A very angry AAC user (lol)

-------------------------------------------------
Author: Ricc (---.the-cloak.com)
Date: 05-11-02 16:31

dB // you, sir, are an idiot
well, not whole and over, but... really, psytel-aac surpasses mpc in quality at like bitrates, paeriod. aacenc -ultra -profile 2 is not equalled by any mpc line within 200 kbps. i am personall very happy with aacenc -extreme -profile 2 for all my needs. it nudges out mppenc --xtreme quality-wise and produces files about equal in size (literally). mpc increases bitrate to control pre-echo while aac tackles it directly... there are many advancements in the advanced audio codec not found mpc, which does give it the edge. i'm quite certain you have not done any substantial testing on your own. people who hear quantization noise (plotted by mpc's ath curve), for instance, undoubtedly choose aac over mpc. i suggest you take your hydrogen audio fud and come back when dibrom has some objective evidence to hand you (basically, folks, i just told this guy to go to hell; if he's true to himself, he won't be coming back 'round here nomore).
----------------------------------------------------

Thread "FAAC Quality", post:
http://www.audiocoding.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=1540&t=1532


Bye, urak

lol.. About this Ricc "you, sir" from the-cloak.com. I'm 99.999% sure that this is "our guy with million nicks": ffc/randar/Beatles/taz/Haz-mat/darkhorse74/RubberSoul/L. Fox/Shrapnel/Ricc/ etc. etc...
Banned from hydrogenaudio.org, #vorbis,#project_mayhem and #r3mix irc-channels.

Too bad he's angry at Dibrom only. He should be maybe even more mad at me,CiTay,tangent and ath..

Heh, he won't see any "cockfight" between Psytel AAC and MPC here. Only civilized comparisons using test samples as proof maybe, but no "cockfight". Both are good codecs. Both codecs are advocated and supported here.

I personally have the absolutely utmost respect towards Ivan as a person and as a developer. In my opinion he's the most talented codec developer around, even exceeding legendary names like DivXNetworks' Gej.
Why? Because Ivan has full ISO MPEG4 compatible tweaked audio/video codec, which he has coded by himself, and which we will soon see in a commercial product. Gej & co. didn't do AAC, they decided to licence it. Not only that, but Ivan is only 20 years old..

Everybody has the right for personal opinion here..

People can ask rjamorim, moderator and the #2 poster at HA , whether he has been brainwashed and converted to support MPC or not.

One positive thing about this post by Ricc: Maybe it's time again to take some samples and provide those for everybody to judge.

- Mr. Dimkovic & DivXNetworks' Gej.

Grin. IMO, these two are surely not comparable... Are you sure that Mr. Rota (aka Gej) is a developer?

All the best,

Mijo.

I thought that Eugene Kuznetsov (aka Sparky) did most of the work for the DivX4 - which is the first DivXNetwork's product (DivX 3.1x is a cracked MS codec) ?

Hmm... Some confusion going around here. Sure, DivX 3.1x is a cracked MS codec, and DivX 4 is the first DivX codec programmed from scratch.

Take a look at this URL and you will see that Gej is involved in the DivX development: http://www.divxnetworks.com/about/bios.php

DivX 4 is not programmed from scratch... Did you forget about Open DivX alpha?

That's the reason (Open DivX abandoned and starting of closed DivX), that we have Xvid now.

Sure, Gej is involved (BTW, he even sends the beta versions around ), but I don't believe he's a programmer, but I could be wrong.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter, sorry for this thread drift.

Cheers,

Mijo.

Hmm, if Gej is not a dev, what is he?
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-853881.html

Everwicked at least was in heaven just because he got email from him..

Yes it is.



Opendivx is abandoned. Tis true. No matter what the DXN guys tell you. (SEE: "It is just on hiatus") But Divx4 had barely anything to do with it. A portion of the code that was used in Divx4 and 5 namely encore2 was posted for a very short time to CVS before they removed it and hired the coder responsible. Nothing that wrong there. The real dificulty comes in maintaining a business and projects like this when funds get tight. It is having an effect on the Vorbis devs and you can be sure that DXN is feaing the pinch from it. They have yet to sign any major customers and are not appearing to be actively courting any either. They are peetering out this far on their cash reserves. But they have already had to scale things back several times to keep from going under before they even break.

Sigh.

Let's stop this here. This thread was (is?) about something different...

Everyone can make their own opinion when reading on Doom9's old ezboard forum, the videocoding forum etc.

BTW, I still prefer MP3 at 128 kbit because, that's CD quality .

Cheers,

Mijo.

MPC IST DEATH
AAC IST GOD
Where are the naked pictures of encoding grandmamas?



Hehe. You guys surely are dangerous:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...d=3176#post3176

On my defense, I can say that I was still young here - 8th post. (How could I reach such a level of decadence? Even admit I tried MPC for a short time...)

Fortunately, the holy Ivan came on time and said "TELL YOU ME NOW AAC IST GOD FORVER"

Regards;

Roberto.


Obs: Kudos to Filburt/Adam for the random quotes. That guy is great.
http://www.vqf.com/bbs/display.php3?board=...orum&DISP=13102

Heh. Really.... I must be missing something here. . . .

Anyway.. howabout we all just drop this and ignore Beatles? After all, attention is exactly what he wants. Each time people respond and play into this kind of bullshit, he's just going to be motivated to post more.

Closed source codecs (DivX, AAC, MPC...) will lay broken and scattered across the net like brown leaves blown by the wind.

OGG, XviD, MP3 and future open source codecs will stand when others fall !!!

AAC is a part of the ISO standard (two standards, that is) -

ISO 13818-7 (MPEG-2)
and
ISO 14496-3 (MPEG-4)

Just like MP3, same group inside ISO was designing AAC - so, AAC is certainly not a "closed source codec" (it is not closed source, and it is not a codec) - even the authors of MP3 (FhG IIS) claim that AAC is a successor to the MP3 format, at least in industry area.

