failure for musepack, --quality 10 is audibly different ! |
  |
failure for musepack, --quality 10 is audibly different ! |
 Dec 23 2002, 18:29
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420  |
Here is a sample I found, extract of a well-known Van Halen title : Jump. The first seconds are really hard to encode, and I expect mpc to feel at ease with such sample. But the surprise is really big : --standard fail (easy ABX), --extreme fail (easy ABX), --insane too, and the --quality 10 test (express test) gave me a 16/20 score ! In comparison, vorbis 1.0 is more difficult for me to abx at -q 6 (but the bitrate is near 400 kbps).
http://membres.lycos.fr/guruboolez/ Can someone confirm my impressions (headphone needed I suppose) ? |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 23 2002, 19:00
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Developer Posts: 359 Joined: 29-October 02 Member No.: 3652 |
MPC --standard sounds OK to me - didn't try ABX or anything. Maybe a slightly longer sample would help?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2002, 19:14
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (Chun-Yu @ Dec 23 2002 - 07:00 PM) MPC --standard sounds OK to me - didn't try ABX or anything. Maybe a slightly longer sample would help? I'm not sure that a longer sample can help you. I've just upload a longer file. Note that the first try I did was not concluant. I abruptly heard a small but significant difference (noiser sound, brighter too : can not really explain, and my percepcton are distorded by illness). This difference is not removed by higher bitrate. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2002, 21:02
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
no more test ?! Thanks to Chun-Yu.
I tried again. The first two minutes, I wasn't able to hear any difference with any file. Then, ABX tests were concluant again : CODE ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002 Testname: 1L = C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc6(114).wav 2L = C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc6 (179).wav 3L = C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc5(114).wav 4R = C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc7(114).wav 5L = C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc10.wav 6R = C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc8(114).wav --------------------------------------- General Comments: premičre tentative sur le sample 2 (le 1 étant trop dur) --------------------------------------- 1L File: C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc6(114).wav 1L Rating: 3.7 1L Comment: --------------------------------------- 2L File: C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc6 (179).wav 2L Rating: 2.5 2L Comment: --------------------------------------- 3L File: C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc5(114).wav 3L Rating: 3.0 3L Comment: --------------------------------------- 4R File: C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc7(114).wav 4R Rating: 3.3 4R Comment: --------------------------------------- 5L File: C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc10.wav 5L Rating: 4.6 5L Comment: --------------------------------------- 6R File: C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc8(114).wav 6R Rating: 4.2 6R Comment: --------------------------------------- ABX Results: Original vs C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc6(114).wav 13 out of 16, pval = 0.011 Original vs C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc6 (179).wav 10 out of 12, pval = 0.019 Original vs C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc5(114).wav 12 out of 12, pval < 0.001 Original vs C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc7(114).wav 11 out of 12, pval = 0.003 Original vs C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc10.wav 11 out of 16, pval = 0.105 Original vs C:\Ma musique\jump\20. Jump [HDCD Remaster] (2).mpc8(114).wav 12 out of 12, pval < 0.001 The test I performed was blitz-test, really fast. The codec was the mppenc 1.14, and one with the old 1.79c at --xtreme profile. I decoded all files with the 1.93 mppdec version. Note that the worst file I founded was suprinsingly the --extreme profile from Andree Buschmann. It's hard for me to to organize into a hierarchy the 6 files. Difference are subtile between mpc files. But I'm sure that there is a real progress between mpc --standard, and mpc --quality 10, and that the extreme profile from the old codec is not as good in this sample than the 1.14 one. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2002, 21:28
Post
#5
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 22-February 02 Member No.: 1372 |
Yes, I hear it
