer doesn't name their switches according to functionality.  What's your point?

Not sure what you mean. Let's take an example. If I encode loud rock music or even pure noise with a target VBR rate of x kbps, I get close to 1.2x or even 1.3x kbps. If I encode a sine sweep instead, I get maybe 0.6x or 0.7x kbps. See also the bit-rate table of the 2011 test. That's not nearly as constrained as Apple's CVBR, right? So why should I call the mode "Constrained VBR", then? Does nero distinguish between two VBR modes? I see only VBR, ABR, and CBR.

If you guys really need to put another word in front of "VBR", then call it "True VBR", and write, "Fraunhofer supports True VBR". Thank you very much.

Quote
Just to be sure, am I interpreting the graph correctly?

Thanks for thinking CVBR vs. FhG is insignificant, but no. A rule-of-thumb which I use all the time and which works perfectly here is:
  • If the confidence bars of one coder overlap with at least the mean score of another coder, then there is no significant quality difference between those coders.
  • If the confidence bars of one coder do not overlap with the mean score of another coder, then there is a small but significant quality difference.
  • If the confidence bars of two coders do not overlap at all, then there is a large, significant quality difference between the coders.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #30
This result says that QT TVBR is not significantly better than FhG but QT CVBR is, and no significant difference between TVBR and CVBR.
How should I interpret this?

When I hear the word "better", I imagine of something like ordered relations between them.
However the above means that:
Code: [Select]
QT TVBR = QT CVBR and QT TVBR = FhG and QT CVBR > FhG

So apparently their relations are not transitive, and the result cannot be considered to form an ordered set.
Or is it possible to consider that there actually is a hidden order and I can derive the result QT CVBR > QT TVBR  (or QT TVBR > FhG), which was not directly drawn by statistical comparison but can be indirectly deduced from, assuming transitive relation?

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #31

Is b better than a? We can't be sure. In this test, it was. But humans are whimsical, it can be luck. After more extensive tests with more samples, things may turn out to be a > b. If we announce a < b and after a while we change it to a > b, we'll lose creditability. In that case, we should say there are no significant differences, or ab. Likewise, bc, cd, de, ef, fg. But we can say a < g. It's not likely that a and g having the same average score. a having more score is even less likely.


What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #32
It seems that I was silently assuming that when a < g and a ≒b and b ≒ g then it cannot be b < a.
But if I understand you correctly, that's a wrong assumption.
Thanks for explanations

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #33
Thanks, Kamedo2. That chart and explanation actually made me realize I was also (mis)interpreting the final scores of the very test under discussion, of which I often refer to. Now if I was going to get medieval about "best" AAC codec I would have to consider my type of material and look up the results of individual samples in that test to see how each encoder fared. But... surprise! That just happens to be the case with the bitrate that the test was run under. Maybe the gaps between encoders widens or narrows under different bitrates. It's a good time to rely on one's own ears, I would say.

sidenote: I got to using the QAAC quite a bit lately ( at --tvbr 50), the main reason is the tagging is very much compatible with my player. (C.R.Helmrich- maybe you could look into this for Fhgaacenc when you have extra time, or some other tag-related question comes up? I really like the codec you're involved with  )
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

 

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #34
Some observations.
Let’s compare http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm and
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html
Itunes AAC encoder was used as high anchor and scored 4.69 in first one but 4.391 in last one.  Why is this difference?  Sure, these are two different tests.  However there were people saying "Man, I could provide a results in previous HA tests at low bitrates like 48-64 kbps, but not for higher bitrates because it’s hard as codecs are already very good at that point"
Some part of these people hasn’t participated in the last AAC 2011’ test.  The overall scores would be a bit higher and the difference between competitors would be less if these people could provide results as they would rank pretty high.  I’m confident that FhG and Apple would end with  > 4.50  scores and insignificant difference like MP3 encoders here http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm  .  I believe that previous tests of Sebastian Mares are a bit more permissive. That’s not worse or better,  it’s just a different approach with a different circumstances.
And hell, in my experience, testing AAC encoders at 96 kbps is actually harder than MP3 at 128 kbps. 
Taking a bigger picture across a different bitrates,  FhG  has the most optimal HE-AAC v1/v2  encoder at 32-64 kbps  respectively (according to my internal personal tests), and fine, it was Nº2 at 96 kbps , slightly (I would say very slightly) behind of Apple encoder in the last HA public test.  But these two encoders have an excellent quality at 128 kbps (and higher).

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #35
Two different liststening tests are exactly this: they're different: different samples, different listeners, different listening situations when the same listener. So different results are a matter of fact, though.they are averaged out a bit because several listeners and several samples are involved. Most critical for the result is sample selection.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #36
Has there been any improvement in the encoder between iTunes 10 & 11? I think the new iTunes interface sucks, but if the encoder has been improved, it might be worth it. Or could the Application Support component from v11 be installed along with v10?

