Run this through FAAC 1.23.5. Hear the pain. Zipped for your protection. 17 second cut.

well..as i remmeber FAAC isnt really developed anymore.

so ther is really no point in using it when there are encoders consider better. (nero & itunes)

Which world? faac is used as the backend to many frontends, and came in I think middle-of-the-pack, behind itunes and nero in the very recent aac listening tests, ahead of compaact and realaudio. Where you been?

What do you exactly mean by faac 1.23.5? -q 100? -q 500? What is the problem?

sven_Bent> faac is still in development. No? Development seems to be slow, but not really stopped.

libfaac version 1.23.5 (Dec 17 2003)
Quantization quality: 100
Bandwidth: 16000 Hz
Object type: Low Complexity(MPEG-2) + M/S
Encoding trouble_maker_One_of_Us.wav to x128.aac
frame | elapsed/estim | play/CPU | ETA
733/733 (100%)| 1.4/1.4 | 12.105 | 0.0

Actual bitrate is 118 kbps. Doing -a 48 (gives 96 kbps) it's even worse. There is not a lot going on in this sample. -ns doesn't solve it at 96 but does take most of the bad stuff out.

"Listening" forum, aac tests, was the original location.

A fine example of a TEST SAMPLE! Don't fret if you can a not a use it.

P.S. Forum admin(s). The JohnV? "samples" page at the top of many forums has a dead link. I looked around a lot for .aac files. Came up for air after a while with nothing in my hand.

Faac was in the middle yes but still clearly behind NERO/Itunes


i just though Menno once wrote that he did not relly develope FAAC but rather FAAD. He had left the encoding developing to Ivan with the psytell encoder.

Here's a FAAC killer, I can ABX this sample vs. FAAC 1.23.5 <Mar 4 2004> -q 500. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong with FAAC?

also, tried it against NeroAACEnc 2.6.2.0 -audiophile and found that artifacts are introduced in the left channel