first winabx round (listening and guessing...) mpc --standard --xlevel (mppenc 1.14b) 21:07:54 1/1 p=50.0% 21:09:00 1/2 p=75.0% 21:09:32 2/3 p=50.0% 21:10:24 3/4 p=31.2% 21:10:41 4/5 p=18.8% 21:10:56 5/6 p=10.9% 21:11:55 6/7 p= 6.2% 21:12:17 7/8 p= 3.5% 21:13:11 8/9 p= 2.0% 21:13:16 test finished Btw, Guruboolez, I've read here somewhere that you hear a difference with (quote) "2000 year old string instruments" encoded with mpc. I suspect the same problem with "only 400 year old" baroque strings, but I haven't found a clear abx-able sample yet, do you have one? -tm -------------------- I can stay for hours listening to all the sounds... (Samuel Beckett, Rough for Theatre I)
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 23 2002, 21:36
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE Btw, Guruboolez, I've read here somewhere that you hear a difference with (quote) "2000 year old string instruments" encoded with mpc. I suspect the same problem with "only 400 year old" baroque strings, but I haven't found a clear abx-able sample yet, do you have one? No. The erhu (2000 year old) sample concern LAME --alt-preset only, and not mpc. I recently found the same problem with a 300 year old flute  The only « problem » with mpc with these instrument is the average bitrate, not the quality. Yesterday, I encode a whole harpsichord disc with mpc standard : 1.14 gave me a 220 average bitrate, and 1.15alpha reached 235 kbps ! For low bitrate encoding (under 100 kbps) with these recordings, mpc is one of the worst codec I heard.But I never heard an artifact or a difference between original with a 'classical' encoding with musepack (> standard). I searched, but never found. I'm sometime able to hear subtile difference with --standard, but score are really fragile, and I can't conclude anything from it. And thanks for the test, and for the results 
This post has been edited by guruboolez: Dec 23 2002, 21:40 |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2002, 02:48
Post
#7
|
|
 A/V Moderator Group: Moderator Posts: 1668 Joined: 30-April 02 From: Slovenia Member No.: 1922 |
mppdec gets some 'overdrives' (whatever that is? something to do with the fact the file is kinda 'hard limited'?), i used --xlevel in cli as well:
CODE mppdec Jump_long.mpc MPC Decoder SV7 1.1 3DNow/SSE (C) 1999-2002 Buschmann/Klemm/Piecha/Wolf decoding of file 'Jump long.mpc' to device /dev/audio (Windows WAVEOUT Audio) 195.0 kbps, 0:07.49, SV 7.0, Profile 'Standard' (Release 1.1) 0:07.47 (runtime: 6.48 s speed: 1.15x) 18 Overdrives, maximum level 34208, rerun with --scale 0.95784 edit: cant abx with ver 1.1 profile standard  edit2: ok, sounds like at the beginning the right channel wont hit in at the right time, but still cant abx that. This post has been edited by smok3: Dec 24 2002, 03:06 -------------------- PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2002, 04:06
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (smok3 @ Dec 24 2002 - 02:48 AM) mppdec gets some 'overdrives' (whatever that is? something to do with the fact the file is kinda 'hard limited'?), i used --xlevel in cli as well: CODE mppdec Jump_long.mpc MPC Decoder SV7 1.1 3DNow/SSE (C) 1999-2002 Buschmann/Klemm/Piecha/Wolf decoding of file 'Jump long.mpc' to device /dev/audio (Windows WAVEOUT Audio) 195.0 kbps, 0:07.49, SV 7.0, Profile 'Standard' (Release 1.1) 0:07.47 (runtime: 6.48 s speed: 1.15x) 18 Overdrives, maximum level 34208, rerun with --scale 0.95784 I doesn't have this problem. Tried mppdec -> file & -> device, and no errors. I haven't perform again a test with --xlevel switch : EAC comparison tool indicate a total identity between mpc --standard and --standard --xlevel. Thnx for reply 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2002, 06:30
Post
#9
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 671 Joined: 21-November 01 From: California, US Member No.: 514 |
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Dec 23 2002 - 10:14 AM) QUOTE (Chun-Yu @ Dec 23 2002 - 07:00 PM) MPC --standard sounds OK to me - didn't try ABX or anything. Maybe a slightly longer sample would help? I'm not sure that a longer sample can help you. I've just upload a longer file. Note that the first try I did was not concluant. I abruptly heard a small but significant difference (noiser sound, brighter too : can not really explain, and my percepcton are distorded by illness). This difference is not removed by higher bitrate. Tested MPC v1.14 --standard, abx 16/24 and 11/16, combined is 27/40 (p-val < 0.02). Hard to ABX, with a vacuum cleaner going in the background! The MPC version adds a lower "growl" to the sound not present in the original... or maybe it removes the growl, I don't know. It's hard to describe... I wonder if adding some sound to the beginning of the file will improve quality, like it sometimes does with Lame? Will test by copying clip several times over and ABXing a portion from the middle... This post has been edited by SometimesWarrior: Dec 24 2002, 06:51 |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2002, 06:39
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
Have you try anything higher than --standard ?
