How about using AAC for Music Collection

[Tuning]

As the relatively new audio compression called AAC is here how about a poll about people interested in it.what lossy audio compression format do u like most.

[Sirber]

I voted MP3 but I mainly use mp3PRO, mainly mecause I have a RCA Lyra HDD 20GB that supports it, and also I hate to waste precious hard disk space :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Almost all of my music collection is stored in the Mp3pro format @ 96kbps.

However, I voted for AAC because I do think that AAC @ 96kbps sounds better. And AAC+ sounds better still.

It will be great when applications begin to appear that will allow you to rip audio CD's to AAC/AAC+ files. In much the same way the audio CD to Mp3/Mp3pro applications do now!

Cheers

EDIT

I also like the fact that my Xcard can play relpay AAC files perfectly but not my Mp3pro files........ bummer!

[ChristianHJW]

For music collections, only lossless ( FLAC, Wavpack, etc. ) or MPC are sensible choices IMHO, both are missing here ...

[Nibor]

I don't have the best sound system, so Lame MP3 @ ABR 160 KBit/s is enough for me... I can't hear the difference to the original!
And even if I could, IMO it's not important that it sounds exactly like the source, it's enough when it sounds GOOD and I can't hear 'the compression' out of it!!
(Oh oh, some people from hydrogenaudio would strike me for these words ;) :D)

[Sirber]

@Nibor

We share the same opinion, that's why my music vary between 40kbps CBR(Vivaldi) and 144kbps VBR (Apocaliptica) in mp3PRO :D

@All

about WMA, it's supported by most hardware, but sound Q isn't there. Also, IMHO, I don't like using M$ products...

[Animaniac]

Nero AAC quality level "audiophile::highest" sounds transparent to me in most cases after some informal testing. That yeilds bitrates of approximately 256 kb/s. So, Musepack still is the most viable lossy format. I still use lossless (APE) for my music.

[Sirber]

APE is the only lossless codec I used. Quite efficient IMHO :)

[Tuning]

I was only concerning about lossy compression formats.So i have edited the question.Thanks.But i found mp3Pro was build to rip CDs @64kbps -> at this bitrate the audio is of poor quality.And u cannot decode to a good WAV file.

[BoNz1]

AAC is by far the most interesting for me. Good implementations can be transparent to most people at 128kbps. I usually encode with quicktime at 128kbps and I can never tell the difference between the original. Also, HE AAC is very nice for low bitrates. AAC also allows for multichannel of course the only other codec which can properly do multichannel in this poll is WMA. Although vorbis would be interesting if it could do it with proper channel coupling. But, IMO AAC is by far the most complete codec ATM.

[Tuning]

The dB poweramp uses mp4 plugin by which any one can convert existing mp3 collections to mp4.Though the transcoding process takes a lot.checkout www.dbpoweramp.com (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm) :rolleyes:

[ssjkakaroto]

@Tuning: if you dont care about hardware support, you should really give MPC (Musepack) a try

[Ramirez]

Well, if I had to store my music collection in any of the loose compression format I'd definitely choose vorbis which is IMHO sounds better then AAC or MP3PRO at any bitrate.

2 sample song, you'll hear the difference unless you're suffering from serious hearing problems.:D

Vorbis 110KBPS VBR (http://storm.wronger.com/Vorbis 110KBPS VBR Matia Bazar Ti Sento.zip)
AAC 110KBPS VBR (http://storm.wronger.com/AAC 110KBPS VBR Matia Bazar Ti Sento.zip)

[Gaia]

Well, if I had to store my music collection in any of the loose compression format I'd definitely choose vorbis which is IMHO sounds better then AAC or MP3PRO at any bitrate.

Placebo effect...

[Ramirez]

So what are implying Mr. Gaia? Who gave me that placebo exactly?
For you information I'm testing thing very thoroughly and only then
I draw my opinion on them, plz don't patronize me and address me directly next time.

*sigh* :sly:

[Sirber]

Originally posted by BoNz1
AAC also allows for multichannel of course the only other codec which can properly do multichannel in this poll is WMA. Although vorbis would be interesting if it could do it with proper channel coupling.RealAudio can do 5.1 from 96kbps to 253kbps, with excellent quality. Vorbis is the best above 80kbps, 2 channels.

[jcsston]

I choose Vorbis because it's the only free audio compression format in the list. :D

[Sirber]

Free vs non-free, who cares?. Let's talk about quality :)

[bond]

you want answers which audio codec is best at, lets say, 128kbps?

checkout this (http://audio.ciara.us/test/128extension/results.html)!

the rest are personal preferences and placebo effects...

[Tuning]

you want answers which audio codec is best at, lets say, 128kbps?

checkout this!

the rest are personal preferences and placebo effects...

I visited the link provided and found my favourite to be better than others.Thanks for the comments.


@BonZi
AAC also allows for multichannel of course
But u do not have DS filter to play in mediaplayer.
@jcsston
As u r fond of opensource projects,may i inform u: there are many open source encoders available for AAC/mp4.
@gaia
U need to re-think which is best.I learned that AAC@96kbps == mp3@128 kbps.And AAC @128 kbps == AC3@192kbps(stereo).

Look from where i got it
www.telos-systems.com/?/techtalk/default.htm (http://www.telos-systems.com/?/techtalk/default.htm)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Tuning

As u r fond of opensource projects,may i inform u: there are many open source encoders available for AAC/mp4.


What are their names and how does their quality varry? AFAIK there are very few Opensource ones. And of those ones only a select few are even still being developed. And of all of them quality can vary wildly.

Originally posted by Tuning

@gaia
U need to re-think which is best.I learned that AAC@96kbps == mp3@128 kbps.And AAC @128 kbps == AC3@192kbps(stereo).


Then quite frankly you need to re-think what the word best means and how one arrives at this assessment. When dealing with lossy perceptual audio coding there is no reliable factors that can be quantised to give perfect assessmnts of quality. Because as the name implies quality is directly related to a persons personal perception and not some provable undeniable measurable effect. Which means that everyone has their own oppinion on what is best and why it is the best. AAC@96kbps!=MP3@128kbps. Not for everyone at least. To some peoples perception perhaps. But then there are those with more and less sensitive hearing.

[Tuning]

I didn't informed u that the observations that i presented here was not mine it was the from the listening test conducted by BBC/NHK in 1999(i think).
Now the exact link is provided below and understand urselves.
http://www.telos-systems.com/techtalk/aacpaper_2/aacpaper_8.htm.Then make ur replies.

