lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Topic: lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread (Read 307405 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #600 – 2009-10-30 22:09:17

Thank you very much for your tests, sauvage78.
I welcome lossyWAV development very much, but I am also afraid that something may have gone wrong with a new version, be it only due to a subtle implementation bug. I am a developer myself, and I know this can happen.
So I'm glad your test shows that with current version this seems not to be the case (as usually is).

Of course top interest is in the new changes of --altpreset -s 0 which bring bitrate down a bit based on considerations and experience which make it plausible to do so.
Transparency border so far was around -q 2.0, so the essential question is: does --altpreset -s 0 change this to a major extent, such that -P --altpreset -s 0 isn't transparent?
I'm looking forward to your further tests.

Sorry I didn't do any tests so far on my own. In the last evenings I wasn't alone in the room where I can do ABXing. Hopefully I can do it this weekend.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #601 – 2009-10-31 19:26:45

Finally I managed to try to ABX deviations from the original for the current version using setting -P --altpreset -s 0 for the problem snippets Atem-lied, badvilbel, bibilolo, bruhns, dither_noise_test, furious, herding_calls, keys_1644ds, S37_Others_MartenotWaves_A_Essential, triange-2_1644ds, Under The Boardwalk (critical snippet of it).

Everything was fine with the exception of S37_Others_MartenotWaves_A_Essential where I arrived at 8/9 which turned into a 8/10. Not a totally fine result but sufficient IMO to rise a serious suspicion.
At ~ second 1.2 a certain tone starts and there is a subtle inaccuracy IMO with the start of it.

Sample is in the upload section. Experience of other members is highly welcome.

I will try and find out whether this is something we had before and was gone unnoticed, or whether it is due to the slightly reduced accuracy requirements of current version and --altpreset -s 0.
I just tried 1.1.4n --altpreset on the sample, and I can't hear an issue. Unfortunately --altpreset -s 0 isn't possible with 1.1.4n.
For an --altpreset -s 0 equivalent of an earlier version I tried 1.1.4j -P --limit 14470 -s 0. I couldn't hear an issue.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #602 – 2009-10-31 21:40:45

There has been a change to the formula used to re-create the results of the noise calculations which are performed to determine the added noise on bit removal.

I will have another look at this to see if there are any issues. Thanks for the investigation using previous versions.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #603 – 2009-11-01 13:29:48

Here is the results for -q 1.5 -t -s 0: not transparent.

I skipped -q 1 -t -s 0, because I was guessing -q 1.5 -t -s 0 would already be likely to not be transparent & it happened that I was right.

Now I will soon test -q 2 -t -s 0 which is likely to be much harder.

Then maybe I will test a low setting at same bitrate with & without -t -s 0, to see if there is any regression/progression at same bitrate.

Abfahrt Hinwil was the easier to ABX, Fool's Garden & Therion were a little harder but still not really hard.
Here is the 3 logs:

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/01 14:02:55

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 1.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

14:02:55 : Test started.
14:03:04 : 01/01  50.0%
14:03:20 : 02/02  25.0%
14:03:41 : 03/03  12.5%
14:04:09 : 04/04  6.3%
14:04:18 : 05/05  3.1%
14:04:29 : 06/06  1.6%
14:04:50 : 07/07  0.8%
14:05:00 : 08/08  0.4%
14:05:02 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/01 14:05:24

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 1.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

14:05:24 : Test started.
14:06:02 : 01/01  50.0%
14:06:50 : 02/02  25.0%
14:07:21 : 03/03  12.5%
14:08:06 : 04/04  6.3%
14:08:51 : 05/05  3.1%
14:09:42 : 06/06  1.6%
14:10:11 : 07/07  0.8%
14:10:53 : 08/08  0.4%
14:10:55 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/01 14:16:43

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4p -q 1.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

14:16:43 : Test started.
14:18:11 : 01/01  50.0%
14:18:52 : 02/02  25.0%
14:19:31 : 03/03  12.5%
14:20:15 : 04/04  6.3%
14:21:50 : 05/05  3.1%
14:22:37 : 06/06  1.6%
14:23:21 : 07/07  0.8%
14:24:12 : 08/08  0.4%
14:24:14 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #604 – 2009-11-02 21:13:18

lossyWAV beta 1.1.4q attached to post #1 in this thread.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #605 – 2009-11-02 21:57:11

Thank you, Nick.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #606 – 2009-11-02 22:45:55

Typo from 1st page:

Change log 1.1.4p: 02/11/09

I think this should be:

Change log 1.1.4q: 02/11/09

C.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #607 – 2009-11-03 07:44:25

lossyWAV beta 1.1.4r attached to post #1 in this thread. [Bugfix]

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #608 – 2009-11-04 13:31:11

Here is my result for V1.1.4p -q 2 -t -s 0: not transparent.

