Changes between Version 68 and Version 69 of Encode/HighQualityAudio

Timestamp:

Oct 8, 2024, 2:15:51 PM (20 months ago)

Author:

MasterQuestionable

Comment:

Unroll all "#!comment": no one reads if not displayed.

Encode/HighQualityAudio

@@ -51 +51 @@
 ͏    Based on quality produced from high to low:\\
 ͏    "libopus" > "libvorbis" >= "libfdk_aac" > "libmp3lame" >= "eac3"/"ac3" > "aac" > "libtwolame" > "vorbis" > "mp2" > "wmav2"/"wmav1"
-
-{{{#!comment
-I think we should do a listening test between libfaac and eac3/ac3, because from my experience libfaac can't really handle 128 Kbps or 160 Kbps as well as ac3
-libopus >= libvorbis >= aac >= libfdk_aac > libmp3lame > eac3/ac3 >= libfaac > libtwolame > mp2 > vorbis > wmav2/wmav1
-Both libfaac and ac3 have annoying sounds at 128 Kbps. It probably depends on what one prefers, but ac3 is definitely better than libtwolame at 128 Kbps. libtwolame completely breaks down at that rate.
-}}}
-
-{{{#!comment
-Source for above hierarchy?
-I based it on which encoder's would reach transparency first based on bit rate. libopus/libfdk_aac/libvorbis/libmp3lame/(ac3 most of the times) should all be transparent at 128 Kbps. The encoders listed to the right don't achieve that.
-Any ideas where I could get sources?
-https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=102699
-https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=102875
-https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=102876
-}}}
 
 ͏    The ">=" sign means greater or the same quality.\\
@@ -157 +142 @@
   https://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm#list9\\
   !^ Opus, AAC, Vorbis at 96 Kbps against typical MP3 128 Kbps.
+
+
+== History ==
+
+͏    For historic interests:\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=49\\
+͏    [ !^ All links except !YouTube dead. ]\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=47\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=45\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=42\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=30\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2686#comment:155\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=16
+
+[ "AAC specific"\\
+͏    The assertion of native aac better than fdk is too bold.\\
+͏    https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=111085\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=46
+
+͏    AAC encoders comparison\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=28
+
+͏    "libfaac" - Faint artifacts can still be heard on some samples.\\
+͏    https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=19 ]
+
+
+== Comments ==
+
+[ llogan @ CE 2013-04-08 18:05:26 UTC:\\
+https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=15\\
+͏    Source for above hierarchy?\\
+͏    Please explain why it is not recommended to use these encoders or link to other wiki pages that do explain. ]
+
+͏----
+
+[ Leon @ CE 2013-04-09 17:48:11 UTC:\\
+|*| https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=21\\
+|*| https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=23\\
+͏    I based it on which encoder's first would reach transparency based on bit rate.\\
+͏    "libopus", "libfdk_aac", "libvorbis", "libmp3lame", "ac3" most of the times: should all be transparent at 128 Kbps.\\
+͏    The encoders listed to the right don't achieve that.\\
+͏    Any ideas where I could get sources?
+
+͏    Would personal ABX logs be enough?\\
+͏    Encoded with:\\
+͏    `ffmpeg -i "original.wav" -c:a wmav2 -b:a 520k "test.wma"`\\
+[[\\
+foo_abx 1.3.4 report\\
+foobar2000 v1.1.15\\
+...\\
+]]\\
+͏    The max bit rate FFmpeg allowed me to use for "libvo_aacenc" was 320 Kbps:\\
+͏    `ffmpeg -i "original.wav" -c:a libvo_aacenc -b:a 320k "test.m4a"`\\
+͏    [ Trace diff source for original log. ]
+
+͏    The first song I tested wasn't even a problematic sample...\\
+͏    The reason for not recommending Vorbis, is because it doesn't respect the bit rate given. ]
+
+͏----
+
+[ Kamedo2 @ CE 2013-12-05 15:14:23 UTC:\\
+https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=31\\
+͏    Personal Listening Test of FFmpeg AAC encoders\\
+͏    https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=102699
+
+͏    Personal Listening Test of AAC, WMA, and MP3 encoders\\
+͏    https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=102875
+
+͏    Personal Listening Test of AAC and LAME encoders\\
+͏    https://hydrogenaud.io/?topic=102876 ]
+
+͏----
+
+[ Leon @ CE 2013-12-11 07:19:16 UTC:\\
+|*| https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=32\\
+|*| https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=33\\
+|*| https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/HighQualityAudio?action=diff&version=35\\
+͏    I think we should do a listening test between "libfaac" and "eac3"/"ac3":\\
+͏    Because from my experience "libfaac" can't really handle 128 or 160 Kbps as well as "ac3".
+
+͏    "libopus" >= "libvorbis" >= "libfdk_aac" > "libmp3lame" > "eac3"/"ac3" >= "libfaac" > "libtwolame" >= "aac" > "mp2" > "vorbis" > "wmav2"/"wmav1" > "libvo_aacenc"\\
+͏    Both "libfaac" and "ac3" have annoying sounds at 128 Kbps.\\
+͏    It probably depends on what one prefers. But "ac3" is definitely better than "libtwolame" at 128 Kbps:\\
+͏    "libtwolame" completely breaks down at that rate.
+
+͏    Now I see that even "aac" has been ranked higher quality than "ac3"??\\
+͏    Also unless I had a broken "libvo_aacenc" encoder, I doubt "libvo_aacenc" beats "mp2" @ 256 Kbps: it just doesn't make sense.\\
+͏    There really needs to be a public listening test. ]