[jcsston]

Originally posted by Tuning
@jcsston
As u r fond of opensource projects,may i inform u: there are many open source encoders available for AAC/mp4. [/B]
Yes, but are they open-source and legal in the USA?
It may also be that VDubMOD, CDex, and Winamp support Vorbis very well that I prefer it over AAC. :)

[Tuning]

That i don't know.But i can say many audio ripping softwares that are legal has started providing support to AAC.For eg:dBpoweramp,nero wave editor,cooledit pro etc.
It may also be that VDubMOD, CDex, and Winamp support Vorbis very well that I prefer it over AAC.
That is true regarding VDM.And i don't know about CDex.But winamp 2.x and 3 is currently supporting AAC by the plugins offered at Rarewares (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/aac.html)

[Gaia]

Originally posted by Tuning
I didn't informed u that the observations that i presented here was not mine it was the from the listening test conducted by BBC/NHK in 1999(i think).
Now the exact link is provided below and understand urselves.
http://www.telos-systems.com/techtalk/aacpaper_2/aacpaper_8.htm.Then make ur replies.

Very old listening test!

Check out http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?&act=portal

More recent blind tests:

http://audio.ciara.us/test/index.html

[Soulhunter]

@SeeMoreDigital
It will be great when applications begin to appear that will allow you to rip audio CD's to AAC/AAC+ files. In much the same way the audio CD to Mp3/Mp3pro applications do now!
Maybe have a look here (http://www.poikosoft.com/) ! ;)

Bye

[bond]

Originally posted by Tuning
But u do not have DS filter to play in mediaplayer.there is a perfectly working ds filter: CoreAAC (http://coreaac.corecodec.org/) (compiles available at rarewares)

As u r fond of opensource projects,may i inform u: there are many open source encoders available for AAC/mp4.hm, many?
i am only aware of one: FAAC (http://sourceforge.net/projects/faac)

if you want a comparison of the quality of available AAC encoders look here (http://audio.ciara.us/test/aac128test/results.html)

it is of course also already possible to directly rip from cd to aac (for example with cdex, eac...)
most of them use the psytel or faac encoder (which are available for free)

although the best results will be achieved with quicktime (but the usability of qt is s*)

he-aac/aac+ is only supported in nero bruning rom by now and only for low bitrates (max: 70kbps or so)

[Tuning]

@bond
there is a perfectly working ds filter: CoreAAC
But it can't be used for AVI.:(.And there is no muxer to AVI.No VDubMod support.

[bond]

Originally posted by Tuning
But it can't be used for AVIaac cant be put into avi (till now) ;)
that has nothing to do with the ds-filter...

[Tuning]

Thanks bond for ur comments.Can u suggest which format(OGM/MKV) is best supported to AAC ?

[bond]

Originally posted by Tuning
Can u suggest which format(OGM/MKV) is best supported to AACit should work with both (you can of course also put video into mp4 container...)

[Tuning]

and softwares supporting it?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Bond,

So am I still correct in assuming that there are still no 'easy to use' CD audio to AAC encoders that don't use either the psytel or faac codecs?

And that dbpowerAMP and CD-DA extractor still use these codecs?

I too prefer the QuickTime pro AAC encodes, but like you say, the useability is awful.

Cheers

[bond]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
So am I still correct in assuming that there are still no 'easy to use' CD audio to AAC encoders that don't use either the psytel or faac codecs?there is a commandline tool available, which uses the nero aac dlls for encoding (of course you need nero installed), called Nencoder (get it at rarewares)...
you can use that in eac for example!

And that dbpowerAMP and CD-DA extractor still use these codecs?i am not sure if dbpoweramp already supports the nero commanline tool...

@tuning
hey, why not searching the forum a little bit ;)

ogm: ogg directshow muxer in graphedit (you need the aac to be in the mp4 container and 3ivx installed (because of the mp4 splitter))
matroska: mkvmerge
mp4: mp4ui

[Sirber]

It's a shame that we can't use mp3PRO in movies... :(

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
It's a shame that we can't use mp3PRO in movies... :( Agreed! Surely some 'clever coder' could sort this out!

Cheers

[Ramirez]

Originally posted by bond

the rest are personal preferences and placebo effects...

yeah yeah, IMO you and your buddies should stop repeatedly say that nonsense, there is nothing psychological about the fact that Vorbis is better codec then AAC, and if you'd live your AAC obsession for a minute you'd clearly see that. (Probably not :P)

Learn to respect other people opinions!:devil:

All these "pseudo" scientific quality tests are meaningless to me; I'd rather use my own ears instead lol.

[Sirber]

@Ramirez

I agree with you. From my lastests tests, vorbis had wider stereo range and sounded better than mp3PRO and AAC (96kbps).

[Tuning]

Comments are creeping up and i made up my mind on conducting my own comparison test.Most members have voted for Ogg Vorbis and the second position is only AAC.The thread was started to find out who are interested in AAC.Finally i think i'm going to withdraw my interest in AAC and look forward to use Ogg vorbis.Let's see what is better !;)

[Teegedeck]

There's even more room for subjective errors (placebo effects) in comparing audio than in comparing video. Fortunately enough, there are also applications that make blind-tests for audio-files easy. So there's no excuse for just stating 'codec x is better than codec y' if you haven't done one, with abc-hr for example. Full stop.

The only statement that I would consider safe without testing is that MP3pro is worse that both Ogg and AAC. Simply because its design is older and much more restricted. But most of us probably can't tell the difference anyway for 99% of all music (partly due to our mediocre ears, partly due to our mediocre audio equipment). Wait for the results of rjamorim's public 64-kpbs-listening-test (due tomorrow) which I'm pretty confident will show how little difference to the original we really hear in a compressed file.

[bond]

Originally posted by Ramirez
yeah yeah, IMO you and your buddies should stop repeatedly say that nonsense, there is nothing psychological about the fact that Vorbis is better codec then AAC, and if you'd live your AAC obsession for a minute you'd clearly see that.hell, i didnt mean to offend you (so no need to offend me) and i have nothing to add to teegdeck's post about "placebo effects" cause he is definitely right...
and i didnt say that aac is better than vorbis, i just pointed to a listening test where aac and vorbis were equal qualitywise (and thats my opinion too)...