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #37
Two different liststening tests are exactly this: they're different: different samples, different listeners, different listening situations when the same listener. So different results are a matter of fact, though.they are averaged out a bit because several listeners and several samples are involved. Most critical for the result is sample selection.


The whole point of the construction of such tests is what the results should be repeatable. Of course the individual subjective ratings will fluctuate, but the averages, and the conclusions after taking into account statistical variance, shouldn't.

This will fail if there are bad biases in the test. It's not unreasonable to assume listeners in our tests are more picky than average, pushing scores down, for example. This affects conclusions about transparency but not so much relative codec ratings.

We try to get the sample selection diverse and varied enough so that it's representative. Another test with a representative but different sample set should produce compatible results. If it does not, our sample selection isn't good enough and needs to be improved.

So I'll state again: different results (that are statistically significant) are very much not a matter of fact. They're an indication something is broken.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #38
Has there been any improvement in the encoder between iTunes 10 & 11?

For that matter you should look up which CoreAudioToolbox version came with the installer of each iTunes version. Looking here, and knowing the latest one is 7.9.8.3 (if I recall correctly), there may be some improvements. Whether those are relevant for you is an entirely different matter.

(If you can find some place where they list each corresponding releases I'll thank you kindly; I was unsuccessful at that.)

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #39
...This will fail if there are bad biases in the test. It's not unreasonable to assume listeners in our tests are more picky than average, pushing scores down, for example. This affects conclusions about transparency but not so much relative codec ratings.
...So I'll state again: different results (that are statistically significant) are very much not a matter of fact. They're an indication something is broken.

I agree if it's about relative codec ratings. I don't if it is about absolute scores of a codec.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #40
7.9.8.3 is exactly like 7.9.8.2 but I don't remember if 7.9.8.2 is like 7.9.8.1. At this point, wait until Tuesday for the new iTunes then start the test.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #41
Can I safely use FDK within Handbrake? I encode many vids at 32kbps AAC. I am miffed that qaac doesn't have v2 of HE-AAC, but too late to rectify my mistake (hopefully it isn't a large one).

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #42
No edit button? Anyway I did a quick test of an M4A of Vangelis' Alpha which I ripped earlier, and apparently the cut-off using Fraunhofer's v2 of HE-AAC (file 2.m4a) is higher than qaac (1.m4a). I guess I'll go with the former for lower-bit encodes.


What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #43
The cut-off looks nearly the same to me. Which one sounds less annoying?

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #44
I'll have to do a personal ABX test from FLAC sources to really determine which is best lol. Btw isn't anything approaching +16kHz better for the human ear?

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #45
anything approaching +16kHz
What is this supposed to mean? Semantically, it is hopelessly unclear.

Quote
better for the human ear?
Are you insinuating that files with frequencies above 16 kHz sound better or otherwise audibly detectable when compared to files lowpassed around that point, and/or are healthier for the senses? If either, evidence will be needed, personal double-blind listening tests or medical citations respectively.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #46
For that matter you should look up which CoreAudioToolbox version came with the installer of each iTunes version. Looking here, and knowing the latest one is 7.9.8.3 (if I recall correctly), there may be some improvements. Whether those are relevant for you is an entirely different matter.

I checked 10.7, and it comes with 7.9.8.1. The latest (11.0.5) comes with 7.9.8.3, so I'm not sure it would include major improvements. I'll try and see how iTunes 10 behaves if I substitute the DLL with the latest one.

Quote
(If you can find some place where they list each corresponding releases I'll thank you kindly; I was unsuccessful at that.)

I couldn't find anything either. Shouldn't be too hard downloading and inspecting older versions. I'll try and see if I can put that together and post it on the forum.

What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #47
I extracted the files CoreAudioToolbox.dll and CoreFoundation.dll and put them next to qaac.exe on a computer where iTunes isn't installed. It worked fine.

Also, the same wave file encoded on this PC with CoreAudioToolbox from iTunes 11.0.5 is the same size as that encoded on a PC with iTunes 10.7, so the encoder appears to be the same.

I mapped some of the recent versions of iTunes with the version of CoreAudioToolbox that comes with it:

Code: [Select]
iTunes    CoreAudioToolbox
10.5            7.9.7.8
10.6            7.9.7.9
10.6.3        7.9.7.9
10.7            7.9.8.1
11.0            7.9.8.2
11.0.1        7.9.8.2
11.0.2        7.9.8.2
11.0.3        7.9.8.3
11.0.4        7.9.8.3
11.0.5        7.9.8.3


Is that of sufficient interest to be posted on its own?


What's the best AAC encoder today?

Reply #49
I'll have to do a personal ABX test from FLAC sources to really determine which is best lol. Btw isn't anything approaching +16kHz better for the human ear?


AAC-HE doesn't really encoder higher frequencies anyway, so you're just looking at harmonic extension of the lower frequencies.  Hence, I wouldn't worry much about what the stuff above 11khz looks like  unless you're using regular AAC.