A small and rare difference with --standard doesn't bother me, but a audible difference at --extreme and above is more annoying 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2002, 06:58
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 671 Joined: 21-November 01 From: California, US Member No.: 514 |
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Dec 23 2002 - 09:39 PM) Have you try anything higher than --standard ? A small and rare difference with --standard doesn't bother me, but a audible difference at --extreme and above is more annoying Standard is right on the limit of my perception. The sample clip's noise is similar to the frequency of my screeching processor fans, which makes it hard to hear. I keep getting somewhat-significant results with Jump.wav (11/16), and I think I can hear a difference. But I can't clearly hear a difference when I listen to the "looped" sample. To make the looped sample, I copied Jump.wav five times in a row to make a 2.6 second clip, encoded the whole clip, decoded it, and then extracted the third loop of Jump.wav (approximately 1.05 seconds to 1.55 seconds) for testing. guruboolez, I will try a higher setting on Jump.wav, but I may not be able to provide conclusive results until tomorrow (12 hours for me). Perhaps you can test a "looped" sample to hear if it makes a difference? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2002, 07:38
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
I'm tired too, but confident.
I looped the original file, encoded it at --quality 10 (I'm very confident !), opened the waveform in cooledit, cut the third part, and saved it in .wav. Then I opened ABC/HR, loaded the original, the looped too, and the previous --quality 10 (based on simple Jump.wav) at the same time. I wasn't able to hear anything B) I tried again, but at --quality 7 (--insane with mppenc 1.14). ABX score are now interesting : 40/60 and 27/30 for the second mysterious file. Is one better than the other ? Why xx/60 ? The details are instructive : CODE 0 of 1, p = 1.000 1 of 2, p = 0.750 1 of 3, p = 0.875 2 of 4, p = 0.688 3 of 5, p = 0.500 4 of 6, p = 0.344 4 of 7, p = 0.500 5 of 8, p = 0.363 5 of 9, p = 0.500 6 of 10, p = 0.377 6 of 11, p = 0.500 7 of 12, p = 0.387 8 of 13, p = 0.291 9 of 14, p = 0.212 9 of 15, p = 0.304 9 of 16, p = 0.402 9 of 17, p = 0.500 9 of 18, p = 0.593 10 of 19, p = 0.500 11 of 20, p = 0.412 11 of 21, p = 0.500 11 of 22, p = 0.584 12 of 23, p = 0.500 13 of 24, p = 0.419 13 of 25, p = 0.500 14 of 26, p = 0.423 15 of 27, p = 0.351 16 of 28, p = 0.286 17 of 29, p = 0.229 18 of 30, p = 0.181 19 of 31, p = 0.141 19 of 32, p = 0.189 20 of 33, p = 0.148 21 of 34, p = 0.115 21 of 35, p = 0.155 22 of 36, p = 0.121 22 of 37, p = 0.162 23 of 38, p = 0.128 23 of 39, p = 0.168 23 of 40, p = 0.215 23 of 41, p = 0.266 24 of 42, p = 0.220 25 of 43, p = 0.180 26 of 44, p = 0.146 27 of 45, p = 0.116 28 of 46, p = 0.092 29 of 47, p = 0.072 30 of 48, p = 0.056 31 of 49, p = 0.043 32 of 50, p = 0.032 33 of 51, p = 0.024 34 of 52, p = 0.018 35 of 53, p = 0.013 35 of 54, p = 0.020 36 of 55, p = 0.015 37 of 56, p = 0.011 37 of 57, p = 0.017 38 of 58, p = 0.012 39 of 59, p = 0.009 40 of 60, p = 0.007 The first twenty are non-significative : 11/20. Then, the following ABX score are slightly better : 12/20 [on 21-40] and 20 last ABX are really good : 17/20. I need a warm-up, like an athlete In these conditions, it's difficult to