IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
QT AAC vs Wave ABX, disappointing results
aprofromindia
post Jun 14 2013, 20:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 20-November 12
Member No.: 104631



My first ABX on my system using Foobar WASAPI event mode->USB-> SPDIF -> M-Audio DSM3 monitors.

wave sample from here (http://productionadvice.co.uk/why-mp3-sounds-bad/comment-page-3/#comment-15387).

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.6
2013/06/14 20:47:35

File A: C:\Users\Apro\Desktop\3TalkAboutLove.wav
File B: C:\Users\Apro\Desktop\3TalkAboutLove.mp4

20:47:35 : Test started.
20:48:09 : 01/01 50.0%
20:48:53 : 02/02 25.0%
20:49:25 : 03/03 12.5%
20:50:06 : 03/04 31.3%
20:50:43 : 04/05 18.8%
20:51:16 : 05/06 10.9%
20:51:33 : 06/07 6.3%
20:53:03 : 06/08 14.5%
20:53:55 : 07/09 9.0%
20:55:33 : 08/10 5.5%
20:55:58 : 09/11 3.3%
20:56:12 : 10/12 1.9%
20:56:29 : 11/13 1.1%
21:05:47 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/13 (1.1%)

QAAC settings -TVBR 92 -q 2. And I must say I was extremely disappointed with QT AAC performance at these high settings.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 18 2013, 05:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dynamic
post Jun 18 2013, 04:51
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: 17-September 06
Member No.: 35307



It's certainly possible that it's a problem sample that defeats the VBR psychoacoustic models in LAME and QAAC/iTunes/Quicktime.

There will always be problem samples, albeit that they're fairly rare in music. About 15 years ago, samples like fatboy (an excert from Kalifornia by Fatboy Slim) were terrible in most encoders. Good encoders like LAME MP3 / iTunes/Quicktime AAC (and back in those days, Musepack was a leading contender too) were tuned using such problem samples and are a good deal better these days, but there are still certain classes of samples that are difficult.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TomasPin
post Jun 18 2013, 05:29
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 5-June 13
From: Argentina
Member No.: 108508



QUOTE (Dynamic @ Jun 18 2013, 00:51) *
It's certainly possible that it's a problem sample that defeats the VBR psychoacoustic models in LAME and QAAC/iTunes/Quicktime.


That's another reason why I had previously suggested the OP should post the sample he used so others could test as well.


--------------------
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 18 2013, 05:38
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10081
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Is the link in his first post broken?


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TomasPin
post Jun 18 2013, 06:04
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 5-June 13
From: Argentina
Member No.: 108508



QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 18 2013, 01:38) *
Is the link in his first post broken?


Sorry, my bad. Completely missed it.

BTW, the claims in that article (most of them at least) are atrocious.
QUOTE
It doesn’t matter what encoder you use, it doesn’t matter what settings you use or what pre-processing you apply – mp3 just doesn’t cut it. AAC and later, more sophisticated encoders use more advanced encoding methods, and sound better to varying degrees, but mp3 just FAILs.

dry.gif

This post has been edited by TomasPin: Jun 18 2013, 06:11


--------------------
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RobertoDomenico
post Jun 18 2013, 06:57
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95208



Wouldn't pay any attention to that article, their mind was already made up before the badly performed tests.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 18 2013, 14:10
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10081
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Thankfully this topic is not and won't be about the article.

If you wish to discuss it, start a new thread.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jun 18 2013, 19:22
Post #8





Group: Developer
Posts: 3418
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (aprofromindia @ Jun 14 2013, 23:50) *
QAAC settings -TVBR 92 -q 2.

What version of CoreAudioToolbox was used?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TomasPin
post Jun 18 2013, 19:58
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 5-June 13
From: Argentina
Member No.: 108508



I can't seem to distinguish the original from a TVBR q54, quality 96 encode I just made with QAAC 2.18, CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3. But maybe it's just me and my lousy ears... (seriously).


--------------------
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aprofromindia
post Jun 18 2013, 22:28
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 20-November 12
Member No.: 104631



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jun 18 2013, 20:22) *
QUOTE (aprofromindia @ Jun 14 2013, 23:50) *
QAAC settings -TVBR 92 -q 2.

What version of CoreAudioToolbox was used?


Encoded using Quicktime Pro 7.7.3. not sure about the CA toolbox.
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: 30th October 2014 - 18:38