Furthermore, there is one completely open and free implementation of AAC - www.audiocoding.com

sorry..... i don't understand what is going on ....

so is AAC better or MPC??

what does MPC is death and ACC is god suppose to mean??

Unfortunately rjamorim wrote a so called "noisy message". A message with very low signal to noise ratio.

In other words, he was telling inside jokes, but didn't make it apparent enough for others. Not sure if this thread was the most appropriate for it, only confusing people as we can see....

And to PatchWorks: Open source is no guarantee at all that a codec will not fall. Just ask Monty about his previous projects...

I use aac for its inherent coolness factor. I agree with rjamorim, but there isn't any real noticeable difference between aac and mpc for me. I've been using it since vqf.com was the ultimate audio site, and it has only gotten better. For some reason or another, I just happen to like it more.

Jordan

Blah. OK, let me clarify then.

"Why is Roberto crazy enough to use AAC instead of MPC/Vorbis/MP3?"

First, let me say that I've been using AAC for almost an year now. Since Psytel 1.0alpha?, and even some MBsoft AACenc. I'm a really die-hard fan.

Why AAC?
-Transparent quality at -extreme profile for the types of music I listen to. Since I don't plan to ever transcode those tunes, I'm not willing to use overkiller switches.
-Ultra flexible. Lots of sampling rates, multichannel, lots of bit dephts.
-ISO standard. That makes me feel very safe.
-Hardware support. Although it didn't exist when I choose AAC, I kinda knew it would appear, for the same reason stated above: standard.
-Continuous development, by both Ivan and MPEG. (I.E: Quality keeps improving)
-Ivan is such a nice guy. (Yes, that influenced me)

Why not MPC?
-Bad on low bitrates. I need that sometimes to send files to friends on dialup.
-Unlikely support on hardware.
-Too tight: 2channels, 44.100Hz, 16bit.

Why not OGG?
-AAC quality is better. Period.

Why not MP3?
-AAC quality is better.
-I don't have a hardware player, and if I ever buy one, it will surely support AAC. So HW support isn't an issue.
-Again, too tight. Although supports multichannel, no implementation is available.

Why not VQF?
Because VQF IST DEATH.

Well, hope that clarifies.

Regards;

Roberto.

This is not any "period" at all. Psytel really isn't very good at lower bitrates. I was thinking to start a new thread comparing "movie audio" bitrates between Ogg and Psytel. About 100-140kbps. I think Ogg Vorbis RC3 is better here than Psytel 2.15 using the default LC-profile.

I still prefer Psytel at those bitrates.

Besides, you can use LTP instead of LC.

And read my message again. I said those are the resons why I [b]CHOOSE AAC (although some of these reasons are from recent times, that only made me more faithful to Psytel AACenc). An year ago, Vorbis plain sucked. It got much better, but I still prefer AAC neverthless.

Regards;

Roberto.

I think it would make for a great thread. I've been playing around with Psytel listening test for movie audio and I must say that so far I still like Vorbis. However, Psytel AAC clear has better bass response that Vorbis around q3. Vorbis bass just seems a little flat and not as rich as Psytel. Maybe it's just my ears hearing this??

Hmm. But then you lose hardware compatibility.

This seems ..... not right... rjamorim, at the bottom, i mean your signature, is that your web site??
if it is.......
It said on you web site..

Which encoder/format is the best?
-Short answer:
You should test them yourself, and choose which one best suit your needs.

-Somewhat long answer:
For highest quality @ High bitrates: Musepack (MPC)
For overall high quality, even at lower bitrates (96 ~ 160kbps): Psytel AAC
For best compatibility: Lame using --alt-presets
A very promising format: Ogg Vorbis
For very low bitrates (<64kbps): MP3pro




So you are using AAC yourself but on your site you are telling people MPC has the best quality........ :confused:

I never, EVER, denied MPC has the best quality AT HIGH (>160) BITRATES.

And I always agreed it's the fastest (AFAIK) encoder/decoder too.

But, aside than that, AAC is better in many aspects. Besides, AAC quality is just slightly worse - not something enormous - and I never cared for encoding speed.

Regards;

Roberto.

I too, have always been happy with aac. It's quality difference between the other formats is unnoticeable for me, so I choose to use it. I really be laughing when I get my aac portable. Aac definately beats out mp3, which is the most common format for players right now. For me, this makes it a neccesity to encode with Psytel Aac, because they will play in my expanium player when I get it.

<drug induced ramblings> AAC IS GOD!! KNEEL BEFORE ITS AWESOME MIGHT!! JOIN US BEFORE YOU ALL DIE OUT!! </drug induced ramblings>

Honestly though, Ivan is one of the most helpful developers I have ever come across, although that can apply to pretty much everybody who uses this site. By the way, does anybody know when Ivan is going to release a new version of aacenc? Its been a while since the last release and I'm just wondering whats happening.

Jordan

The mighty Ivan is working on the initial stages of OpenMP4

If this software ever reach us end users, it will really r0xx.

Regards;

Roberto.

I think I must be too impatient. I was much more happy when Ivan released a new encoder every couple of days. I enjoyed downloading the new releases often. Oh well, I guess I will just have to wait patiently until the next release comes out. OpenMp4 will be sweet, but I guess I can just try out the mp4 streams that Doom9 explains until then. Does anybody know about any hardware support coming out for mp4? I know that Divx has gotten support for their codec, but I haven't heard of any support of the standard mp4 encoders. If not, one will probably come out, as mp4 is the emerging standard. This year should be good anyways. And thanks rjamorim, for the info.

Jordan