IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
What anchor would you choose for the AAC test?
What anchor would you choose for the AAC test?
l3enc 1.0 [ 38 ] ** [29.92%]
Lame 3.95.1 [ 33 ] ** [25.98%]
Old FAAC version (1.15, 1.17) [ 10 ] ** [7.87%]
NCTU AAC [ 7 ] ** [5.51%]
Psytel AACenc [ 9 ] ** [7.09%]
Xing [ 4 ] ** [3.15%]
iTunes MP3 [ 5 ] ** [3.94%]
Other? (explain) [ 1 ] ** [0.79%]
No anchor please - use a 6th competitor [ 20 ] ** [15.75%]
Total Votes: 143
  
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 05:09
Post #1


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



Hello.

Let's see if this time noone attempts to mess the poll >_<

OK, let's choose an anchor - or a 6th competitor.

When choosing, keep in mind the test will be already quite fatiguing as it is - several codecs that probably come close to transparency at this bitrate. So, I would probably recommend a bad quality anchor, I believe such would considerably reduce fatigue.

Of course, keep that even more in mind if you are planning to vote on a 6th competitor :B

Quoting the master
QUOTE (ff123)
the anchor

1) should be significantly worse than any of the other codecs.

2) should sound bad enough to be readily identifiable. Yes, that will compress the ratings, but it will take a lot of the burden off the listener, who now need concentrate on one less codec. Also, it may encourage more people to participate, who might otherwise be scared off. I think lame and audioactive are too good, but the other mp3 codecs might work.


Also, keep in mind Lame has already been tested a lot: first multiformat test, 64kbps test, MP3 test... and it will also be tested at the next multiformat test, since it won the MP3 test.

Thanks for your help.

Regards;

Me.

***EDIT***: I don't guarantee the winner will be featured in the test. I will also depend on discussions and opinions.

Also, I do guarantee that if anyone messes with this poll, I'll bring everything down, force my choice of codecs down everybody's throat and God help us all! Don't start me, punks laugh.gif

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Feb 10 2004, 05:14


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guest0101
post Feb 10 2004, 05:14
Post #2





Group: Banned
Posts: 446
Joined: 15-July 03
Member No.: 7789



My vote is for the 6th competitor (WinAmp) which got the most votes in the previous poll and beat out the "two winners" of the poll. This is likely the only Dolby based one and should be relatively un-tweaked for performance giving less than stellar performance and serve to be a good "anchor".

This post has been edited by guest0101: Feb 10 2004, 05:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Feb 10 2004, 05:15
Post #3





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



I think it would be funny to have the very first mp3 encoder in a test with all the latest and greatest AAC encoders.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 05:16
Post #4


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (guest0101 @ Feb 10 2004, 02:14 AM)
This is likely the only Dolby based one

QuickTime is based on Dolby (with further tunning done inside Apple)

QUOTE
should be relatively un-tweaked for performance


blink.gif

Dude, Dolby knows quite a lot about audio coding. I would guess they tuned their encoder very well.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Feb 10 2004, 05:17


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guest0101
post Feb 10 2004, 05:17
Post #5





Group: Banned
Posts: 446
Joined: 15-July 03
Member No.: 7789



Are you just going to throw the WinAmp encoder out then, even though it "won" the poll? It had more votes than any others (before the vote tampering) if I recall correctly.

It would be nice to see the most popular programs included in the test:

1. iTunes (AAC)
2. Nero
3. WinAmp
4. Compaact!
5. RealPlayer
6. FAAC

But I know very little about your testing procedures, so if you must, then pick another one for an "anchor".

This post has been edited by guest0101: Feb 10 2004, 05:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 05:20
Post #6


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (guest0101 @ Feb 10 2004, 02:17 AM)
Are you just going to throw the WinAmp encoder out then, even though it "won" the poll?

Nope. I was considering throwing it out because it's broken, but nobody is completely sure about it yet, it seems.

That poll was tainted, so I won't base my choice of codecs on it at all.

And no, there has been no decision yet to throw Winamp out. First I need to know about the brokenness, and then I need to know about people's opinion.

