IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Closed TopicStart new topic
[TROLL] Wisdom of switching to AAC
Xpenguin17
post Jun 5 2008, 09:00
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 3
Joined: 30-May 08
Member No.: 53917



I've recently began using AAC when I read the ISO papers and thought they sounded promising, as well as the long run of years I've seen and dismissed several posts as bullshit on random forums about how it was someday supposed to replace MP3.

It had its trial with me last week and proved itself useful after all. It looks to me HQ is now finally possible at 96 kbps. On the other hand, the MDCT technique appears to be still in development, as I've noticed distinct characteristics from resulting compression artifacts at really low bitrates, especially for sharp samples such as bells, chimes etc. that MP3 renders better at the same bitrate--not that I'd actually encode as low as 32 kbps so, meh.

Where AAC really starts to stink when it comes to compatibility. So far, Winamp nor WinXP can recognize the metatags and I haven't come across one .mp4/.m4a virtually anywhere, so I wouldn't expect LimeWire/Ares to recognize MP4 files as audio.

To spare you from further bullshitting, I just got a couple questions:

1. Is there a driver patch to fully integrate AAC encoding into Windows XP or does SP3 already fix this?

2. Why do I not see a command for resampling? LAME allows low bitrates while retaining a bigass resolution.

3. Is keeping stereo an option for bitrates as low as 32? LAME features this. I don't see it on Nero.

And before I switch to AAC and start converting all my shit, is there ANYTHING significant I should know before doing so? Vague question, I know, but it really pisses me off when I start using a format and later regret for being such a tightass for not waiting 2 months for that major upgrade that now discerns noise from the song and replaces it with a pseudorandom seed, thus allowing more leeway for the legitimate audio samples quality-wise on lower bitrates. AAC was built in 1997--there is NO excuse for a said intelligent encoder to not exist in 2008. For all I know there could be a successor as we speak (exact same reason I'll wait for Blu-Rays to be replaced by tapestry media.)

I'm a scene ripper, so it's important that I receive any astute opinion about the wisdom of switching to AAC. I'm prepared to deal with AAC audio being a pain-in-the-ass to multiplex with video, as much as engineering MKV-contained content is a bitch to do with Avisynth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Jun 5 2008, 09:27
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



I have only two suggestions. First, sourcing the encodes from MP3 will smooth out AAC distortions at low bitrates. Second, PsyTel is clearly the best choice among encoders for development stability.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Heiko242
post Jun 5 2008, 09:50
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 21-February 08
Member No.: 51475



QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 5 2008, 02:00) *
. AAC was built in 1997--there is NO excuse for a said intelligent encoder to not exist in 2008. For all I know there could be a successor as we speak (exact same reason I'll wait for Blu-Rays to be replaced by tapestry media.)


I was very impressed by HE-AAC. It performs extremely well for low bit rates, compared to AAC (LC).

But according to this listening test (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html) AAC-HE at 64kbps is still inferior to LAME Mp3 at 128kbps.

This post has been edited by Heiko242: Jun 5 2008, 09:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jun 5 2008, 10:18
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Yes and with HE-AAC I hear ttsshhhkkkk artifact all the time. There could be serious issues on low volume parts, synth music etc . Maybe it sounds cool for 64k but and 96k LLC is a better option. But is 96k vs 128k space saving really attractive when we are forced to use less compatible codecs ? Even worse is that you can get not bad at all quality with Lame -V6 or even -V7 for outdoor use.

For video use HE-AAC and mp3 alternatives are attractive for obvious reasons if we don't look at compatibility. Again 96k is too close to Lame -V7, But at 24~80k there is a clear advantage of AAC over Mp3.

This post has been edited by shadowking: Jun 5 2008, 10:27


--------------------
Wavpack -b450x1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xpenguin17
post Jun 6 2008, 01:20
Post #5





Group: Banned
Posts: 3
Joined: 30-May 08
Member No.: 53917



Axon, 'you trying to take the piss by giving me that garbage? The latest PsyTEL build is dated early 2002 and even this site's wiki confirms its uselessness and inferiority to Nero.