All these "pseudo" scientific quality tests are meaningless to me; I'd rather use my own ears insteadthese blind (!) listening tests are at least more scientific than your non-blind ones.
and everybody can participate these tests (at the moment there is one running for 64kbps)...

Learn to respect other people opinions!it would be better for you to think about the meaning of this sentence again, cause in contrary to you, i didnt claim to know what audio codec is best (and than call this personal prefernce a "fact")...

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Ramirez
Well, if I had to store my music collection in any of the loose compression format I'd definitely choose vorbis which is IMHO sounds better then AAC or MP3PRO at any bitrate.

2 sample song, you'll hear the difference unless you're suffering from serious hearing problems.:D

Vorbis 110KBPS VBR (http://storm.wronger.com/Vorbis 110KBPS VBR Matia Bazar Ti Sento.zip)
AAC 110KBPS VBR (http://storm.wronger.com/AAC 110KBPS VBR Matia Bazar Ti Sento.zip) Providing 1 sample track tells absolutely nothing. Even worse is that the AAC encoder or the settings/version aren't mentioned.
The least what should be done is to provide also the original sample.

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Ramirez
All these "pseudo" scientific quality tests are meaningless to me; I'd rather use my own ears instead lol.

LOOOL!

People already called my tests everything (flow flawed to useless), but it's the first time people call it "pseudo scientific"

(I could rant for hours and hours about how scientific is a comparision of only one sample, without testing conditions or comparision against the reference, but I'd rather point you to this (http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=R-REC-BS.1116) document instead.
THAT is how scientific tests are conduced)

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Ramirez
yeah yeah, IMO you and your buddies should stop repeatedly say that nonsense, there is nothing psychological about the fact that Vorbis is better codec then AAC, and if you'd live your AAC obsession for a minute you'd clearly see that. (Probably not :P)
"You'd clearly see that"? Are you using freq response graphs or what? :p

Well, I don't share your opinion, but maybe you haven't tested the latest AAC encoders like the latest Nero AAC or QT 6.3.
Talking only about "AAC" is very unspecific, because there are dozens of different encoder implementation ranging from very bad to very good quality.

Gotta give Vorbis the credit that it is decent quality codec from low to higher bitrates, but it's not state of the art anymore. Even Monty admits that, although he's planning to strike back.. ;)

[unmei]

it seems to me people are a bit more religious about audio than about video issues :)

i couldnt decide on one, only exclude two (that's clear enough :). I think altho aac and vorbis belong to about the same generation of codecs, vorbis took off early and has a unchanged good quality for some time now but i havent seen updates (well there seem to be, but official windows binaries are still the same). AAC had a very slow start, there were binaries, but they provided not that great quality for a long time and it's only recently that people here seem to start using it (SBR and NeroDigital days) and now that the fuzz is on for AAC i think it might achieve some quality steps - i think it has great "theoretical" potential (even in non-SBR mode) and it might have a bright future as mpeg-4 (system) evolves further, it just looks like slow take-off is a trademark of MPEG children :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

By following SoulHunter's link I've just installed and encoded an entire audio CD to .Mp4 using the dbPowerAMP application.

I'm not sure about the manufacturer of the .Mp4 codec but I'm very pleased with the results all the same!

I generated a series of two encodes from the same CD source. One at 64kbps and the other at 96kbps. Ofcourse the 96kbps encodes were by far the better sounding.

Very nice. And at last I'm able to playback good sounding compressed audio files via my Xcard..... great!

Things can only get better!

Cheers

EDIT.... What no votes for WMA. Bill won't be very impressed!

[Ramirez]

@Bond:

"Placebo Effect" as I understand it.

"You're only thinking that you know the truth while in fact you're completely wrong!" :D

This is why I've reacted that way; I had no idea about the true meaning of your comment, I apologize.

P.S
I still believe that vorbis is the best codec available today, and even 100 blind tests in a row won't convince me otherwise.:D

[Tuesday]

I've been using mp3 encoded with various versions of LAME for years and its only been very rare that ive had any quality problems.

I used 128kbps CBR for years as it was largly claimed to be "CD Quality" when i first ventured into encoding.

After researching into various listeing tests i now use 192kbps ABR with LAME encoding with the .dll supplied with CDex for just plain music for my collection.

However, i have used OggVorbis audio at 0.1q (~80kbps) for a long time on my DVD rips as i find because the audio is mostly vocal in film i cant hear any distortion and the extra bitrate for the video is always good, as is the lower over head of .ogm compared to .avi

just my two-peneth.....

[Ramirez]

Originally posted by JohnV
Providing 1 sample track tells absolutely nothing. Even worse is that the AAC encoder or the settings/version aren't mentioned.
The least what should be done is to provide also the original sample.
It's wasn't my intention at all to conduct some sort of all inclusive grandiose test,I just provided 2 sample files for better illustration of the diff between these two. A quick comparison if you will..

As for the settings/version, here we go.

AAC Sample
Length: 5:30
File size: 4,627,371
Format: MPEG-4 AAC
Samplerate: 48000
: 2Channels:
Preset: VBR/Stereo - Internet 90/100 Kb/s LC-AAC
BitsPerSample: 16
Bitrate: 108674
Made with Nero AAC Plugin /Nero 6.0.0.1.5

Vorbis Sample
Length: 5:30
File size: 4,285,628 bytes
Average bitrate: 103 kbps
Sampling rate: 48000 Hz
Channels: 2
Nominal bitrate: 100 kbps
Max bitrate: 110 kbps
Serial number: 27548
Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20020717
Made with BeSweet v1.5b19

For the obvious reasons I couldn't upload also the 70MB source file (no Webspace)

Originally posted by JohnV
"You'd clearly see that"? Are you using freq response graphs or what? :p

Just a wrong choice of word lol, you should place "Hear" instead of "see" there.

As you can clearly see, English isn't my native tongue ;)

Originally posted by JohnV
Well, I don't share your opinion, but maybe you haven't tested the latest AAC encoders like the latest Nero AAC or QT 6.3.
Talking only about "AAC" is very unspecific, because there are dozens of different encoder implementation ranging from very bad to very good quality.

So far I've tried AACmachine (psytel)/ Nero AAC plugin and QT6 AAC Export plugin; still in all cases Vorbis produced better sound Quality then corresponding AAC File, and believe me, it was lot more then just "one track"

If you're thinking that I should change something in my setup or use a diff encoder then plz advice, I'll give it a go.

