aac in avi? [Archive] - Doom9's Forum

tiki4

26th June 2003, 16:53

Yeah, and for AAC in AVI. Nic made a DS filter based on faad1 a long time ago. It's available at RareWares. It also includes a tool to make a AAC-WAV (aac2wav.exe) so that the file can be muxed in VirtualDub.

But: Seeking will be totally broken in the AVI file. There is no way to get that in sync again, especially if the AAC file is VBR. Your better option is Matroska now. One needs the CoreAAC filter from corecodec.org and also one of the Matroska DS filters. Muxing is easiest done with mkvmerge on the command line or using the GUI. Check matroska.org and the threads in this part of the forum for more info.

Cheers,

tiki4

Sirber

26th June 2003, 17:27

What's the best settings for AAC? Could I do 64kbps and have great quality?

[edit]
http://recordstorereview.com/misc/aacmp3.shtml
:confused:

geoffwa

26th June 2003, 18:21

If you're aiming for low bitrates (~64kbps) give Ogg Vorbis or MP3Pro a try.

Below this however, it's likely that even the deaf will begin to notice high frequency artifacts :D

ChristianHJW

26th June 2003, 18:25

At 64 kbps Vorbis will kick AAC's butt for sure. However, AAC SBR may change that, we'll see ....

sapient

26th June 2003, 18:32

thanx for the info

According to apple (http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/) aac is the only good enough codec for encoding in 64kbps.

I was wondering if anyone with better hearing than me has an opinion about quicktime's aac encoder. Is it any better than aacmachine, quality wise? It is pretty easy to use; its only problem is that it requires wav or mp3 input.

SeeMoreDigital

26th June 2003, 21:49

geoffwa, mentioned Mp3pro!

I think it's high time that this (the SBR) version of the Mp3 codec was incorporated into video encoding and playback applications.

I may be a bit thick when it comes to understanding and writing software applications but I would have thought incorporating Mp3pro into an .avi container would be more straight forward than incorporating AAC or AACplus!

I really am surprised that nobody has done this yet!

Teegedeck

27th June 2003, 07:08

Originally posted by sapient
According to apple (http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/) aac is the only good enough codec for encoding in 64kbps.

Now, that's really a bold statement...;) Try Ogg at quality=0 (the streaming preset). You'll be amazed about how good it sounds for the very low bitrate.

Indeed, Quicktime currently seems the best AAC encoder. The only backset : it isn't free. You need to buy Quicktime Pro, until someone comes up with an alternative frontend (the encoder itself is present in the free Quicktime, but you cannot access it). The cheaper solution would be to wait for Nero 6 that will come out by the end of July. Allegedly its AAC+ (AKA HE-AAC or SBR AAC) will be at least as good.

tiki4

27th June 2003, 09:12

@SeeMoreDigital:

Muxing an MP3Pro file into an AVI is no problem at all. MP3Pro is backward compatible and the SBR part will just be ignored by decoders that are not aware of it. The problem lies in the decoder. There is just no MP3Pro decoder in form of a DirectShow filter. The only playback decoder I know of is the Winamp plugin from Thomson which own the patents on SBR.

@Teegedeck:

Please don't forget that the listening tests performed at HA were done for 128 kBit/s CBR files. There indeed Quicktime 6.3 proofed to be the best encoder. No listening test was performed for VBR files for which the Nero AAC encoder is much more optimized. I cannot proof that but I think the 'normal' preset should give very high quality sound around 160 kBit/s. The AAC+ encoder will be published with Nero 6 on July 18th. At the same time (Menno promised) the SBR decoder code will be included into the FAAD2 source. I think Ogg Vorbis will see a hard time at 64 kBit then...

Regards,

tiki4

bond

27th June 2003, 09:36

imho @64kbps vorbis is better than aac now

you'll find a listening test, with the same results here (http://ff123.net/64test/results.html)!

