IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

21 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nero Releases FREE Reference Quality MPEG-4 Audio Encoder, Nero Releases Command Line MPEG-4 & 3GPP AAC Solution
ozmosis82
post May 4 2006, 21:13
Post #76





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ May 4 2006, 03:07 PM) *
Starting from the command-line version, we will maintain a changelog for every revision.

And, yes - expect regular revision and updates wink.gif


Too bad there wasn't one up 'til now. I was just curious to see how much was changed. But, the fact that there will be one now is awesome. Thanks Ivan! smile.gif

QUOTE (Garf @ May 4 2006, 03:08 PM) *
going into more detail is tricky because it might reveal our secret sauce smile.gif But we'll see what we can do.


Well, I definitely don't want the magician to reveal the secret to his magic. It might just spoil the whole show. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
br0adband
post May 4 2006, 21:23
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 10-June 02
Member No.: 2269



No idea why this is happening (just for me it seems), but foobar2k 0.9.1 transfers the FLAC tag info properly, but 0.8.3 doesn't. Weird, very weird. Anyone else having this issue, or can do some testing with 0.8.3 installed into a different directory?

bb


--------------------
The difference between genius and stupidity?

Genius has limits.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AlexanderTG
post May 4 2006, 21:27
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 216
Joined: 26-March 05
Member No.: 20965



If I encode my speak audio files with this, is it legal for me to distribute these audio files?

Also, is it legal for me to distribute these exe's with my program?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 4 2006, 21:31
Post #79


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4883
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (AlexanderTG @ May 4 2006, 10:27 PM) *
If I encode my speak audio files with this, is it legal for me to distribute these audio files?

Also, is it legal for me to distribute these exe's with my program?


AAC does *not* require you to pay patent royalities for distributing music, so I believe the answer to the first question would be "yes".

The answer to the second question can be found in the bundled "license.txt":

QUOTE
Nero AG licenses you to use this software package for personal non-commercial and/or technology-evaluation purposes.

This License does not provide any rights to reproduce and/or distribute this software package in whole or in any part.

A written license agreement with Nero AG is needed for any Commercial use of this software package, including, but not limited to, exploitation of products, which are incorporating and/or using, in whole or in part, executables provided in this software package.


So the answer is: "no".

PS. This is a personal opinion. I am not the Nero legal department!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
edekba
post May 4 2006, 21:31
Post #80





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 6-February 02
From: 310
Member No.: 1273



QUOTE (ozmosis82 @ May 4 2006, 11:01 AM) *
QUOTE (edekba @ May 4 2006, 12:26 PM) *

Hmmm using single pass created an audio file of 132kbps while a 2pass was 127kbps. Both sound the same to me ... just curious ...


I was experimenting with 2-pass vs single pass, and I noticed similar results. I had quality set to 0.6, and encoded Thursday's "A City by the Light Divided." Single pass came out around 74.4MB, with a bitrate ~224, whereas 2-pass came to 70.7MB with a bitrate of ~215. Interestingly enough, that's exactly the bitrate I was looking for. Almost every other album I've done w/2-pass averages ~215kbps.



yeah w/2pass the bitrate comes out more of what i wanted. But Garf said that we shoudlnt do 2pass vbr so i guess i gotta go lower w/the q values.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 4 2006, 21:34
Post #81


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4883
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (br0adband @ May 4 2006, 10:23 PM) *
No idea why this is happening (just for me it seems), but foobar2k 0.9.1 transfers the FLAC tag info properly, but 0.8.3 doesn't. Weird, very weird. Anyone else having this issue, or can do some testing with 0.8.3 installed into a different directory?

bb


Hi,

I asked Peter and he says MP4 tagging in foobar 0.9 is entirely rewritten. So quite likely, 0.8.3 has some bugs or issues that cause it to fail to work that are solved in the latest version.

This post has been edited by Garf: May 4 2006, 21:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ozmosis82
post May 4 2006, 21:35
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



QUOTE (edekba @ May 4 2006, 03:31 PM) *
yeah w/2pass the bitrate comes out more of what i wanted. But Garf said that we shoudlnt do 2pass vbr so i guess i gotta go lower w/the q values.


It also takes way too much time to encode w/2-pass. If there's really no point in using it, then I figure I'm not going to waste my time. I did the same and lowered my q values.

Although, I believe the reason it takes so long is that I have all my music archived on DVD+R's, and foobar2k seems to like to convert 2 files at a time, which slows the whole process down quite a bit when it comes to transcoding directly from a DVD+R.