To my big surprise it was much easier to ABX than I expected, I am beginning to have doubt that -t -s 0 does anything at all, because in my memory -q 2 was stronger than that.
Maybe I am getting too trained on these samples, I dunno.
Sure -t -s 0 decreases bitrate but in no way it seems to improve quality.
Only a test at same bitrate with & without -t -s 0 will tell if this switch is really worth it IMHO.

Here is the logs:

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/04 14:01:53

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

14:01:53 : Test started.
14:02:23 : 01/01  50.0%
14:02:42 : 02/02  25.0%
14:03:02 : 03/03  12.5%
14:03:26 : 04/04  6.3%
14:03:52 : 05/05  3.1%
14:04:27 : 06/06  1.6%
14:05:04 : 07/07  0.8%
14:05:33 : 08/08  0.4%
14:05:36 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/04 14:16:26

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

14:16:26 : Test started.
14:16:50 : 01/01  50.0%
14:17:02 : 02/02  25.0%
14:17:27 : 03/03  12.5%
14:17:51 : 04/04  6.3%
14:18:13 : 05/05  3.1%
14:18:40 : 06/06  1.6%
14:19:00 : 07/07  0.8%
14:19:23 : 08/08  0.4%
14:19:25 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/04 14:20:02

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4p -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

14:20:02 : Test started.
14:21:01 : 01/01  50.0%
14:21:34 : 02/02  25.0%
14:22:22 : 03/03  12.5%
14:23:07 : 04/04  6.3%
14:23:49 : 05/05  3.1%
14:24:22 : 06/06  1.6%
14:24:53 : 07/07  0.8%
14:25:32 : 08/08  0.4%
14:25:34 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #609 – 2009-11-04 14:23:10

~~Which version of lossyWAV did you use for these samples?~~

Could you please try this with beta v1.1.4q?

It may be that --altpreset is not for everyone, i.e. younger ears may not find it to be as transparent as older ears due to high frequency age related attenuation.[/edit]

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #610 – 2009-11-04 14:48:07

According to a test file posted on HA by someone else I can hear up to 17Khz (likely somewhere between 17 & 18Khz) so I am not particulary sensitive to high frequency & I am not particulary young either ... I am 31yo.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #611 – 2009-11-04 15:54:55

Thanks for your test, sauvage78.
As I found with another sample (see above) version 1.1.4p seems to be a regression and - as Nick said already - it would be very welcome if you would use 1.1.4q or 1.1.4r. So your ABX results may have nothing to do with -t -s 0, but just with the general regression of version 1.1.4p. We don't know.

Of course -t -s 0 does not increase quality. It decreases bitrate which does not necessarily mean that quality decreases, at least not in a significant way that makes -P --altpreset -s 0 not transparent.

Though -q 2 is expected to yield great quality the results may not necessarily be transparent.
Top interest is in the transparency or non-transparency of -P of newest version (versions 1.1.4q and 1.1.4r are the same in our context).

So it would be great if you could test 1.1.4r -P --altpreset (which implies -s 0 as a default) on your samples. -q 2 results are also welcome of course.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #612 – 2009-11-04 16:31:12

Ok, I will re-test -q 2 -t -s 0 with V1.1.4r soon, then I will test at same bitrate with & without -t -s 0.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #613 – 2009-11-06 22:01:42

Here is the result for V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0: not transparent.

Abfahrt Hinwil was easy & Fool's Garden was very easy, I didn't notice any difference between V1.1.4p & V1.1.4r.

Then I made a misstake when ABXing Therion, instead of ABXing V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0 vs. Lossless, I abxed V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0 vs. V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0 & I failed ... I didn't realize my misstake untill I read the log the end of ABXing.

So I retried V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0 vs. Lossless & I succeded 7/8 & as I was angry about my misstake I went up to 9/10.

I must say that after the first uncessfull ABX, which take more time than when it's easy, I was bored ... bored & angry at me, so I put the 1 misstake on the loss of focus.

I had the "feeling" that Therion was harded with V1.1.4r than with V1.1.4p but it is likely due to my mixing of files which created a lack of focus.

So for me there is no major difference between V1.1.4p & V1.1.4r, at -q 2 -t -s 0 both are not transparent.

Here are the 3 valids logs & the 4th is my misstake ...