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Ramirez
P.S
I still believe that vorbis is the best codec available today, and even 100 blind tests in a row won't convince me otherwise.:D

That is usually called "closed-mindedness"

Really, that statemend is like you are asking not to be taken seriously.

[Ramirez]

@Rjamorim:

Roberto calm down lol,it wasn't my intention at all to disrespect your work, (I wasn't very clear) as I said I wasn't tried to conduct some "scientific" or even partly serious test, all I meant is that I like to base my opinion on thing based on my own tests and I prefer to use my own ears\eyes for quality evaluation.

my best regards :)

Edit: LOL read above i said "plz advice, I'll give it a go."


LOL! I'm so tired...:D

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Ramirez
So far I've tried AACmachine (psytel)/ Nero AAC plugin and QT6 AAC Export plugin; still in all cases Vorbis produced better sound Quality then corresponding AAC File, and believe me, it was lot more then just "one track"

If you're thinking that I should change something in my setup or use a diff encoder then plz advice, I'll give it a go. Well, one thing is for sure. If you claim that "in all cases" Vorbis produces better results, something is either wrong in your encoding/system, or then you are affected by placebo and I recommend blind testing for you.

My opinion is that Vorbis is not better, rather infact a bit worse codec than QT 6.3 or Nero AAC/-he. I don't know how much testing experience you have, but some here might know something about my history.. :D
I'd say I'm also pretty familiar with Vorbis, since I was feeding results for Monty already over a year ago when he finalized 1.0

[kl33per]

JohnV knows what he's talking about and I agree with him, Vorbis is becoming outdated. However, I think both codecs have a lot of potential still, plus Vorbis isn't locked into any kind of official standard, so it can continue to get better all the time. AAC on the other hand is part of the MPEG-4 standard of A/V codecs and can only have so much done to it before breaking the standard. Still, Vorbis 1.1 is set for release (sometime in the distant future) and Ivan is always working on Nero AAC so things could get mighty interesting.

[mrlipring]

lame mp3 @ 192kbps q0 etc...

My archos jukebox only plays mp3.

Using a higher bitrate means that i'd either have to buy more hard drive space (well, i DO need to, but yeah...) or have less music. no thanks :)

it sounds good. it sounds excellent in fact. no denying that ogg etc are better, but no use to me, unfortunately. I'd love to get a portable player that used a programmable processor to decode music, as opposed to damned codec chips.

[mrlipring]

Originally posted by JohnV
Well, one thing is for sure. If you claim that "in all cases" Vorbis produces better results, something is either wrong in your encoding/system, or then you are affected by placebo and I recommend blind testing for you.

where did he say he was testing it with Placebo tracks?












:D

[kl33per]

Placebo is not a type of track. It's a psychological effect on human beings. Basically it means the results from a test can be easily skewed by our personal preference towards codecs, i.e. a person who likes and uses Vorbis will most likely see Vorbis win in any comparison they do. The only way to get around this is to do a blind test, i.e. you don't know which enocde corresponds with which codec.

[mrlipring]

Oh...


My...


God...


Placebo are a band. It was a joke. Hence the :D A rubbish joke, but a joke nonetheless. Thanks for assuming i'm stupid and explaining the word "placebo" to me though.

You can't make stuff like this up.

[kl33per]

Sorry, I wasn't implying you were stupid. I've never heard of any band called Placebo, but there's probably lots of bands I haven't heard of. And I didn't see your smiley face at the bottom of your post. Plus, a lot of people on doom9 don't understand the 'placebo' effect or 'blind-testing'. Anyway, didn't mean to offend you.

[Mug Funky]

@ kl33per:

placebo were back in the days i thought audiocatalyst and xing were cool...

hmm. profile says you're from brisbane. surprised you've not heard of them, it was all they played in melbourne for about a year on some stations.

just to make my post constructive...

i've played with psytel, but got frustrated at its (IMHO) slightly immature psychoacoustics. no matter how hard i try, things like castanets or some explosions with a strong mid contour (like in a lot of older movies) come out sounding peculiar. for now i'm still using LAME with my own absurdly long command line.

i think the psy model in psytel's aacenc is too closely based on the tunings from the old mp3 psy. i don't think they've hit the ideal model for AAC's different coding type (i may be wrong, but doesn't AAC use DWT instead of DCT?).

i haven't used vorbis very much at all (please, don't hit me, ramirez... i feel like i'm admitting atheism to a baptist), but a while ago i did a few low bitrate tests against lame (96kbit average) and seemed to get more stable and predictable results with lame, but admittedly virbis performed better in certain situations (it worked best on rock songs that were hard limited and not very spatial - dynamic and spatial songs came out with severe MS artefacts).

i am no scientist, so please, any new users: take this as my 2 cents, and not a comprehensive analysis :P

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
i think the psy model in psytel's aacenc is too closely based on the tunings from the old mp3 psy. i don't think they've hit the ideal model for AAC's different coding type (i may be wrong, but doesn't AAC use DWT instead of DCT?).

Well, Psytel has not been developed in an year and half now. It's sucessor is the Nero AAC plugin - that is being constantly developed.

And no, there are no wavelets in AAC. (At least, not in the LC profile. Maybe some weird and rare profile uses it)

[Mug Funky]

tanks for the response... i'd always wondered aboot DWT - there's been some fuss about it over the last couple of years, but it hasn't really been applied terribly well yet (actually, the rududu video codec is showing some early promise).

yeah, i'm aware of psytel's ceased development. i just can't afford nero 6 atm :(. i'd like to try out it's SBR capabilities, because frankly LC AAC hasn't quite proved itself.

from what i've read about SBR, it should be nearly perfect for classical music, with its predictable upper harmonics.

[kl33per]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
placebo were back in the days i thought audiocatalyst and xing were cool...
I was uneducated then. I missed the whole xing encoder stage.

Like I said, I think AAC (and Vorbis) still have a lot of potential in the future. I just submitted my results for Roberto's test and I must say HE AAC disapointed me. It was very impressive at low bitrates, but wasn't far ahead of Vorbis.

[rjamorim]

Hello.

The test is now finished. Here are the results:

http://audio.ciara.us/test/64test/results.html

[bond]

now, thats the reason why nobody votes for wma ;)

[frodoontop]

I'd like to vote for Musepack(MPC), it's transparant for almost every file at 160-170 kbit/s. This is at q5.