conclude that SAMPLE 1 (40/60) is better than SAMPLE 2 (27/30). Sample 1 is the looped file, and the 'easiest' and second sample is the simple_jump file. Nevertheless, I had a strong feeling that sample_2 different (and more degraded) was from sample_1. I tried to ABX 1 against 2 : 17/20. Details : CODE 0 of 1, p = 1.000 1 of 2, p = 0.750 1 of 3, p = 0.875 2 of 4, p = 0.688 2 of 5, p = 0.813 3 of 6, p = 0.656 4 of 7, p = 0.500 5 of 8, p = 0.363 6 of 9, p = 0.254 7 of 10, p = 0.172 8 of 11, p = 0.113 9 of 12, p = 0.073 10 of 13, p = 0.046 11 of 14, p = 0.029 12 of 15, p = 0.018 13 of 16, p = 0.011 14 of 17, p = 0.006 15 of 18, p = 0.004 16 of 19, p = 0.002 17 of 20, p = 0.001 ...A perfect 15/15 on the end of the test. You were right : same audio informations can be encode differently ! This post has been edited by guruboolez: Dec 24 2002, 07:41 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 7 2003, 07:28
Post
#13
|
|
|
A/V Moderator Group: Moderator Posts: 1668 Joined: 30-April 02 From: Slovenia Member No.: 1922 |
kinda hard to belive only my mppdec is 'biased', has any1 else got to the same 'overdriven' situation? (cos if that is the case you been abxing decoder clipping imho)
edit: i got same overdrives with mppenc 1.14 beta and mppdec 1.93j edit2: @Tim Mervielde&SometimesWarrior: you forgot to mention how the file was decoded? edit3: if i ignore the decoder warning, file is actualy clipping (tested in sound forge, clipping just after 6s) This post has been edited by smok3: Jan 7 2003, 08:22 -------------------- PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung |
|
|
|
|
Jan 7 2003, 08:37
Post
#14
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (smok3 @ Jan 7 2003 - 07:28 AM) kinda hard to belive only my mppdec is 'biased', has any1 else got to the same 'overdriven' situation? (cos if that is the case you been abxing decoder clipping imho) .../... (tested in sound forge, clipping just after 6s) The artifact appeared at the first second, not at the sixth
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 7 2003, 08:46
Post
#15
|
|
|
A/V Moderator Group: Moderator Posts: 1668 Joined: 30-April 02 From: Slovenia Member No.: 1922 |
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 7 2003 - 09:37 AM) QUOTE (smok3 @ Jan 7 2003 - 07:28 AM) kinda hard to belive only my mppdec is 'biased', has any1 else got to the same 'overdriven' situation? (cos if that is the case you been abxing decoder clipping imho) .../... (tested in sound forge, clipping just after 6s) The artifact appeared at the first second, not at the sixth i guess soundforge & its peakmeter arent really reliable then CODE MPC Decoder SV7 1.93j 3DNow/SSE (C) 1999-2002 Buschmann/Klemm/Piecha/Wolf decoding of file 'Jump long.mpc' to device /dev/audio (Windows WAVEOUT Audio) 193.0 kbps, 0:07.49, SV 7.0, Profile 'Standard' (Beta 1.14) 0:07.47 (runtime: 6.48 s speed: 1.15x) 15 Overdrives, maximum level 33735, rerun with --scale 0.97127 edit: eac wav editor as second opinion, this clipping appears at just around 1st s:  edit2: QUOTE (guruboolez @ Dec 23 2002 - 10:36 PM) --standard fail (easy ABX), --extreme fail (easy ABX), --insane too, and the --quality 10 test (express test) gave me a 16/20 score ! clipping would explain this unusual situation quite nicely, dont you agree? 
This post has been edited by smok3: Jan 7 2003, 13:51 -------------------- PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 22:12 |
