Hydrogenaudio Forums > FAAC Development

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossy Audio Compression > AAC > AAC - General

Pages: 1, 2

mezenga

Sep 21 2005, 09:46

QUOTE(rjamorim @ Sep 21 2005, 02:53 AM)

QUOTE(QuantumKnot @ Sep 21 2005, 07:20 AM)

On the topic of faac's psymodel (or lack of one), I remember being chastised by someone at doom9 about my statement that faac had no psychoacoustic model and that I was making statements without listening tests

Ohh, it MUST have been Hans-Jürgen!

Off-topic: He also talked bs when I visited mpxplay forum last year.
The worse part is that the developer seemed inclined to agree with his words ignoring my advices about how to tag AAC files correctly...lol
(at least recent versions support mp4 container but I suspect it still allow aac+id3).

edekba

Sep 21 2005, 10:25

QUOTE(Busemann @ Sep 21 2005, 07:33 AM)

Any plans for an aac128v3? FAAC may be at a stand-still, but it'd be interesting to see how much the others have progressed this past year.

i agree! maybe w/QT7 ... apple has truely left everyone behind?

i read somewhere that apple's aac was developed by dolby? is that true?

rjamorim

Sep 21 2005, 10:43

QUOTE(Busemann @ Sep 21 2005, 07:33 AM)

Any plans for an aac128v3? FAAC may be at a stand-still, but it'd be interesting to see how much the others have progressed this past year.

Yes, I think Sebastian Mares is planning something in that respect. Hopefully with the release of Nero 7 we'll have something to work on towards a test...

QUOTE(edekba @ Sep 21 2005, 01:25 PM)

i read somewhere that apple's aac was developed by dolby? is that true?

The original encoder was indeed developed by Dolby - it is Dolby's consumer AAC encoder, matter-of-factly.

But it was further tuned inside Apple.

binkgle

Sep 21 2005, 19:42

i'd like to see a test comparing faac, itunes5/qt7, and nero, at 128, 160, 192, and 224. those are the bit rates most people use on their portable players (good balance betwen quality and space).

also, i'd like the itunes to be tested with both cbr and their new vbr/abr option.

rjamorim

Sep 21 2005, 19:48

People are too fast to ask for others to conduce tests, but too slow to take the plunge and start conducing tests themselves :B

binkgle

Sep 21 2005, 21:26

i've tried testing, but i've only got an ab live card and some px100s. it all sounds completely transparent to me. i will soon, be upgrading, though, and want to get a sense of what other people are finding in these codecs quality-wise.

edekba

Sep 22 2005, 00:12

QUOTE(rjamorim @ Sep 21 2005, 08:43 AM)

QUOTE(edekba @ Sep 21 2005, 01:25 PM)

i read somewhere that apple's aac was developed by dolby? is that true?

The original encoder was indeed developed by Dolby - it is Dolby's consumer AAC encoder, matter-of-factly.

But it was further tuned inside Apple.

Ahh so I was right. So Apple liced it to Apple and QT ppl tuned it? what other programs do you know use Dolby's tech?

Dolby aac encoder then should be listed as the best aac ... not apple rite?

edekba

Sep 22 2005, 00:13

QUOTE(rjamorim @ Sep 21 2005, 08:43 AM)

QUOTE(edekba @ Sep 21 2005, 01:25 PM)

i read somewhere that apple's aac was developed by dolby? is that true?

The original encoder was indeed developed by Dolby - it is Dolby's consumer AAC encoder, matter-of-factly.

But it was further tuned inside Apple.

Ahh so I was right. So Apple liced it to Apple and QT ppl tuned it? what other programs do you know use Dolby's tech?

Dolby aac encoder then should be listed as the best aac ... not apple rite?

Gabriel

Sep 22 2005, 02:21

QUOTE

Dolby aac encoder then should be listed as the best aac ... not apple rite?

Apple might have substancially improved compared to the original Dolby version. (at least they have some people that can do it, coming from AT&T/Bell)

Garf

Sep 22 2005, 02:28

Didn't Winamp bundle Dolby AAC before they included CT's encoder? You could check easily.

guruboolez

Sep 22 2005, 02:49

Winamp 5.1 is curently bundled with both encoders: Dolby for LC encodings, Coding Tech. for HE profile.

ilikedirtthe2nd

Sep 22 2005, 02:59

QUOTE(binkgle @ Sep 22 2005, 03:26 AM)

I've been abxing 128kb aac encodes on worse equipment. Maybe you should try to start at lower bitrates and raise the bitrate to follow the artifacts you can hear at that bitrates. It surely needs some training to abx modern codecs at higher bitrates.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.