This post has been edited by ozmosis82: May 4 2006, 21:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 4 2006, 21:38
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 1534
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



It's good to have floating point bitrate. Now I can have exact bitrate 50.0 ..... 130.0 .... tongue.gif . and It's free and less than 1 mb. Thank you
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 4 2006, 21:41
Post #84


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4883
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (IgorC @ May 4 2006, 10:38 PM) *
It's good to have floating point bitrate. Now I can have exact bitrate 50.0 ..... 130.0 .... tongue.gif . and It's free and less than 1 mb. Thank you


Bitrate is specified in bits/second, not kilobits/second.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chichazor
post May 4 2006, 21:42
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-September 03
Member No.: 8994



Any mirror to download it? The ftp6 url don't work rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Living forevermore, leaving today, back to my place, I've got: Nothing to say!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 4 2006, 21:43
Post #86





Group: Members
Posts: 1534
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Garf @ May 4 2006, 12:41 PM) *
QUOTE (IgorC @ May 4 2006, 10:38 PM) *
It's good to have floating point bitrate. Now I can have exact bitrate 50.0 ..... 130.0 .... tongue.gif . and It's free and less than 1 mb. Thank you


Bitrate is specified in bits/second, not kilobits/second.


I'm using -q VBR mode.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ozmosis82
post May 4 2006, 21:43
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



To Garf or Ivan:

I guess I'm just looking to clarification as to why 2-pass isn't a good idea with VBR. I know you mentioned video codecs doing 2-pass and its association with ABR. I also know that VBR should automatically figure the best way to allocate bits... I guess maybe I'm just looking for re-inforcement as to why I should opt out of using 2-pass (aside from longer encode times).

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
edekba
post May 4 2006, 21:44
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 6-February 02
From: 310
Member No.: 1273



QUOTE (ozmosis82 @ May 4 2006, 01:35 PM) *
QUOTE (edekba @ May 4 2006, 03:31 PM) *

yeah w/2pass the bitrate comes out more of what i wanted. But Garf said that we shoudlnt do 2pass vbr so i guess i gotta go lower w/the q values.


It also takes way too much time to encode w/2-pass. If there's really no point in using it, then I figure I'm not going to waste my time. I did the same and lowered my q values.

Although, I believe the reason it takes so long is that I have all my music archived on DVD+R's, and foobar2k seems to like to convert 2 files at a time, which slows the whole process down quite a bit when it comes to transcoding directly from a DVD+R.


i dont think its hte media source. it takes quite a bit w/hdd sources using 2pass. but then again it is going @ it twice ...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AtaqueEG
post May 4 2006, 21:47
Post #89





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1336
Joined: 18-November 01
From: Celaya, Guanajuato
Member No.: 478



QUOTE (chichazor @ May 4 2006, 03:42 PM) *
Any mirror to download it? The ftp6 url don't work rolleyes.gif


Please! Have tried everything!

I know your server is alive and well, but it is not working here!

ftp3 works well, for example.

What about Rarewares?


--------------------
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseņas de Rock en Espaņol: www.estadogeneral.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ozmosis82
post May 4 2006, 21:47
Post #90





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



QUOTE (edekba @ May 4 2006, 03:44 PM) *
i dont think its hte media source. it takes quite a bit w/hdd sources using 2pass. but then again it is going @ it twice ...


Well, unless I'm mistaken, data is burned onto a disc in linear fashion, and is read in linear fashion. Having two separate files being read causes the laser to jump around repeatedly, trying to multitask, which slows the spin-rate of the drive down significantly. (Off topic, sorry gang)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post May 4 2006, 21:51
Post #91


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



QUOTE
I guess I'm just looking to clarification as to why 2-pass isn't a good idea with VBR. I know you mentioned video codecs doing 2-pass and its association with ABR. I also know that VBR should automatically figure the best way to allocate bits... I guess maybe I'm just looking for re-inforcement as to why I should opt out of using 2-pass (aside from longer encode times).


It is a question of terminology - 2-pass is of course VBR, but it does not make sense to use 2-pass with the -q option.

-q triggers "Quality VBR" mode - where bits are allocated per each frame to reach certain quality, so you don't really need two passes

-2pass triggers "2 Pass" mode - where encoder triggers to reach certain size - specified in average bits/second - file is still 'VBR' but bit rate allocation obeys target file size and the quality is distributed equally by using analysis in the 1-pass
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post May 4 2006, 21:52
Post #92





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



Thank you very much for making this available for free!

Now onto being pesky: included readme.txt files says "Package build date: Apr 27 2006" while console output states "Package build date: May 1 2006". tongue.gif


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ozmosis82
post May 4 2006, 21:54
Post #93





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ May 4 2006, 03:51 PM) *
QUOTE

I guess I'm just looking to clarification as to why 2-pass isn't a good idea with VBR. I know you mentioned video codecs doing 2-pass and its association with ABR. I also know that VBR should automatically figure the best way to allocate bits... I guess maybe I'm just looking for re-inforcement as to why I should opt out of using 2-pass (aside from longer encode times).