Also, have you read the point about fatigue?

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Feb 10 2004, 05:22


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guest0101
post Feb 10 2004, 05:22
Post #7





Group: Banned
Posts: 446
Joined: 15-July 03
Member No.: 7789



I thought Menno addressed that in the other thread. He said the WinAmp decoder was broken and not the encoder...

Anyway I trust your judgment, so do as you deem is the best for the test.

This post has been edited by guest0101: Feb 10 2004, 05:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 05:25
Post #8


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (guest0101 @ Feb 10 2004, 02:22 AM)
I thought Menno addressed that in the other thread. He said the WinAmp decoder was broken and not the encoder...

This is a huge mess. Menno also said "don't take my word for it" earlier. (he deleted this post later)

Also, few people cared to take my quick test and compare FAAD2 decodes vs. Winamp decodes of Winamp streams.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=182595

Also, the few results submitted make my head spin. Alexander and John33 claim encodes _2 sound better. Well, let me tell you, _2 was decoded with the Winamp decoder (that is supposedly broken)

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Feb 10 2004, 05:30


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Feb 10 2004, 05:36
Post #9





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



I voted for an older FAAC version as an anchor, and at a low enough bitrate to be effective in this capacity, of course.


I'd also like to see Winamp as a competitor, IF it can be fixed by next Tuesday's deadline, of course. wink.gif Considering the size of it's userbase, including it could expand the interest in the results of this test.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bidz
post Feb 10 2004, 05:39
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 351
Joined: 27-December 02
From: Norway
Member No.: 4258



LAME 3.95.1 - simply because i want to see how it does against the AAC encoders, not just the winning codec of the AAC test (in the multiformat test). Featuring the best MP3 encoder also makes sense, since the AAC format is kind of the successor to the MP3 format. This would be a way of comparing old versus new.

I Would also like to se Winamp 5.02 featured in this test. This makes very good sense, considering it's userbase. I bet there are alot more users already encoding with Winamp 5.xx AAC than with Compaact, FAAC and NCTU-AAC (or what it's called) already, thus it deserves to be featured in the test (wether or not it's broken, that's a codec bug, and Nullsoft's problem in the end).

Not every codec is perfect, thus i don't see the reason as to why Winamp should be thrown out just because there MAY be a flaw with it. If there is a flaw with it, then let the test show that result. Maybe that would get Nullsoft to speed things up a bit smile.gif

This post has been edited by bidz: Feb 10 2004, 05:53


--------------------
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 05:43
Post #11


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (ScorLibran @ Feb 10 2004, 02:36 AM)
and at a low enough bitrate to be effective in this capacity, of course.

Erm... rule nr. two, no mixed bitrates, pal wink.gif

Unless you have some really good reason, like in the 64kbps test.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bonzi
post Feb 10 2004, 06:04
Post #12


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 278
Joined: 22-February 03
Member No.: 5132



I voted for NCTU AAC I just really want to see this in a test. Anyway, Pystel would be interesting as well as we might be able to begin to get an idea how much better the Nero encoder is and also it would be interesting to see if the gap between Pystel and FAAC has closed at all from the last test that is.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Feb 10 2004, 06:05
Post #13





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



I'll vote for Xing as an anchor, for the reasons I stated in the other thread. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodHead
post Feb 10 2004, 06:48
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3894



I voted for L3Enc because I used it a LOT in the past. I was in one of the original audio groups back in '96 that released some how-to's for L3Enc and WinPlay 3. I remember waiting ~hour for one MP3 encode and being amazed at the quality. I'd love to see what this old wonder can do in comparison to the new codecs.

@roberto: While browsing for possible anchors other than L3Enc, I came across the following, http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/km/audiocomp1.htm. I never did mess around with the K+K stuff, what happened with it? I did a Google and noticed this page, http://www.cadaudio.dk/kk_research/. Never knew they had an AAC codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Feb 10 2004, 06:51
Post #15





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Feb 9 2004, 11:43 PM)
QUOTE (ScorLibran @ Feb 10 2004, 02:36 AM)
and at a low enough bitrate to be effective in this capacity, of course.