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/06 22:24:35

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

22:24:35 : Test started.
22:24:51 : 01/01  50.0%
22:25:04 : 02/02  25.0%
22:25:22 : 03/03  12.5%
22:25:42 : 04/04  6.3%
22:26:21 : 05/05  3.1%
22:27:02 : 06/06  1.6%
22:28:15 : 07/07  0.8%
22:28:53 : 08/08  0.4%
22:28:55 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/06 22:32:28

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

22:32:28 : Test started.
22:32:44 : 01/01  50.0%
22:32:55 : 02/02  25.0%
22:33:10 : 03/03  12.5%
22:33:26 : 04/04  6.3%
22:33:38 : 05/05  3.1%
22:33:54 : 06/06  1.6%
22:34:07 : 07/07  0.8%
22:34:23 : 08/08  0.4%
22:34:24 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/06 22:48:12

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

22:48:12 : Test started.
22:49:41 : 01/01  50.0%
22:50:02 : 02/02  25.0%
22:50:52 : 02/03  50.0%
22:51:46 : 03/04  31.3%
22:52:04 : 04/05  18.8%
22:52:21 : 05/06  10.9%
22:52:47 : 06/07  6.3%
22:53:18 : 07/08  3.5%
22:53:48 : 08/09  2.0%
22:54:19 : 09/10  1.1%
22:54:22 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 9/10 (1.1%)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/06 22:35:38

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0.lossy.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

22:35:38 : Test started.
22:38:30 : 01/01  50.0%
22:41:25 : 01/02  75.0%
22:42:29 : 01/03  87.5%
22:42:59 : 01/04  93.8%
22:43:33 : 01/05  96.9%
22:44:14 : 01/06  98.4%
22:45:43 : 02/07  93.8%
22:46:03 : 02/08  96.5%
22:46:06 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 2/8 (96.5%)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #614 – 2009-11-06 23:21:52

So you can ABX rather easily V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0 on your samples.
And you couldn't ABX a difference between V1.1.4r -q 2 -t -s 0 and V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0 on Therion.
So we do have to fear you can ABX V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0 vs. lossless.
I am curious for your results.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #615 – 2009-11-07 13:29:49

lossyWAV beta 1.1.4s attached to post #1 in this thread.

I'm wondering if 14.470kHz is a bit low to stop looking for the low bins. The next bin up (for a 64 sample FFT) is 15.159kHz. This is still below the original 16kHz target and will probably result in a lossyFLAC bitrate somewhere between that achieved using 14.47kHz and 16kHz.

I would be interested to know the result of ABX testing on beta 1.1.4s -q 2.0 --limit 15159.

[edit] For my full collection --portable --limit 15159 results in a lossyFLAC average bitrate of 361kbit/s. [/edit]

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #616 – 2009-11-09 11:48:14

Quote from: Nick.C on 2009-11-07 13:29:49

I'm wondering if 14.470kHz is a bit low to stop looking for the low bins.

I would be interested to know the result of ABX testing on beta 1.1.4s -q 2.0 --limit 15159.

I'd like to remind that when --limit was first tested the commands were like -P --limit 14470 -s 0.1 .
-s 0.1 was dropped in favor of -s 0 after shadowking remarked that the result for transcoding to mp3 were better without noiseshaping.

So another questing would be is -q 2.5 --limit 14470 -s 0.1 transparent while the same with -s 0 is not?

It is totally possible that a higher --limit could counter this difference, but then again, at what -q must we claim transparency? At least for -q 2.0 and lower --limit 14470 seems suitable, you results for -P --limit 15159 however seems still reasonable, if it brings an improvement compared to --limit 14470.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #617 – 2009-11-18 20:09:30

lossyWAV beta 1.1.5a attached to post #1 in this thread.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #618 – 2009-11-18 20:22:15

Thank you, Nick.

As for the decision about how to proceed with -P I think we should wait a bit yet until hopefully sauvage78 comes up with his important listening test for -P.
At the moment - as long as no one else comes up - he is the most important person to prove that -P (together with the --limit 14470 -s 0 equivalent setting) isn't transparent.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #619 – 2009-11-18 20:32:46

I still have some listening tests to do for lossywav ... but lately I started to play Dragon Age: Origins so I will be away from audio testing soon. I will test 2 (or 3) more settings tomorow before I completely get swallowed by the game.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #620 – 2009-11-18 20:35:48

Many thanks for the offer of (yet more!) ABXing - if the current --altpreset is not good then please try --limit 15159.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #621 – 2009-11-18 20:41:29

I intend to test:
1: -q 2.5 -t -s 0
2: -t -s 0 vs. normal preset at same bitrate

Then if I am in the good mood
3: --limit 15159 at an unknown yet but non transparent setting (Edit: vs. normal preset at same bitrate)

After this I will stop testing lossywav for a looong time, because as I said I will play DAO in december & in january I will buy a Core I3 530 & upgrade to Win 7 64Bits so I will change all my setup including my actual audio setup. After the upgrade, I will have to re-test my setup before I can do ABXing again.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #622 – 2009-11-19 18:20:53

Here is the result for V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0: Not always transparent.

