Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2014-11-18 01:25:18) > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun >> However, I wonder if the few additional codecs in the extra package >> are worth all the additional complexity. How many actually use these >> codecs? > > We used to ship x264 in the -extra- package, which is very popular. I > suppose that many users are very interested in the AAC encoders, > because the native encore inside libavcodec is of rather poor quality. > Also, AMR seems also be rather popular if you own a device that > requires that codec. I would say that effort is very much worth it!
As I understand the situation, the builtin AAC encoder is actually slightly _better_ than the alternative GPL one: Libav says little about quality of the alternative AAC encoder: <https://wiki.libav.org/Encoding/aac>, but FFMpeg has more info <https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AAC#libvo_aacenc>. I lost the URL but investigating this a few weeks ago I found some judging LAME to produce better result than either of the free AAC encoders, and I have so far come to the conclusion that I will use AAC only when really necessary¹ and then use the builtin one. Some may be mislead by the internal encoder being flagged as experimental while the alternative one isn't. That flag does not, I believe, properly reflect reality, and e.g. MLT framework routinely silences the flag. - Jonas ¹some sources state that the web browser Safari - even though supporting both AAC and MP3 - fails to decode MP3 in WebM container. I have yet to test if that's true or not (I forgot to test when I last week visited my mother who has a MacBook Air running MacOS X). -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