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I think it's high time that this (the SBR) version of the Mp3 codec was incorporated into video encoding and playback applications.

I really am surprised that nobody has done this yet!me too ;)
perhaps it should become possible to write a mp3pro directshow filter with the sbr sources taken from faad2 2.0 (which is going to be released in a month)?
although rjamorim already wrote that this isnt going to be possible as the aac sbr implementation is different to the one in mp3pro :(

EDIT: changed from 96kbps to 64kbps sorry

SeeMoreDigital

27th June 2003, 09:52

Thanks tiki4 for you explaination.

You're correct ofcourse, it is possible to create and mux Mp3pro audio into an AVI container. I have done it myself.

I wonder if the entire a/v file would infact play in Winamp or MusicMatch (you could at one time play video files thru' MusicMatch) and the Mp3pro audio stream would be decoded.

Could the freely available Thomson Winamp plugin be incorporated into other players, such as MediaPlayer Classic.

I have a feeling that the main reason why Mp3pro is'nt very widely available (it's been out nearly 3 years) is down to pressure from the big music companies.

Maybe somebody else has some ideas?

JohnV

27th June 2003, 10:18

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I have a feeling that the main reason why Mp3pro is'nt very widely available (it's been out nearly 3 years) is down to pressure from the big music companies.

Maybe somebody else has some ideas? I think better guess is that it's Coding Technologies proprietary and the licensing policy...

JohnV

27th June 2003, 10:28

Originally posted by bond
imho @96kbps vorbis is better than aac now

you'll find a listening test, with the same results here (http://ff123.net/64test/results.html)!

2 Issues:
1. That test is quite old, and compares AAC low complex at 64kbps with one the first versions of QT AAC. AAC-HE is meant for lower bitrates and it performs better than mp3Pro which got the highest scores in that test.
2. There are several aac encoders/codecs which each perform differently, but practically only one Vorbis codec. A good idea is to look at the aac 128kbps test and compare FAAC and latest QT 6.3 AAC results. Thus you can't just talk about "aac" like you can talk about Vorbis. Like in the video world you talk about divx,xvid,3ivx qualities, same goes for aac.

bond

27th June 2003, 10:54

ups i wanted to write 64kbps, sorry
i wouldnt say that i am be able to say if aac (no matter which encoder) or vorbis is better at that bitrate (hm i always voted for a 96kbps listening test on hydrogenaudio ;) )

Originally posted by JohnV
1. That test is quite old, and compares AAC low complex at 64kbps with one the first versions of QT AAC. AAC-HE is meant for lower bitrates and it performs better than mp3Pro which got the highest scores in that test.of course you are right (thats why i wrote "now" as aac+ doesnt exist yet)
i still think that i can hear clear differences between vorbis and aac (no matter if nero, qt, sorenson or faac) at 64kbps and my hearing is bad...
so the old test from ff123 is still usable i think (perhaps it could be updated with aac+ and wma9 when aac+ is released)

2. There are several aac encoders/codecs which each perform differently, but practically only one Vorbis codec. A good idea is to look at the aac 128kbps test and compare FAAC and latest QT 6.3 AAC results. Thus you can't just talk about "aac" like you can talk about Vorbis. Like in the video world you talk about divx,xvid,3ivx qualities, same goes for aac.yup i already know that test of course (btw i was the guy who posted the test in this forum to convince people to participate)...

tiki4

27th June 2003, 14:01

Never forget:

The guy behind the Nero plugin is Ivan Dimkovich who developed Psytel. While Vorbis development seems to be a little stalled since 1.0 (I know there have been some changes in CVS and also Garf is developing his sideline), Nero AAC is actively developed and it seems Nero has major plans for AAC/MP4 (NeroDigital).

I think we will see a working HE-AAC implementation which will be tuned for high quality sooner or later. I find it pretty impressive that a company gives out so many free updates to its programs (usually 1 month cycle). Well, Nero 6 won't be for free, but it is actually a bit cheaper (at least here) than many other CD/DVD burning programs and by incorporating the decoder part into FAAD2 2.0 it will also get a wide potential user base (Winamp, foobar2000, CoreAAC...).