It's the only lossy codec which is designed to be transparent, that I'm aware of. Better not use Musepack for low bitrates.

I'm still waiting for the moment when we can finally mux video with mpc sound. For movies the bitrate is around 140kbit/s, which is reasonable for excellent sound.

[Tuning]

Originally posted by rjamorim
Hello.

The test is now finished. Here are the results:

http://audio.ciara.us/test/64test/results.html

Quote from above link:
Another important note: Keep in mind that Lame MP3 is at 128kbps in this test. There are two reasons for that:
1-To put results into perpective. In this aspect, Lame was a high anchor (and FhG MP3 the low anchor)
2-To test if some of these codecs deliver the marketing plot of "Same quality as MP3 at half the bitrates", specially concerning WMA and MP3pro.



What do u really mean by this.Is Lame encoded file is at 128kbps ABR.
And i have a suggestion: 64kbps is very low bitrate and can u conduct another open test with 128 and 96kbps streams seperately.Then we could find which is better suited for music archieval.:) .Thanks:p

[frodoontop]

Have a look here: http://audio.ciara.us/test/

Rjamorim did arrange another public test @128kbit/s.

[Tuning]

I wasn't aware that the test was already conducted.The test was not done@96kbps CBR.So may i suggest u to conduct once more with all encodes at 96kbpsCBR,Which is the usual encoding bitrate that is preffered for music.

[sillKotscha]

Originally posted by Tuning
So may i suggest u to conduct once more with all encodes at 96kbpsCBR,Which is the usual encoding bitrate that is preffered for music.

:confused: :D

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by Teegedeck

The only statement that I would consider safe without testing is that MP3pro is worse that both Ogg and AAC.
It seems, I shouldn't have said even that without a blind-test - sorry. (Vorbis scored a little worse than MP3pro in the test.)

Edit: Besides eyeing the overall results, I find it always useful to read about the results of the man that I'd say earns the title 'most educated ears' on hydrogenaudio. I hope you'll forgive me for quoting his comment from the thread on HA:

Originally posted by guruboolez
I obtained different results, with bad notation for vorbis (unfortunately, I forgot the matrix on another computer). I'm not at ease with vorbis at this bitrate during a blind test : it sounds too particular (hiss, desquilibrated tonal range : more treble, poor low-medium, and limited stereo), and it's easy for me to detect the encoder. I'm rating vorbis, and not an unknow encoder. So it isn't blind anymore.

HE-AAC was my favorite : often the best - never the worst. Sometimes betrayed by a grainy texture, the same as mp3pro one. No noise packets, as heard with the first releases of the encoder.

Lower anchor was rarely the worse file I rated : on 8 files, I rated other encodings as worst one. I prefer an excessive lowpassed sound without artifacts than a richer sound, but destroyed by flanging. Personnal taste.

WMA9 (I hated this encoder) was as often the best file than HE-AAC. But it was three time the worse for me. So it isn't a reliable encoder, but on some situation, it works very well.

LC-AAC was first on two sample (02 and 09), last on one (11).. Vorbis best on one (04), and last on two (06 and 09).

With these results (talking about overall results and guruboolez') it seems to narrow down to the choice of HE AAC or MP3pro for extremely low bitrate encodings. Still not the thing to go for when you seriously back up. But for movies I'd feel tempted to do another blind-test of my own in order to find out whether I hear a difference between LC and HE AAC for a relevant portion of a movie.

[Tuning]

what i mean is that not to test quality @ 1/2 bitrate of LAME file.Test which codec is more near in quality to source @96kbps CBR(As i think 64kbps is lower than what required (exception:mp3PRO) so that a audio cd compatible WAV can be created without much loss in quality).if possible compare between AAC,Vorbis and mpc only.

[Teegedeck]

You can always prepare samples yourself. After all, you want to decide what suits your ears best, don't you?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well after looking at the test results Mp3pro is not so bad after all - at 64kbps anyway!

Although I have to say, the encodes I did yesterday with AAC std @ 96kbps sounded better to me than Mp3pro @ 96kbps!

Cheers

[Tuning]

Whenever i tried to comparison i found AAC @ 96kbps is better than mp3@96kbps and I'm transcoding all my music to mp4.And i think mp4 is going to be as popular as mp3.
Edit:Test complete!
Well finally i conducted my own tests(blind ones, with 1000w 4.1speaker system "ON" at optimum volume).The three contestants were AAC,Ogg vorbis and Mpc.The test file was a WAV file ripped from AudioCD and of length 5:30.I used the various plugins provided by dBpowerAMP for creating mp4 and ogg.I used MUSE drop and mppenc to create mpc.The bitrate considered was something variable between 95-105kbps(I changed my mind of testing CBR as i came to know AAC doesn't really have CBR and infact i was using VBR mp3 for DVDrips and want to check what size will these codecs produce.)Thus all was done.

The results

WAV AAC Ogg MPC
-------------------------------------------------------------

size in MB 55.5 3.72 3.67 3.96
-------------------------------------------------------------

ABR(kbps) 1411 93 94 100.7
--------------------------------------------------------------

Note :ABR is as shown in winamp2.92.


Quality:
At this bitrate mpc really found to be lacking in high frequency spectrum.I found the quality of

AAC and Ogg indistinguishable from each other.( in all range of frequencies as i used winamps

equalizer to determine each band('0dB') of spectrum.while turning other bands to '-12dB'.)


Conclusion:

As both files were approximately same in bitrate and quality,the size has to be considered.The

size of Ogg was less than AAC.Thus i think Ogg is more suitable for DVDripping.And need to wait

on using MPC and AAC.(Though we cant mux them to avi till now).


:D

[Sirber]

hum... at this time MP3/mp3PRO is far more supported by standalone players.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
hum... at this time MP3/mp3PRO is far more supported by standalone players. Hi Sirber,

I've been looking at specifications of some of the new portables. And there appears to be more Mp4/AAC players than Mp3pro players on the market at the moment.

In fact, I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed in the lack of support for Mp3pro. Dispite the fact that this format is over two years old, there are very few portable players and no intergration at all into video encoders!

We live in hope.... Cheers

[Sirber]

When I bought my Lyra, ~6 month ago, there were no support for AAC. Maybe my infos are outdated :D

[The Belgain]

Thanks for yet another great test ryamorim.

