new mppenc 1.05e

Topic: new mppenc 1.05e (Read 6995 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

new mppenc 1.05e

2002-06-04 22:21:33

version 1.05e

---- DOWNLOAD LOCATIONS REMOVED, IMPROVED 1.05f available ----

changes:

- New mppenc, version 1.05e

* --insane do not a full bandwidth encoding anymore

* --quality x.x with x.x between 0.0 and 9.9 exists.
--quality 4 is radio, 5 is standard, 6 is extreme.

* bitrate dropped again

* I expect some quality problems now, find out where

* Currently there are a lot of situations where mppenc wastes a lot of
bits for nearly nothing. At low bitrates this is very easily audible,
the quality changes from sample to sample. Soem sound with --thumb horrible,
other quite nice (without the reference). Goal is to make the quality
more constant and reinvest the saved bits later to achieve a better and
more constant quality for the same bitrate.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #1 – 2002-06-04 22:37:40

I get an (Internal Error) when I use --quality 10. --quality 9.99 works as expected, but --quality 10 doesn't work. Using castanets.wav

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #2 – 2002-06-04 22:48:47

Quote

Originally posted by spase

* --quality x.x with x.x between 0.0 and 9.9 exists.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #3 – 2002-06-04 22:49:47

Quote

Originally posted by lucpes
I get an (Internal Error) when I use --quality 10. --quality 9.99 works as expected, but --quality 10 doesn't work. Using castanets.wav

"--quality x.x with x.x between 0.0 and 9.9 exists"

Two-digit quality switch is not implemented... yet? :diabolic:

edit: damn you, spase

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #4 – 2002-06-04 22:55:20

I get internal errors too, when using --quality 10, however the resulting file does play in Winamp. The 0.93 Winamp plugin wouldn't playback files of q < 5. Version 0.94 seems to have no problems.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #5 – 2002-06-04 23:00:31

Quote

Originally posted by Gecko
I get internal errors too, when using --quality 10, however the resulting file does play in Winamp. The 0.93 Winamp plugin wouldn't playback files of q < 5. Version 0.94 seems to have no problems.

Perhaps <5 use the "petri net simulation"

ahem.. pns

/Erik

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #6 – 2002-06-04 23:13:22

Quote

I expect some quality problems now, find out where

What sorts of quality problems do you think there would be? Is it likely that only q values less than 5 would have such problems?

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #7 – 2002-06-04 23:20:49

Quote

Originally posted by NickSD

What sorts of quality problems do you think there would be? Is it likely that only q values less than 5 would have such problems?

--quality 0...7

Problems with HF precision, ringing, stereo imaging and much much more.
Problem with very silent music.
--
Frank Klemm

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #8 – 2002-06-04 23:23:39

Quote

Originally posted by Frank Klemm

--quality 0...7

Problems with HF precision, ringing, stereo imaging and much much more.
Problem with very silent music.
--
Frank Klemm

Any particular reason why -q 5 ("standard") is now possibly non-transparent where it might have been before?

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #9 – 2002-06-04 23:30:24

Quote

Originally posted by NickSD

Any particular reason why -q 5 ("standard") is now possibly non-transparent where it might have been before?

Good question. That kinda worries me. :-)

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #10 – 2002-06-04 23:32:14

Quote

Originally posted by Frank Klemm
--quality 0...7

Problems with HF precision, ringing, stereo imaging and much much more.
Problem with very silent music.

uh-oh, this is starting to be really scary. guess it'll take some time until I seriously start encoding mpcs with versions >1.03...

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #11 – 2002-06-05 02:11:15

mppenc-----Chemical Brothers------Richard Thimpson
--------------"Block Rockin' Beats"---"Batsheba Smiles"
v.------------------kbps-------------------------kbps
1.02---------------183--------------------------200
1.04---------------150--------------------------195
1.05e--------------136--------------------------185

--xtreme (--xtreme switch still works in 1.05e)

Time for some listening tests.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #12 – 2002-06-05 02:12:38

Quote

Originally posted by ssamadhi97

uh-oh, this is starting to be really scary. guess it'll take some time until I seriously start encoding mpcs with versions >1.03...

Note that 1.05e is not a public release. It's primarily for testing and improving.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #13 – 2002-06-05 04:11:56

One question:

If I were to leave everything unchanged, like just leave everything default would I get a "standard" switch in previous MusePack Encoders?

Cheers
AgentMil

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #14 – 2002-06-05 14:33:52

I guess the last safe encoder is the 1.04 version up till now. Tests proved that the quality was the same or even better on the same bitrate.

This 1.05e can be considered as a testcase for some new code??

I'm keeping my hands off this one for the time being, btw thanks for explicitely saying that quality issues are expected. It keeps the speculating down.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #15 – 2002-06-05 17:23:03

Quote

Originally posted by AgentMil
If I were to leave everything unchanged, like just leave everything default would I get a "standard" switch in previous MusePack Encoders?

Yes, the default is and always will be standard.

new mppenc 1.05e

Reply #16 – 2002-06-05 17:32:21

Quote

Originally posted by CiTay
"--quality x.x with x.x between 0.0 and 9.9 exists"

Two-digit quality switch is not implemented... yet?

On the other hand: the --quality parameter is not restricted to 1 decimal.
I was trying some --quality values in combination with --verbose to get an idea what Frank had put under the --quality switch (Just curious:o).
I noticed that -q 6.5 gave --nmt 8.9 while -q 6.6 went to --nmt 9.1. Indeed with -q 6.65 --nmt showed up as 9.0. (As did --quality 6.66 :diabolic: ).

To skip that discussion, I'll be the first to admid that this won't make an audible difference But hey, it gives the tweakers a hundred times more options.

I know that 1.05 is considered beta (or even alpha) but I found that besides giving
-q >= 10 it is also possible to give negative values. Something that can easily happen when dealing with command line options, as it happened to me . This will be simple to fix with an input argument check though.
Also the switches --nmt and --tmn are still present in this version so this version might be the one everyone likes .

From the --longhelp it showed that a new (set of) ATH's was introduced and defaulted:
--ltq 10...20: Other ATH with different HF roll-off (dflt)
(Does that account for the decreased bitrates ??)
Well I guess it's in everyones interest to help Frank and do some serious listening tests with this new stuff.

Frank: I'd like to suggest that the option -q is added as an alias for --quality.
BTW. I realy like the improved scalability.
--
Ge Someone

edit: I hate the fact that preview shows the message completely different

Notice