I'm looking forward and forget about MP3Pro.

tiki4

SeeMoreDigital

27th June 2003, 18:52

Well after all this talking, it's clear we all (for which ever reason) have our favourite audio codec.

So, in answer to sapient's....... "Can AAC audio be put into an AVI container"?

The answer is..... yes, but the filter's old and it's a bit crappy. And if the AAC stream has been encoded using VBR it can get out of sync if the file is stopped, paused, fast forwarded and rewinded.

So, if I understand right there's not much point to AAC in AVI then...

Or will things change when AAC+ comes along?

Teegedeck

27th June 2003, 20:01

HE-AAC will feature an SBR extension that increases its efficiency at low bitrates, much like the SBR extension helped MP3Pro at low bitrates when compared against 'normal' MP3. It won't change its behaviour in AVI. AFAIK alexnoe is fighting hard to make it possible to mux the wildest stuff into AVI with his avimux application, maybe that's where you can expect help.

It is obvious though that new codecs simply demand a flexibility and functionality of a container that AVI never was intended or designed to meet. Seems a bit like storing HDTV on vinyl records.

tiki4

27th June 2003, 20:32

If you ask me (surely you don't :)):

Don't put AAC into AVI!

AVI lacks the support for most modern video codecs (workarounds for B-frames for example), so why bother with that outdated container. Alternatives are on their way and AAC can be put into Matroska without problems now. The new containers will improve and get mature. Just wait a little bit longer.

Enough said from my side,

tiki4

SeeMoreDigital

27th June 2003, 21:17

Teegedeck

I really enjoy reading your posts. Especially your little end monologues!

Ofcourse you are correct, and so is tiki4 with regard to the shortcomings of the AVI container.

However, I think you will both have to admit that it has served us well over the years and continues to function well beyond it's original intended specification.

Like a lot of people here, I can't wait for the launch of AAC+ (SBR). I hope it will exceed Mp3pro in audible quality at 64kbps. Which appears to be the goal bitrate, at the moment.

I just hope the 'new' containers will prove their metal and will also find their way into hardware based machines.

sapient

27th June 2003, 23:36

@tiki4

The value of .avi compared to the newer container formats is its compatibility. For example, it is the only format (other than .mp4) supported by stand-alone devices and sigma's x-card. And at present .mp4 has several problems. .mp4 files muxed by the only freeware muxer I know (mp4ui/mpeg4ip) can not be played back by these devices.

@ everyone

The problem with nero is that the encoding plug-ins are not included in the price of the standard package. You have to buy them seperately, otherwise you just get limited trial versions. I hope they change that for nero 6.

Teegedeck

28th June 2003, 00:26

never knew that I do 'end monologues'...:cool:

@sapient: hm, I believe that most of us don't own a DivX-capable standalone or an x-card ATM + at least I hope that there'll once be an MP4-muxer that creates streams that can actually be played back by the standalones that are supposed to support the official format for MPEG-4 video. In the meanwhile I think I could be quite happy with a solution that at least doesn't give me problems with synch etc. on my PC (i.e. matroska). It would be a more difficult decision to encode something in a format that hasn't got the official blessing of being a standard (ogg) because I'd loose quality if I had to reencode the file in order to view (or more precisely in this case: hear) it on a standalone one day (I don't know why I should though, my display is much better than my TV-set).

On the other hand, if I just have to remux the file into a different format (mp4) in order to play it back, this would be a completely different story. Just costs me a couple of minutes and a CD-R but no quality is lost in the process.
Compatibility is not that much of an issue if you don't have to watch your videos on a standalone right now, I believe.

And AFAIK the full AAC+ package in included in the (now quite pricy) Nero 6.

Good night now, I feel dizzy...