What are the plans for the next one? Would it be possible/feasible to do test of surround codecs at fairly low bitrate (say 192 for 5.1)? This is starting to be relevant for movies now, and there are at least a few codecs that can do it now. The samples would be mainly clips from movies that have a lot of surround info (and maybe some well-mixed 5.1 music tracks).

I suppose most of these would probably be transcoded tracks since DVD movies don't have uncompressed 5.1 tracks, but if DTS tracks are chosen, there shouldn't be too much trouble with that.

Codecs to test would be I guess AAC (Nero probably being the best for surround?), Vorbis (though it isn't tuned much), Real, wma, ac3 (as an anchor - it will sound horrible at low bitrates). Any others?

I guess one problem is there might not be that many people able to test it (people would really need 5.1 setups (or at least quadro) to test the surround effects). Anyway, what do people think about this? AFAIK there haven't been many tests done of this.

[rjamorim]

Would it be possible/feasible to do test of surround codecs at fairly low bitrate (say 192 for 5.1)? This is starting to be relevant for movies now, and there are at least a few codecs that can do it now.

Sure, it would be very interesting.

I suppose most of these would probably be transcoded tracks since DVD movies don't have uncompressed 5.1 tracks, but if DTS tracks are chosen, there shouldn't be too much trouble with that.

Actually, we should mix some DTS tracks and AC3 tracks. Remember, these tests are to reflect real-life usage, and most people still transcode from AC3 :)

And your codec choice seems very good.

Anyway, my next planned test is a voice codecs test in Novemver (i'll be travelling in october)

Then, and MP3 @ 128kbps test in December.

Regards;

Roberto.

[bond]

Originally posted by The Belgain
What are the plans for the next one? Would it be possible/feasible to do test of surround codecs at fairly low bitrate (say 192 for 5.1)? This is starting to be relevant for movies now, and there are at least a few codecs that can do it now.yeah, would be great

although i dont have a 5.1 system (till now :D )

mp3 @128kbps is also interesting...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
When I bought my Lyra, ~6 month ago, there were no support for AAC. Maybe my infos are outdated :D I know what you mean. Six months is a long time in software and harware terms!

I was hoping that the new Philips HDD100 'iPod imitator' would have had Mp3pro support but sadly it does'nt. It's just an Mp3 and WMA player.

There's supposed to be around a million Apple iPod owners now. I wonder how many of them store their music collections in .Mp4/AAC?
Come to think of it. I wonder what ripping application they use?

What ripping application do you use for you Thomson Lyra?

Cheers

[Sirber]

It's a USB HDD, so I can use whatever I want :) I use AltoMP3 to CD-->WAV then CoolEdit Pro (Adobe Audition) for WAV-->mp3PRO, then Eags On! to set the correct naming and ID3 tags :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
It's a USB HDD, so I can use whatever I want :) I use AltoMP3 to CD-->WAV then CoolEdit Pro (Adobe Audition) for WAV-->mp3PRO, then Eags On! to set the correct naming and ID3 tags :) Blimey.... I'm worn out just reading that lot... I think I'll stick to MusicMatch for Mp3pro file creation!

Cheers

[Sirber]

MusicMatch... hihihihihi

You can have way more options with CoolEdit Pro :)

[Tuning]

I think [Edit]Nero 6 Wave Editor is better!
MusicMatch... hihihihihi
And for the continuity
hihihihihihi ...hohohohohoh.......mmmmmm......123*987*infinity

[Sirber]

Nero 6 is a burning software while Cool Edit Pro is a dedicated audio processor :)

I fellow in your path: hahahahahaha ... . ..... héhéhéhéhéhé ... .. :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

I have an original version of CoolEdit Pro. But looking at the specification for the Adobe version... it's way different!

Very nice.

Sirber, does the Adobe version allow you to generate Mp3pro encodes higher than 96kbps?

Cheers

[Sirber]

nope, only if you go for VBR it can go up to 144kbps :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
nope, only if you go for VBR it can go up to 144kbps :) That's bloody good.

Can you do an experiment for me please?

Can you encode the same source file in Mp3pro @ 128kbps and then again in Mp3std @ 128kbps.

And then (this is the important bit) play back both files using a player that can't decode Mp3pro. Like say, WinMedia Player 9. And then let me know if you can hear much difference between the two!

Cheers Sirber

[Sirber]

I can't ask to encode @128, it's vbr :) I tryed with 96kbps, and you can tell the difference :) The mp3PRO miss all high-freq, while the MP3 have some.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
I can't ask to encode @128, it's vbr :) I tryed with 96kbps, and you can tell the difference :) The mp3PRO miss all high-freq, while the MP3 have some. Yep, I can do 96kbps myself, as that's as high as I can go! And there is a massive difference in the way the two files sound.

As you may have guessed I'm trying to discover how similar a high bitrate Mp3pro encode sounds compared to an Mp3std encode. When played back on 'non' Mp3pro players! The higher the bitrate for both formats the better!

So are you saying you can encode to Mp3pro @ 128kbps but it's VBR only. If so that should play back OK in WMP9 and so should a Mp3std VBR encode @ 128kbps. Got any tracks by Alanis Morissette?

Cheers

[Sirber]

nope, it's not my kind of music :). but any version of mp3PRO played on a non-mp3PRO player will be like a MP3@22kHz, that's the purpose of SBR, to generate the missing freq. :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
..... but any version of mp3PRO played on a non-mp3PRO player will be like a MP3@22kHz, that's the purpose of SBR, to generate the missing freq. :) Yep, this is what my thinking of SBR suggests.

However because I'm only able to encode at low bitrates (upto 90kbps) I don't know if this is still the case for higher bitrates.

I've never heard Mp3pro @ 128kbps (or higher) / 22kHz!

Cheers

EDIT...
69 votes and still ZERO for WMA - Amazing!
Good job there are no portable players that only use this format!

[Sirber]

mp3PRO VBR Q100 is 96-144kbps, I have a song that is varying between 128 and 144. Q is excellent :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
mp3PRO VBR Q100 is 96-144kbps, I have a song that is varying between 128 and 144. Q is excellent :D Sirber. Are you listening to it using a non Mp3pro player?

Cheers

[Sirber]

on a mp3PRO player :)

[Dr Satan]

Another vote for MPC here. I can't tell the difference from the original, and average bitrates vary between 109kbit and 197kbit (in my experience).