Source encodes from MP3? What bitrate for 22 KHz? Nero seems to underestimate the required quality bitrate for a non-44 sample rate.

QUOTE
I was very impressed by HE-AAC. It performs extremely well for low bit rates, compared to AAC (LC).

But according to this listening test (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html) AAC-HE at 64kbps is still inferior to LAME Mp3 at 128kbps.


No codec can provide CD-quality at 64 kbps. 76 minimum.

QUOTE
Yes and with HE-AAC I hear ttsshhhkkkk artifact all the time. There could be serious issues on low volume parts, synth music etc . Maybe it sounds cool for 64k but and 96k LLC is a better option. But is 96k vs 128k space saving really attractive when we are forced to use less compatible codecs ? Even worse is that you can get not bad at all quality with Lame -V6 or even -V7 for outdoor use.


I don't require 96 for everything, hell, I can tolerate some of 'em on 56 and linear forms of music such as tracks from old consoles as low as 24 depending on the relative complexity. It encodes distinctive audio more intelligently than MP3; MP3 is utterly fucking retarded when it comes to 8-bit tracks. Hell, compressing the WAV with WinRAR gets a way smaller size.

QUOTE
But is 96k vs 128k space saving really attractive when we are forced to use less compatible codecs ?


You tell me.

QUOTE
For video use HE-AAC and mp3 alternatives are attractive for obvious reasons if we don't look at compatibility. Again 96k is too close to Lame -V7, But at 24~80k there is a clear advantage of AAC over Mp3.


Yeah, I stick to 64-80 casually, 96 for complex/kickass trance tracks and 128 when I wanna be a real autistic dickwipe that bitches about not experiencing hallucinations of a cock-craving Sailor moon without the presence of those inaudible elements in raw waveform :/

This post has been edited by Xpenguin17: Jun 6 2008, 01:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slipstreem
post Jun 6 2008, 01:42
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 7-July 06
Member No.: 32660



If you suffer from a form of Tourettes and genuinely can't help constantly swearing, then I apologise for embarrassing you. If this isn't the case, then can you please stop it. I don't visit this forum to read filth, I come here to learn something. sad.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
j7n
post Jun 6 2008, 01:48
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 809
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 13720



It's my opinion that AAC is almost useless today, because it is designed to delive acceptable quality at low bitrates and gives little to no improvement in the transparent range. Some people will disagree. But today when we have 8 MBit surround mixes on audio DVD, ain't it a bit stupid to argue about 80 and 96 kBit for stereo?

I prefer not to discuss releasing scene further on this board due to hostility from the administrators.

Let's assume you preserve content for a relatively small group of people (household), or do unpopuar content that's not subject to copyright. Now you pick 64 kBit/s for stereo because you deem the artifacts acceptable for you. But the person next to you might disagree. Is it morally right to assume that the other person should acquire the source, do all the processing and save to standard 192 kBit/s, when it could be done properly only once in the first place?

HE-AAC and MP3Pro at 64 kBit is a joke. Those 56 kilobits are not enough to store 22k-24k transparently in the first place. Now we expect the added fake HF to do magic? Everything said here applies equally to video.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Jun 6 2008, 03:37
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 2043
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 5 2008, 18:20) *
No codec can provide CD-quality at 64 kbps. 76 minimum.


Try not to state opinion as fact (I sometimes do this as well, I have tried not to though). Technically speaking, no lossy encoder can ever achieve CD quality. There are some encoders that can achieve perceived CD quality at 64kbps for some people. Did you ABX the formats often used at low bitrates (HE-AAC as an example) to determine that or did you just make that statement?

QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 5 2008, 02:00) *
Where AAC really starts to stink when it comes to compatibility. So far, Winamp nor WinXP can recognize the metatags and I haven't come across one .mp4/.m4a virtually anywhere, so I wouldn't expect LimeWire/Ares to recognize MP4 files as audio.


