Quicktime pro resampler quality? Options

[Mix3dmessagez]

I use quicktime to downsample needledrops to 48hz tvbr *for ipod use*
I've also come across foobar sox resampler which I've read is the best
I've tried to do comparisons *downsample with sox to 48000hz then convert with quicktime or convert using quicktime*
Usually the bitrates will be the same *on average* however sometimes sox downsamples will be one bit higher *on average*
I've tried to look at the individual bitrates for the first few seconds of each song *Just to see if there's a conclusive difference* and they seem to handle things quit differently, I notice the bitrate changes faster when downsampled with sox, I know that probably isn't a determinant as to quality, but it's all I know
With sox I use very high, 48000hz, 95% passband, allow aliasing, 25% phase response *someone at another forum said those are best settings*
On quicktime, best quality, variable bit rate, and recommended sample rate
I also want to know as if Sox is better I can resample all needledrops to 48hz flac *from 96 to save space*

[nu774]

Ah, I've forgotten one thing:
You will need "--rate 44100" or something to specify target sample rate, if you want to test sample rate conversion!

[Mix3dmessagez]

Ah, I've forgotten one thing:
You will need "--rate 44100" or something to specify target sample rate, if you want to test sample rate conversion!

1 out of 1 tracks converted with major problems.

Source: "C:\Users\******\Downloads\Kid Cudi - Man on the Moon II- The Legend of Mr Rager [Vinyl][FLAC]\11 MANIAC.flac"
An error occurred while writing to file (The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1 (0x00000001); please re-check parameters) : "C:\Users\*******\Desktop\alac\11. MANIAC (feat. Cage & St. Vincent).mp4"
Additional information:
Encoder stream format: 96000Hz / 2ch / 16bps
Command line: "C:\Users\P*******\Desktop\desktop\qaac_1.31\x86\qaac.exe" -V 127 --rate 48000 --native-resampler=bats,127 - -o "11. MANIAC (feat. Cage & St. Vincent).mp4"
Working folder: C:\Users\******\alac\

Conversion failed: The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1 (0x00000001); please re-check parameters

Am I doing something wrong?

heres a pic



This post has been edited by Mix3dmessagez: Apr 12 2012, 07:22

[nu774]

Command line: "C:\Users\P*******\Desktop\desktop\qaac_1.31\x86\qaac.exe" -V 127 --rate 48000 --

Please upgrade to 1.35 if you are running 1.31.
--native-resampler was updated very recently.

[Mix3dmessagez]

thanks, solved my issue!last problem though, I'm gettign bitrates of 200-300's
here's what it says in tools
qaac 1.35, CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.7.9, AAC-LC Encoder, TVBR q127, Quality 96

i want quicktime best vbr but in its quicktime present mode

Ok, i checked some other threads and found that 64 produces similar results as quicktime, but the file is slightly smaller and the bitrates are different *in certain places although it gives the same avg bitrate in foobar*, does that mean its not the exact setting quicktime uses?

Also, I know I might be stretching it, but can I have my needledrops in 24 bit now too *or is that redundant with quicktime* *nevermind read in another thread it serves no purpose for aac*

This post has been edited by db1989: Apr 12 2012, 09:33

Reason for edit: as above

[nu774]

want quicktime best vbr but in its quicktime present mode

I don't get it; What do you mean by this?
As far as I know, QuickTime pro for Windows allows you to choose not-constrained true VBR mode, but doesn't let you configure VBR quality. Therefore, practically you had better be using constrained VBR on QT pro.
(Actually, you can always stick to CVBR... which has been used by iTunes, and showed slightly better result on HA listening test)

You can configure "quality" from QuickTime GUI, but actually it's a different parameter, which corresponds to -q option of qaac.
This parameter is not for controlling size/quality trade off. It just controls complexity of encoding process, and simply higher is better... as long as encoding speed is acceptable for you.

[Mix3dmessagez]

I'm sorry for being unspecific.I'll try to better translate my gibberish LOL

In QT, i choose best quality, variable bit rate encoding strategy and sound quality recommended *only choice*
I wanted settings that reflected this choice in qaac
From what i understand it tries to be as transparent as possible around 128 bit aac.
While qt didn't let you configure quality, it gave quality control of like 4 different options.These from what I remember, affected sound quality and changed the bitrates around differently.

I see about the -q option, but from what i read in your faq by default the best is chosen *-q2*
I tried to reproduce the closest settings to quicktimes files, but am getting slighty different bitrates *although same average as whole*, and filesizes
I appreciate your program and don't want to come off as a jack a i just want to input settings that will give me exactly what quicktime will, with the best resampler

This post has been edited by db1989: Apr 12 2012, 09:33

Reason for edit: as above

[nu774]

Well, it's interesting. Quickly tried now QT pro 7.7.1 for Win with a few configuration parameters, and I also couldn't get identical result between QT pro and qaac. Same for CVBR.
On the other hand, I could confirm iTunes plus is still bit-identical with qaac --cvbr 256 -q2, and iTunes custom (CVBR) is identical with qaac --cvbr -q1;

qaac is now built directly upon CoreAudioToolbox, and is not using QuickTime API.
QT pro might be doing something different... I don't know for sure.

[Mix3dmessagez]

Well, it's interesting. Quickly tried now QT pro 7.7.1 for Win with a few configuration parameters, and I also couldn't get identical result between QT pro and qaac. Same for CVBR.
On the other hand, I could confirm iTunes plus is still bit-identical with qaac --cvbr 256 -q2, and iTunes custom (CVBR) is identical with qaac --cvbr -q1;

qaac is now built directly upon CoreAudioToolbox, and is not using QuickTime API.
QT pro might be doing something different... I don't know for sure.