I think it's worked better because all the other codecs have tried to get ok quality at >128kbit, whereas MPC went for excellent quality at ~170kbit.

[duartix]

I'm just waiting for proper tagging suport to switch to AAC.
2 Months ago I was using OGG until I took the 128 kbps listening test and then changed to MPC.

[bond]

Originally posted by duartix
I'm just waiting for proper tagging suport to switch to AAC.you can tag mp4 files with the winamp plugin, foobar player... (all itunes compatible) of course

[crusty]

I've used mp3 @ r3mix values for about 200 CD's then switched over to Ogg Vorbis @ quality 6.00.

When testing for differences between the original wav file and mp3 and Ogg Vorbis I found Ogg Vorbis clearly superior.

The difference between wav and mp3@192kbps vbr is very pronounced to my ears.
With Ogg Vorbis at approximately the same bitrate I can still hear some differences, but they are small and very subtle. Without a blind test you would never notice. You would with mp3 at 192Kbps vbr.

[Sirber]

Vorbis is quite good indeed, and free. But above 2 channels, it sucks badly. :(

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
Vorbis is quite good indeed, and free. But above 2 channels, it sucks badly. :( Agreed. Even WMA 6Ch audio @ 128kbps sounds better... Sorry!

Cheers

[Sirber]

is AAC @5.1 good at 128kbps?

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Sirber
is AAC @5.1 good at 128kbps?

I believe it's pretty much unbeatable if you use HE AAC.

[Ramirez]

IIRC HE-AAC was developed for use in low-bitrate portable devices only
I can hardly believe that HE-AAC 5.1 can beat LC-AAC 5.1 quality wise...

[Stux]

Low bitrate HE-AAC beats low bitrate LC-AAC

Soooo Low bitrate MC-HE-AAC will beat low bitrate MC-LC-AAC

I don't find this surprising ;)

5.1 in 128kbps is very very low bitrate

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Ramirez
IIRC HE-AAC was developed for use in low-bitrate portable devices only

Definitely not.

Insomuch that there are several HE AAC implementations for desktops (most of them based on FAAD2), but none on portables.

I can hardly believe that HE-AAC 5.1 can beat LC-AAC 5.1 quality wise...

Erm... that's the HE AAC purpose. :B

According to the MPEG specifications, a well implemented HE AAC encoder offers the same quality as an LC AAC encoder at at least 30% smaller bitrates.

[Tuning]

Today is the last day to poll on this thread.The time set during posting was 10days[From Sep20-Sep30].Any one missed? Poll today!.

@rjamorim
What is the optimum bitrate for 5.1 AAC? :)

[bond]

Originally posted by Tuning
What is the optimum bitrate for 5.1 AAC?hm, i dont think that there is an optimum bitrate, you will have to test that for yourself (how it will sound on your 5.1 system) :)

but i would say 192kbps would be ok, cause that would be 32kbps per channel (the same as in stereo 64kbps files) of course i know that there are things like joint stereo, channel coupling too ;)

[Tuning]

i would say 192kbps would be ok, cause that would be 32kbps per channel
Is this of HE_AAC?Then what for LC_AAC?

-Tuning
Thanks bond:)

[bond]

Originally posted by Tuning
Is this of HE_AAC?Then what for LC_AAC?chrishjw once released a mkv sample from star wars which included 5.1 lc-aac sound at 128kbps and it also wasnt that bad imho...

so the best would be really to try it for yourself ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well,

Sorry to go on about the M$ WMA 6Ch audio codec. But I have to say I was rather impressed with it. Especially at the lowest bitrate of 128kbps.

However what is useful (for testing purposes anyway), is that you can easily run any bitrate 6Ch WMA file thru the WinMedia Encoder 9 application and convert it to another bitrate 6Ch WMA file!

So it's possible to create say, a 6Ch WMA file at 768kpbs and down convert it to 128kbps later. An entire 120min movie sound track only takes a few minutes to do.... amazing!

Anyway. I promise to do more M$ bashing in future!

Cheers

[Sirber]

I hope so, jeez :devil: What were you thinking about? :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
I hope so, jeez :devil: What were you thinking about? :D I know. 80 votes later and nothing for M$, must mean something! Well, to M$ anyway.

Just imagine if big Bill G was dead. He would be spinning in his grave at this polls result!

Cheers again.

[bond]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Sorry to go on about the M$ WMA 6Ch audio codec.no, no, no, we dont want to hear that
stop that plz :D

you can easily run any bitrate 6Ch WMA file thru the WinMedia Encoder 9 application and convert it to another bitrate 6Ch WMA file!
So it's possible to create say, a 6Ch WMA file at 768kpbs and down convert it to 128kbps later. An entire 120min movie sound track only takes a few minutes to do.... amazing!hm, afaik thats called bitrate peeling (changing the bitrate without reencoding) but i never read somewhere that wma (pro or std) can do that (and i am sure m$ would have announced it everywhere so that every dumb ass would know that they support bp)
so i think the stream just gets reencoded at a lower bitrate, like any codec can do!?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by bond
no, no, no, we dont want to hear that
stop that plz :D

hm, afaik thats called bitrate peeling (changing the bitrate without reencoding) but i never read somewhere that wma (pro or std) can do that (and i am sure m$ would have announced it everywhere so that every dumb ass would know that they support bp)
so i think the stream just gets reencoded at a lower bitrate, like any codec can do!? Yep, but it's so damned fast at doing it. Even when using the 2pass VBR setting!

Cheers

[Ramirez]

Originally posted by rjamorim
Definitely not.

Insomuch that there are several HE AAC implementations for desktops (most of them based on FAAD2), but none on portables.

HE-AAC ATM currently locked in range of (CBR MODE-32/96KBPS max), (VBR MODE 30/40 50/70 KBPS max); I'd say it's definitely looks more suitable for a portable devices sector. But that's not the point anyway...
Originally posted by rjamorim
Erm... that's the HE AAC purpose. :B

I know what HE-AAC is :P and the whole fuss around it is greatly overhyped,there is nothing really astonishing about it IMHO.

I was referring to Sirber's question really, and as I said there is no way ATM for HE-AAC (MAX Quality) 6CH track to deliver the same results as LC- AAC 128kb/s encoded track delivers, it's insane...
Originally posted by rjamorim
According to the MPEG specifications, a well implemented HE AAC encoder offers the same quality as an LC AAC encoder at at least 30% smaller bitrates.
We'll wait for such an encoder to come out (AFAIK it does not exist yet...)