Erm... rule nr. two, no mixed bitrates, pal wink.gif

Unless you have some really good reason, like in the 64kbps test.

ohmy.gif Oh, my bad. I didn't know that applied to the anchor, too.


(....Guess I'm having bad memories of rating the anchor higher than some of the competitors in the 64k test. unsure.gif )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 06:55
Post #16


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (GodHead @ Feb 10 2004, 03:48 AM)
@roberto: While browsing for possible anchors other than L3Enc, I came across the following, http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/km/audiocomp1.htm. I never did mess around with the K+K stuff, what happened with it?

O_o

You found the mirrored page but didn't find the page linking to it?
http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/tac.html

K+K history is available there.

BTW, I know that page. Check the domain, or the copyright notice at the bottom of the page I linked wink.gif

QUOTE
I did a Google and noticed this page, http://www.cadaudio.dk/kk_research/. Never knew they had an AAC codec.


They hadn't biggrin.gif

Read that page I linked.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Feb 10 2004, 06:57


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Feb 10 2004, 06:57
Post #17


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



Is it possible to make some samples available to compare so that we can tell if the anchor will be bad enough?

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 06:59
Post #18


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (ScorLibran @ Feb 10 2004, 03:51 AM)
ohmy.gif  Oh, my bad.  I didn't know that applied to the anchor, too.

It's all a matter of purpose. If your purpose is trying to actually compare the anchor to the competitors, bitrates should be the same.

If it's only there to avoid codecs dipping too low, any bitrate will do.

In the 64kbps test, it was there specifically to check the validity of the "same quality as MP3 at half bitrates" touted by some codecs (WMA, MP3pro, Nero)


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 10 2004, 07:01
Post #19


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (ff123 @ Feb 10 2004, 03:57 AM)
Is it possible to make some samples available to compare so that we can tell if the anchor will be bad enough?

Sure.

You mean l3enc only, or all suggested anchors?


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post Feb 10 2004, 07:04
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 19-August 02
From: Maryland
Member No.: 3109



I like the idea of Lame v3.95.1 as an anchor, not because it is low quality, but because that would give a direct comparsion of the best of MP3 vs. all of AAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Feb 10 2004, 08:38
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



i voted for leaving the anchor out, cause only this way we can test winamp, compaact and real!
otherwise we would have to leave one out...


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
knik
post Feb 10 2004, 08:52
Post #22


FAAC developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 32
Joined: 8-July 03
Member No.: 7654



Definitely Lame here. It has many advantages:
It can act as a inter-test anchor.
It's very popular so the comparison to many AAC encoders would be very interesting.
Finally, all those AAC encoders have very high quality @128kbps. In the first AAC test even faac1.17 got 3.52 without any anchor.
Latest AAC encoders are supposed to be even better so a low quality anchor could boost all results well above 4.0 which is not the right thing.
LAME really looks like a perfect anchor to me. It wouldn't flatten results too much.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
menno
post Feb 10 2004, 10:30
Post #23


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11-October 01
From: LA
Member No.: 267



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Feb 10 2004, 05:25 AM)
This is a huge mess. Menno also said "don't take my word for it" earlier. (he deleted this post later)

That was before I was exactly sure what the problem was. The Winamp encoder is just as safe to use as any other encoder, I already said it before. The Winamp decoder has a problem.

Menno
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexander Lerch
post Feb 10 2004, 10:43
Post #24


zplane.development Compaact! developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 65
Joined: 4-January 02
Member No.: 918



Although I know this will the test make much more difficult, I also voted for leaving the anchor out. I think Winamp should be tested.

Alexander


--------------------
zplane.development
http://www.zplane.de
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Feb 10 2004, 13:05
Post #25





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



I also voted: no anchor, take WinAmp.

But, another thing is also, that with 6 AAC codecs, the tested samples must be hard enough in order to achieve any kind of statistical difference between the codecs..


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed 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: 29th August 2014 - 18:35