It is a question of terminology - 2-pass is of course VBR, but it does not make sense to use 2-pass with the -q option.

-q triggers "Quality VBR" mode - where bits are allocated per each frame to reach certain quality, so you don't really need two passes

-2pass triggers "2 Pass" mode - where encoder triggers to reach certain size - specified in average bits/second - file is still 'VBR' but bit rate allocation obeys target file size and the quality is distributed equally by using analysis in the 1-pass


Thanks Ivan. I'm terribly obssessive-compulsive when it comes to audio, and sometimes it just helps hearing it from a pro (it's all in the mind, I know).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
br0adband
post May 4 2006, 21:58
Post #94





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 10-June 02
Member No.: 2269



I'd say 2 pass audio encoding is a bit ridiculous, both from a time perspective (taking twice as long) and from a quality perspective (how good do you think your ears really are, anyway?). Just seems like the same old situation I commented about here at HA a few years ago: "When is it really good enough?" If you want that kind of quality, lossless is the way to go for most people.

As for the time it takes to encode from some format to another, it's not two steps, it's three formats unless you're encoding directly from a WAV file:

1) The original source file (stuff like mp3, flac, alac, ogg, etc).
2) The in-between data file (temporary) created when the source file (#1) is converted to WAV format since almost all encoders require WAV files to work with to encode.
3) The output format of your choice.

So when reading the data from media like a DVD or wherever, the data is read, decoded to WAV (directly into RAM would be the best possible method for speed but I think the temporary files are still hitting the hard drive), then the encoding phase starts. It would be nice if it were possible to just transcode directly from one format to another, but unless the source is a real WAV file, it's always 3 parts.

bb


--------------------
The difference between genius and stupidity?

Genius has limits.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post May 4 2006, 22:01
Post #95


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



QUOTE
I'd say 2 pass audio encoding is a bit ridiculous, both from a time perspective (taking twice as long) and from a quality perspective (how good do you think your ears really are, anyway?). Just seems like the same old situation I commented about here at HA a few years ago: "When is it really good enough?" If you want that kind of quality, lossless is the way to go for most people.


I think 2-pass makes a lot of sense with low-bitrate encoding of specific long content, such as long-duration tracks with human dialogs, silence and music - in this case, 2-pass encoding would make very good use of bits vs. quality as it would know that there is a lot of speech and/or silent content, and reuse this to improve more important parts.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 4 2006, 22:06
Post #96


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4883
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (ozmosis82 @ May 4 2006, 10:43 PM) *
To Garf or Ivan:

I guess I'm just looking to clarification as to why 2-pass isn't a good idea with VBR. I know you mentioned video codecs doing 2-pass and its association with ABR. I also know that VBR should automatically figure the best way to allocate bits... I guess maybe I'm just looking for re-inforcement as to why I should opt out of using 2-pass (aside from longer encode times).

Cheers


2-pass is useful when you want to do an optimal bitrate allocation and you have to meet a specific average bitrate (or fixed size, which is the same thing). The first pass analyses the song with the psychoacoustics engine, and finds out where the hard and easy parts lie. The second pass uses this information to decide how to allocate the fixed number of bits it has.

The whole scheme does not make any sense when the encoder can spend as much bits as it needs (VBR mode).

(This whole thing made my think about ways to use the fact that with 2 pass mode we can see ahead further than in normal encoding, and there might actually be ways to exploit this, but they are most certainly not implemented let alone tested in the current encoder. For all I know, using 2 pass VBR with the current binary might make your Britney Spears tracks come out as Madonna, or something).


QUOTE (DARcode @ May 4 2006, 10:52 PM) *
Thank you very much for making this available for free!

Now onto being pesky: included readme.txt files says "Package build date: Apr 27 2006" while console output states "Package build date: May 1 2006". tongue.gif


We prepared it last week, but when it wasn't up on the website this weekend I sent a new encoder with further improvements (and apparently, not a clear enough indication that, yes, the SSE2 build is faster, but no, it's not gonna work on all machines... sad.gif sorry people). The commandline options didn't change in those few days.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ozmosis82
post May 4 2006, 22:08
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



QUOTE (br0adband @ May 4 2006, 03:58 PM) *
I'd say 2 pass audio encoding is a bit ridiculous, both from a time perspective (taking twice as long) and from a quality perspective (how good do you think your ears really are, anyway?). Just seems like the same old situation I commented about here at HA a few years ago: "When is it really good enough?" If you want that kind of quality, lossless is the way to go for most people.

As for the time it takes to encode from some format to another, it's not two steps, it's three formats unless you're encoding directly from a WAV file:

1) The original source file (stuff like mp3, flac, alac, ogg, etc).
2) The in-between data file (temporary) created when the source file (#1) is converted to WAV format since almost all encoders require WAV files to work with to encode.
3) The output format of your choice.