Hey, thanks for your response, I think I will just convert to alac and downsample using coreaudio now.One question though, on http://src.infinitewave.ca/ which core audio is present in the windows version?I see leopord and tiger, but I believe those are the mac versions.

[nu774]

I think I will just convert to alac and downsample using coreaudio now.

My personal recommendation is just to use SoX. It's good enough and still very efficient (fast). You can run sox resampler from foobar2000 DSP, too.
I implemented --native-resampler on qaac to tweek around with CoreAudio SRC not because I want/recommend people to use it seriously.

One question though, on http://src.infinitewave.ca/ which core audio is present in the windows version?

Apparently CoreAudio has been updated after Leopard release. Leopard is two generation behind from the newest (Lion). However, I don't know if SRC has been updated. I'm not a Mac user anyway.
I just quickly tested with sweep wave conversion; From what I can see, --bats,127 gives me something looks similar with Leopard version on the site. However, I don't know if it is exactly the same.

This post has been edited by nu774: Apr 13 2012, 02:32

[Mix3dmessagez]

I think I will just convert to alac and downsample using coreaudio now.

My personal recommendation is just to use SoX. It's good enough and still very efficient (fast). You can run sox resampler from foobar2000 DSP, too.
I implemented --native-resampler on qaac to tweek around with CoreAudio SRC not because I want/recommend people to use it seriously.

One question though, on http://src.infinitewave.ca/ which core audio is present in the windows version?

Apparently CoreAudio has been updated after Leopard release. Leopard is two generation behind from the newest (Lion). However, I don't know if SRC has been updated. I'm not a Mac user anyway.
I just quickly tested with sweep wave conversion; From what I can see, --bats,127 gives me something looks similar with Leopard version on the site. However, I don't know if it is exactly the same.

Do you think it would be worth re-encoding all my needledrops to sox then and delete all the quicktime downsampled ones?
What I find puzzling is the fact that you say leopard two generations behind lion, but lion performs notably worse on the src scales in just about every fashion than leopard.

Also, I have uploaded samples of izotope 64 mbit dithered, original wav, and quicktime and sox comparisons now, so an actual listening test for the public can commence

quicktime
http://www.mediafire.com/?hgjv2mfu8b095w2

sox
http://www.mediafire.com/?xcdj0hj7yawio0g

izotope 64 src/mbit dithered
http://www.mediafire.com/?umnkxd63585rha5

original unsampled wav
http://www.mediafire.com/?pyc2o5ks74jebs2

QAAC bats native resampled
http://www.mediafire.com/?3421h4mz86dm8hi

*note, I forgot to rename some of the files all of them are in .mp4 and some might overwrite one another if saved in same place*

Anybody care to share their results?No serious abxing required, just to see if any differences can be spotted.

[nu774]

Do you think it would be worth re-encoding all my needledrops to sox then and delete all the quicktime downsampled ones?

No, especially on AAC encoding.
If *you* cannot ABX it, it's worth nothing.

What I find puzzling is the fact that you say leopard two generations behind lion, but lion performs notably worse on the src scales in just about every fashion than leopard.

How did you know that? Maybe another source?

[Mix3dmessagez]

Do you think it would be worth re-encoding all my needledrops to sox then and delete all the quicktime downsampled ones?

No, especially on AAC encoding.
If *you* cannot ABX it, it's worth nothing.

What I find puzzling is the fact that you say leopard two generations behind lion, but lion performs notably worse on the src scales in just about every fashion than leopard.

How did you know that? Maybe another source?

Care to explain what you mean with aac encoding? This is not to sound like a jack a, i just want to know as much as possible about all of this, and music.

on the src website, i compared the two, namely on passband, transition, tiger falls off from the ideal filter for both, while leopord maintains near accuracy.On sweep, it has all this extra stuff that leopard doesn't have *and izotope 64 doesn't either, so I assume it to not be good*

This post has been edited by Mix3dmessagez: Apr 13 2012, 05:41

[nu774]

Care to explain what you mean with aac encoding?

Sorry for my English if it's unclear; It's not my native tongue and I'm really not good at it.
I just thought you are encoding to AAC and that's all.

on the src website, i compared the two, namely on passband, transition, tiger falls off from the ideal filter for both,

Tiger ≠ Lion
Tiger is older than Leopard.

[Mix3dmessagez]

Care to explain what you mean with aac encoding?

Sorry for my English if it's unclear; It's not my native tongue and I'm really not good at it.
I just thought you are encoding to AAC and that's all.

on the src website, i compared the two, namely on passband, transition, tiger falls off from the ideal filter for both,

Tiger ≠ Lion
Tiger is older than Leopard.

Your english is extremely clear and correct, there's nothing wrong with it.What i meant was..

Do you think it would be worth re-encoding all my needledrops to sox then and delete all the quicktime downsampled ones?

No, especially on AAC encoding.
If *you* cannot ABX it, it's worth nothing.

Why is not worth deleting and resampling everything if I convert to aac, thats what i was asking

[nu774]

Why is not worth deleting and resampling everything if I convert to aac, thats what i was asking

Okay, I was assuming that you won't be able to ABX them, so I said no. If you are encoding with perceptual coder like AAC and you cannot tell the audible difference, the difference is not important.
Of course it's a different story if you can.

[Mix3dmessagez]

Why is not worth deleting and resampling everything if I convert to aac, thats what i was asking

Okay, I was assuming that you won't be able to ABX them, so I said no. If you are encoding with perceptual coder like AAC and you cannot tell the audible difference, the difference is not important.
Of course it's a different story if you can.

From the samples I've provided could you abx it?I'd just like someone whose more knowledgeable and smarter on this with better ears to scale the differences between them.