I failed to ABX Abfahrt Hinwil & Therion but I successfully ABXed Fool's Garden.
I don't know how this affect my result but I must say I was more sleepy than usually (had a short night 7h vs. 9h usually when I ABX) & not really in the mood for ABXing, but I did it as I promised to do more test yesterday.
Anyway if I would have to wait to be in perfect health & in enthousiastic mood to do ABXing, I would never get the job done, so take it as a random part of ABXing.
One of the reason why I wasn't enthousiatic about this test in particular is that I expected that Abfahrt Hinwil & Therion would be painfull to ABX, & both were really painfull, I did my best for Abfahrt Hinwil but after 4 trials on Therion I didn't focus as much as it was obvious to me that I would fail.

Now that I have tested -t -s 0 at various settings, I begin to have an opinion on it ... my opinion is that it doesn't do much anything, if it does anything at all.
It must be confirmed by a test at same bitrate with & without -t -s 0, but it seems obvious to me that it doesn't drastically affect the transparency point.

Now about myself being able to ABX -q 2.5 -t -s 0 on Fool's Garden, well I think it has nothing to do with -t -s 0, but with Fool's Garden being ABXable at -q 2.5 with or without -t -s 0 & maybe even at higher settings.

I haven't browsed the thread back to see if I already tried to ABX Fool's Garden at -q 2.5 & failed with an old version of lossywav ... but it is very likely that I failed as the sample was new to me, now that I am highly trained on Fool's Garden, I suspect that I can ABX it at -q 2.5. Even if I would fail, for me it means that the margin of safety of -q 2.5 is lower than I expected in the past. It is likely that -q 2.5 will fail to be transparent one day, providing someone with good earing find the good killer sample.

PM for Nick.C:
Thks for the credit offer, I don't really care about it, just use my HA nick if you want to add me. I started ABXing lossywav as I was wondering if I would use it for my own backup use. To be honest it is unlikely that I will use it because I always buy bigger & bigger HDD. I am a lossless user at heart. I don't plan to do much more testing in the future. So adding me now would be more of a swansong thks than of an encouragement. All in all I have only spend something like a dozen of hours ABXing lossywav.

Here is the logs:

Abfahrt Hinwil: Failed

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/19 17:40:57

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

17:40:57 : Test started.
17:43:07 : 01/01  50.0%
17:44:32 : 02/02  25.0%
17:45:25 : 02/03  50.0%
17:45:46 : 03/04  31.3%
17:46:56 : 04/05  18.8%
17:47:25 : 05/06  10.9%
17:47:54 : 05/07  22.7%
17:48:38 : 05/08  36.3%
17:48:41 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 5/8 (36.3%)

Fool's Garden: Success

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/19 17:49:19

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

17:49:19 : Test started.
17:49:35 : 01/01  50.0%
17:50:16 : 02/02  25.0%
17:51:35 : 03/03  12.5%
17:52:50 : 04/04  6.3%
17:53:50 : 05/05  3.1%
17:54:30 : 06/06  1.6%
17:55:18 : 07/07  0.8%
17:56:26 : 08/08  0.4%
17:56:31 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)

Therion: Failed

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/11/19 18:24:35

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4r -q 2.5 -t -s 0.lossy.flac

18:24:35 : Test started.
18:25:49 : 00/01  100.0%
18:26:31 : 00/02  100.0%
18:28:21 : 01/03  87.5%
18:29:22 : 02/04  68.8%
18:30:26 : 03/05  50.0%
18:31:58 : 03/06  65.6%
18:32:16 : 04/07  50.0%
18:33:23 : 04/08  63.7%
18:33:27 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 4/8 (63.7%)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #623 – 2009-11-19 18:39:15

Many thanks for the ABX testing - not sure exactly how to proceed now....

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #624 – 2009-11-19 19:57:25

Thanks for testing, sauvage78.

To me it looks like this:
-P isn't transparent in any case.
Probably this isn't due to neither the lower --limit nor -s 0.
As for the latter IMO we should default to a lower limit like 14470 or 15119 and to -s 0.
shadowking's arguments are relevant IMO because good transcoding properties are an important feature, and the sfb21 bloat issue is a bigger one with noise shifted up, and because of the lower transcoding quality when doing noise shift.

Should we continue using -P as a substitute for -q 2.5?
With the --portable quality we did never really demand for transparency in any case. At least in theory. In practice however we did struggle for it.
I wouldn't care giving away the q-equidistance for the portable, standard, extreme and --insane quality levels. This equidistance just looks good but has no real significance.
I just tried 1.1.4r -q 3 --altpreset for finding average bitrate for my standard test set and arrived at 368 kbps.
1.1.4r -q 3.5 --altpreset yields 381 kbps.
As these are not significantly higher bitrates compared to -q 2.5 I suggest we use -q 3 or -q 3.5 internally for --portable.
A higher -q value is the most substantial contribution for improving quality.

Putting it all together and to make a precise suggestion: I suggest to use -P as an equivalent for -q 3.5 --limit 14470 -s 0.

Notice