So when reading the data from media like a DVD or wherever, the data is read, decoded to WAV (directly into RAM would be the best possible method for speed but I think the temporary files are still hitting the hard drive), then the encoding phase starts. It would be nice if it were possible to just transcode directly from one format to another, but unless the source is a real WAV file, it's always 3 parts.

bb


Thanks for that bb. Although my ears are quite sensitive when it comes to audio. I'm sure thousands have said it before and, of course, it's completely relative. I do see the point in staying away from 2-pass now though, so thanks again.

As for my ears, take a listen to "Going Under" by Evanescence. At around 0:15 into the song there's a pop as Amy's saying "bleeding." I noticed that when I first heard the CD and it drove me so mad that I actually found the sample in the WAV of the song (there was quite the spike in the sine wave) and smoothed it out, which goes quite against a purist's best interests, I know. Most listeners don't pay attention, but I actually listen to my music.

It's maddening actually. You have no idea how hard it was for me to break down and use lossy codecs. Alas, for convenience certain sacrifices need to be made.

I'm crazy, I know. dry.gif

This post has been edited by ozmosis82: May 4 2006, 22:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post May 4 2006, 22:44
Post #98





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2361
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



Thanks for the gift. I would include the configuration into MAREO.

A little comment, why not use ISO date format for the filename?

NeroDigitalAudio_050106.zip is 2006-05-01, or 2006-01-05?

NeroDigitalAudio_yyyy-mm-dd.zip is much better

What would be the command line equivalent of what was used on sebastian mares' listening test?

EDIT: there is no artist, album, etc tag options right?

This post has been edited by kwanbis: May 4 2006, 22:52


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
br0adband
post May 4 2006, 22:47
Post #99





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 10-June 02
Member No.: 2269



No worries, didn't want my post to come across as "Oh the hell with that, stop being stupid and just use it." That's not the case.

A few years ago I made a pretty intense posting here explaining how I'd been using mp3 encoders since *before* they became anything Shawn Fanning ever heard of and created Napster. Audio quality is and always has been a big BIG thing to me, but after almost 8 years of dealing with it, encoding, testing, re-encoding, re-testing, redoing entire collections of CDs just because a "better" encoder came out, the whole cycle repeats, ad nauseum.

There comes a time when you have to make a decision, sorta:

Either listen and enjoy the tunes, or continue searching for perfection and that next step, which rarely if ever actually becomes a reality. Such is the nature of psychoacoustic audio compression, basically. I just got tired of preaching EAC + LAME for years and worrying so much about perfect rips, perfect sound, perfect etc... I finally gave it all up and said to myself, "Screw it, it sounds good enough to me.

So yeah, I understand the quest better than most, actually. I was there where you're at, could slip right back into it easily, but it works like this:

I was sitting down early this morning to begin using dBpowerAMP Music Converter and the iTunesEncoder plugin to change all my FLAC files (on DVD) into plain old VBR AAC files (128Kbps nominally) then add the album artwork for all of 'em and slap 'em on my new 30GB Video iPod I just bought a few days ago. Someone here in Vegas won two of 'em when his wife hit a bonus on a slot machine at a casino, so they sold the second one to me for $200.

Lo and behold, the tagging was becoming an issue of sorts, so I popped into HA this morning and was downright blown away by Ivan's announcement about the free MP4/AAC encoder and snagged it and started working with it. While iTunes is ok for the encoding, it's damned slow, so since I didn't get too far into the stack of DVDs, I just deleted the work I had already done and will be redoing all 100GB with this Nero encoder - and now that I've worked out the tagging issue with 0.8.3 (it's still there, I just mean that I'm aware of it now so I'm using 0.9.1 for all the encoding), I'm all set and ready to spend the evening encoding from DVD to M4A.

</hijack_off>

Thanks again to Ivan, Garf (forgot to mention him earlier) and the whole Ahead/Nero gang for their wonderful products and continued support.

bb

Garf: And yep, I understand the usefulness of 2-pass encoding for very specific situations, but for general purpose audio encoding (meaning portable playback on portable devices which is the most common reason for using audio compression in the first place, I think), 2-pass just seems like a waste of that much more time, but to each his own. My opinions on the matter aren't meant to sway anyone, heaven forbid. biggrin.gif


--------------------
The difference between genius and stupidity?

Genius has limits.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisgeleven
post May 4 2006, 22:54
Post #100





Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 13-April 02
From: Manchester, NH
Member No.: 1771



Is there any shot of this being available for us OS X users?


--------------------
iTunes 10 - Mac OS X 10.6
256kbps AAC VBR
iPhone 4 32GB
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

21 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 26th July 2014 - 06:29