IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
fhg aac vs qaac
pgm86
post May 9 2013, 08:29
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-March 10
Member No.: 78677



hi guys. just would like to ask what are your thoughts. i already know the results concerning the latest listening test. a while back, i read that quicktime has some problems before like some samples having dynamic range compression problems, terrible pre-echo problems and tvbr bugs. is it still the case? as for fhg aac, i still haven't read any problems although it ranked lower than quicktime in the latest listening test. already did an abx between the 2, i can say they both sound the same to me. but since im somewhat the obsessive-compulsive type of person, i just want to hear from your experiences and recommendations especially to the ones who have golden ears. thanks

This post has been edited by pgm86: May 9 2013, 08:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 9 2013, 13:55
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



if Apple AAC encoder had "a dynamic range compression problems, terrible pre-echo problems and tvbr bugs" then it could be reflected in the results of public tests.

It's not the case. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pgm86
post May 9 2013, 19:15
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-March 10
Member No.: 78677



QUOTE (IgorC @ May 9 2013, 21:55) *
if Apple AAC encoder had "a dynamic range compression problems, terrible pre-echo problems and tvbr bugs" then it could be reflected in the results of public tests.

It's not the case. wink.gif


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=86407&st=0

this was from my previous post documenting quicktime's bugs
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 9 2013, 19:38
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1581
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



If You are OK with both Apple and FhG why care about someone's opinion? Both encoders have high quality. It's your ears. We are all different.

In case of a spoted artifacts You can simply try both encoders for yourself and/or jump to high bitrate.

P.S. FhG AAC encoder is relatively new here so it got less issue reports.

This post has been edited by IgorC: May 9 2013, 19:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pgm86
post May 14 2013, 03:43
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-March 10
Member No.: 78677



QUOTE (IgorC @ May 10 2013, 02:38) *
If You are OK with both Apple and FhG why care about someone's opinion? Both encoders have high quality. It's your ears. We are all different.

In case of a spoted artifacts You can simply try both encoders for yourself and/or jump to high bitrate.

P.S. FhG AAC encoder is relatively new here so it got less issue reports.


thanks for the reply. from your personal experience, which from the two would you prefer?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post May 14 2013, 05:51
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1171
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



If we go by preferences I like Apple and use Apple True VBR but like IgorC said, it doesn't really mean anything.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd December 2014 - 05:42