[Sirber]

SMD, we SO don't care. Continu and I'll request a strike on you :devil:

[SeeMoreDigital]

Ok best mate! Message recieved and understood!

Cheers

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Ramirez
I know what HE-AAC is :P and the whole fuss around it is greatly overhyped,there is nothing really astonishing about it IMHO.

Well, in my humble opinion, I think the only astonishing feature of HE AAC is that it~s better than any other codec at the bitrate range it operates....

I was referring to Sirber's question really, and as I said there is no way ATM for HE-AAC (MAX Quality) 6CH track to deliver the same results as LC- AAC 128kb/s encoded track delivers, it's insane...

I didn't do any 6ch test on HE AAC, so I can't comment, really.

We'll wait for such an encoder to come out (AFAIK it does not exist yet...)

Erm... Nero HE AAC is quite better than LC AAC (on stereo at least). I don't know if it's better by 30%, but it's definitely better nevethless.

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Sirber
SMD, we SO don't care. Continu and I'll request a strike on you :devil:

What the...

Isn't this thread also about discussing WMA? :confused:

[Sirber]

You wanna be striked too? ;)

Since WMA got 0 vote, why should we talk about it? :D

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Sirber
You wanna be striked too? ;)

Go ahead. That just proves how childish some things are here.

"He is talking about a bad format! Strike him! Free speech only applies to 1337 formats"

Since WMA got 0 vote, why should we talk about it? :D

Well, MPC isn't even mentioned, and still people talked about it without being threatened by strikes later.

At least, WMA is being mentioned there. I don't see why a serious discussion demands that people vote on that format. But it seems pretty obvious that people don't want to take this discussion seriously.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Please guys,

Don't fall out, especially over me. I'm really not worth it!

Sirber is only joking....

Besides I know where he lives. So if he ever striked me, I could very easily "send the boys round"! :D

Cheers

[Sirber]

Is the meaning of the word "fun" forbidden on doom9? :confused:

[sillKotscha]

Sirber... as you quoted youself, you are a nerd - period!!!

fun is obvious to everyone - sarcasm is not.

I was following this poll with interest, now - as rjamorim stated - it is flawed by your "serious" discussion...

cheers Sill

[Soulhunter]

I use Monkeys Audio for my CD backups and MP3 for listening purpose...

Ive considered to change to AAC when theres a bit more playback support for it ! ;)

Last time I tryed WavPack's hybrid mode (has free adjustable bitrate) but I'm not sure about the results...

My question...

Has someone here played around with WavPack ???

Would be happy to hear some opinions about it... ;)

Bye

[Sirber]

I used wavepack long time ago, but IMO APE is better.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well, I must admit I have not used any of the new lossless (is that correct) audio formats yet. But I suppose if it's possible to 'back up' audio CD tracks at less than a wav files original 1411kbps, without loosing quality, can't be all bad!

Cheers

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Has someone here played around with WavPack ???

You can find some interesting comments (look for posts by den) at HydrogenAudio:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=12554
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=8416

Regards;

Roberto.

[Tuning]

As above quoted why everybody using lossless codecs if u have so much lowbitrate transparent lossy codecs.Only thing i found useful to use lossless is to create Audio CDs.Any other use?.Most of the new lossy codecs give indistinguishable quality from original @ >160kbps.Then why?


Tuning

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Tuning,

I guess people are talking about lossless audio codecs now because that's the sort of thing that happens as a thread grows!

Maybe if you had been more specific in your 'subject' thread head, and opening post, your thread may not have moved in a direction you're not happy with!

But don't feel bad, as this kind of thing happens all the time on other peoples threads (especially mine) too!

Maybe we should have a specific 'lossless' audio and video codec discussion section on the forum. However I fear that many newbie members would find the terms 'lossless' and 'lossy' rather confusing!

Godda keep thinking about the newbies. We were all one at sometime!

All in all it's been a great and interesting thread.

Cheers

[Tuning]

I guess people are talking about lossless audio codecs now because that's the sort of thing that happens as a thread grows!
Maybe if you had been more specific in your 'subject' thread head, and opening post, your thread may not have moved in a direction you're not happy with!

But don't feel bad, as this kind of thing happens all the time.


Sorry SMD the accent of my post was not meant to feel bad.It was a general Q why the people use lossless codecs? and i really want to know.
It is right that i can be more specific in the subject and could use more options.But i could not edit the poll as i'm not a moderator.
But the Q thread was a tricky one if u notice.I asked them How about using AAC?.I was in fovour to AAC and thought most members will poll aac.It did not made any action as u can see now>we have vorbis at the top.

As the thread grown and reading the comments my priority to AAC began to fall and after doing my own tests i found what the quality of Vorbis.After that things changed and i started to use Ogg Vorbis for the music.

The next thing that i will loook forward is the use of HE-AAC.It is a demanding audio compression method as u get good quality at very low bitrate.

:D-Tuning

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Tuning

As the thread grown and reading the comments my priority to AAC began to fall and after doing my own tests i found what the quality of Vorbis.After that things changed and i started to use Ogg Vorbis for the music. In my opinion AAC will come thru in the end because it promises so much flexibility. When you consider how long AAC has been around I think it's a real shame that it's not more widely used.

Hopefully this will change when NeroDigital finally arrives. At last we will have a Mpeg4 video with the possibility of multi channel audio, in an Mp4 container!

With multi channel audio in mind. Is there anybody out there who could email me an AAC/Mp4 multichannel file. Just something I could use to test my speaker set up.

Something like... "Front Left - Centre - Front Right - Rear Left - Rear Right - LFE" would do!

Maybe Mr Bond could oblige!

Cheers

[Soulhunter]

Thanks rjamorim !!! :D

I read up a bit and decided to play around a bit more with WavPack's lossy mode... :D

Bye

[bond]

SMD,

you can find a nice multichannel test wav file on mausaus nero plugin page, try that for aac/mp4 test encoding

[SeeMoreDigital]

Thanks bond

I'll search it out

Cheers

[Sirber]

With Adobe Audition (old Cool Edit Pro), there is a new "Best quality" mode for mp3PRO. It seems 25% slower on encoding. I'll do some tests to see the quality change.