Actually, Apple's tagging standards have slowly become the "standard" for AAC. Many other applications (including WinAmp) and portable players can read and write Apple compatible AAC tags. Even crappy P2P programs such as LimeWire have been able to recognize mpeg-4 AAC audio tracks. The popularity of the iPod and iTunes have pushed AAC onto people rather quickly. I can now walk into Best Buy and find 14 out of 21 portable players that will work with AAC, 7 out of 12 standard DVD players, three out of three current generation consoles, and 13 out of 22 car CD decks. All of those numbers are real as I was trying to point out to a friend how popular AAC has come. It is as compatible as mp3 but I would say that it is about as compatible as WMA or slightly less. Now there is a difference between raw AAC and AAC files in a mpeg-4 container. You won't find much compatibility (if any) with raw AAC files but mpeg-4 AAC audio file compatibility has drastically increased over the years. That and Apple's tagging system has gained compatibility. I have a Xbox 360, Wii, 30GB Zune, and a 4GB Creative Zen that will all read Apple AAC tags just fine.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xpenguin17
post Jun 6 2008, 07:05
Post #9





Group: Banned
Posts: 3
Joined: 30-May 08
Member No.: 53917



QUOTE (Slipstreem)
If you suffer from a form of Tourettes and genuinely can't help constantly swearing, then I apologise for embarrassing you. If this isn't the case, then can you please stop it. I don't visit this forum to read filth, I come here to learn something. sad.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif


Then GTFO my heterosexual thread.

QUOTE
It's my opinion that AAC is almost useless today, because it is designed to delive acceptable quality at low bitrates and gives little to no improvement in the transparent range. Some people will disagree. But today when we have 8 MBit surround mixes on audio DVD, ain't it a bit stupid to argue about 80 and 96 kBit for stereo?


I didn't ask about 5.1, and IMO surround-sound is fuckin' pointless, especially when most of my audio is natively on stereo, plus surround-sound can be easily simulated with software/hardware tweaks. As for generic stereo, the second channel is 90% identical to the first, and that redundancy should be recognized by modern encoders, AAC is a good start.

QUOTE
Let's assume you preserve content for a relatively small group of people (household), or do unpopuar content that's not subject to copyright. Now you pick 64 kBit/s for stereo because you deem the artifacts acceptable for you. But the person next to you might disagree. Is it morally right to assume that the other person should acquire the source, do all the processing and save to standard 192 kBit/s, when it could be done properly only once in the first place?


All my future releases will be encoded at 128 kbps but I'll probably be using -q 0.35 which lets some content like South Park go as low as 56 kbps. Whether people disagree or not with the perceived quality, I'll only assume they're human. If you're an autistic assgoblin, maybe you should play with your toys instead or find a loli to wank off to.

QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Jun 6 2008, 09:37) *
QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 5 2008, 18:20) *

No codec can provide CD-quality at 64 kbps. 76 minimum.


Try not to state opinion as fact (I sometimes do this as well, I have tried not to though). Technically speaking, no lossy encoder can ever achieve CD quality. There are some encoders that can achieve perceived CD quality at 64kbps for some people. Did you ABX the formats often used at low bitrates (HE-AAC as an example) to determine that or did you just make that statement?


No, I tested 'em on this picture to see how the bitrate affects the visual trippiness. 32 and 64 so goddamn boring man, just streaks of grey goat shit, 128 was w1n and below 76 is where the phail begins.

No but seriously, what the hell do you think I was doing? I directly reported all over this goddamn thread what my experience was with different bitrates. Just as MP3 128 kbps retains (perceived) CD-quality except isolated songs with high-freq cymbals that are better encoded at 192, I found 76 kbps to be equivalent to LAME 128.

QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Jun 6 2008, 09:37) *
Actually, Apple's tagging standards have slowly become the "standard" for AAC. Many other applications (including WinAmp) and portable players can read and write Apple compatible AAC tags.


2.XX can't, and neither can Windows, unless I missed something.

QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Jun 6 2008, 09:37) *
The popularity of the iPod and iTunes have pushed AAC onto people rather quickly. I can now walk into Best Buy and find 14 out of 21 portable players that will work with AAC, 7 out of 12 standard DVD players, three out of three current generation consoles, and 13 out of 22 car CD decks. All of those numbers are real as I was trying to point out to a friend how popular AAC has come. It is as compatible as mp3 but I would say that it is about as compatible as WMA or slightly less. Now there is a difference between raw AAC and AAC files in a mpeg-4 container. You won't find much compatibility (if any) with raw AAC files but mpeg-4 AAC audio file compatibility has drastically increased over the years. That and Apple's tagging system has gained compatibility. I have a Xbox 360, Wii, 30GB Zune, and a 4GB Creative Zen that will all read Apple AAC tags just fine.


'Dunno why I have never seen an MP4 being shared on the net. I'm usually skeptical about new formats and only conform to popularity and mass-compatibility but since AAC is obviously superior to MP3, I'm willing to move on if their tags can be recognized.

Moderation: TOS #9 violation removed. Combined with the the TOS #2 violations, it seems like someone didn't bother to read the r00lez sick.gif before posting.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 6 2008, 08:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
j7n
post Jun 6 2008, 07:53
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 809
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 13720



QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 6 2008, 09:05) *
'Dunno why I have never seen an MP4 being shared on the net. I'm usually skeptical about new formats and only conform to popularity and mass-compatibility but since AAC is obviously superior to MP3, I'm willing to move on if their tags can be recognized.

The sound of low quality video releases (mostly anime) is often done in AAC. It is generally accepted that soundtrack and spoken word is somehow less important. Music at 170-200 kBit does not benefit from AAC. There is one filesharing resource where M4A was explicitly forbidden recently. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Jun 6 2008, 09:27
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 2043
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 6 2008, 00:05) *
Then GTFO my heterosexual thread.


Insulting people is not a way to garner positive attention here on HA. I suggest that you refrain from calling people homosexual as an insult (even if you don't come outright and say it).

QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 6 2008, 00:05) *
No, I tested 'em on this picture to see how the bitrate affects the visual trippiness. 32 and 64 so goddamn boring man, just streaks of grey goat shit, 128 was w1n and below 76 is where the phail begins.

No but seriously, what the hell do you think I was doing? I directly reported all over this goddamn thread what my experience was with different bitrates. Just as MP3 128 kbps retains (perceived) CD-quality except isolated songs with high-freq cymbals that are better encoded at 192, I found 76 kbps to be equivalent to LAME 128.


Well, I didn't see any ABX results and a image comparison is not the best way to judge audio quality (I hope that was a joke). That is why I asked. I come on these boards (and other boards) and see other people make statements about audio quality without doing any blind ABX tests.

This post has been edited by kornchild2002: Jun 6 2008, 09:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CiTay
post Jun 6 2008, 09:27
Post #12


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 3



Xpenguin17, even though you have been warned by one of our moderators already, let me tell you again that if you don't adjust your tone to a more grown-up level and generally adhere to our rules, you will not stay much longer on this forum.

P.S. After an extremely childish PM, he is now banned.

This post has been edited by CiTay: Jun 6 2008, 12:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Jun 6 2008, 15:41
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



Thank god. Although I must admit, I do not troll very often, but trolling him was just so much fun.

Are all scene guys that insecure nowadays?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Jun 6 2008, 15:52
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1001
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (Axon @ Jun 6 2008, 10:41) *
Are all scene guys that insecure nowadays?

"The Scene" has strict encoding rules, ones which don't allow the decisions he was making. (Unless something has changed since I last looked at their rules)

This post has been edited by Soap: Jun 6 2008, 15:54


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
benski
post Jun 6 2008, 15:55
Post #15


Winamp Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 669
Joined: 17-July 05
From: Ashburn, VA
Member No.: 23375



QUOTE (Xpenguin17 @ Jun 6 2008, 02:05) *
QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Jun 6 2008, 09:37) *
Actually, Apple's tagging standards have slowly become the "standard" for AAC. Many other applications (including WinAmp) and portable players can read and write Apple compatible AAC tags.


2.XX can't, and neither can Windows, unless I missed something.


Winamp 2.95 is 5 years old. What do you expect? Modern versions (e.g. anything in the last 4 years) reads iTunes-style MP4/M4A tags just fine.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 04:27