IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
which version best for 160 bitrate?
tsioc
post Nov 18 2003, 06:58
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 14-November 03
Member No.: 9830



I read the sticky, and it mentions which version is best for below 160, and over 180.

Is either version mentioned better than the other at 160 nominal?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post Nov 18 2003, 07:01
Post #2





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



GT3b1 is the best for high bitrates. For example -q5 and up are further optimised in GT3b1.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tsioc
post Nov 18 2003, 07:13
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 14-November 03
Member No.: 9830



I was hoping for something that be around 160 bitrate.

GT3B1 at quality 5 gives what, 180 bitrate? If I lowered the quality of this version so that the bitrate was exactly 160, would it sound the same/worse/better that 1.01 at quality 5?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post Nov 18 2003, 07:23
Post #4





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



Im sure both versions of OggEnc are exactly the same below -q5 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tsioc
post Nov 18 2003, 07:32
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 14-November 03
Member No.: 9830



well, what I meant was that with 1.0.1 I can set the quality to 5, and the bitrate is around 160. With GT3B1, I have to lower the quality to 4.6 to get the same bitrate.


So, would they sound the same with different quality value but same bitrate?



also, thanks for the help, I'm hope I'm not being a total annoyance...

This post has been edited by tsioc: Nov 18 2003, 07:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ErikS
post Nov 18 2003, 08:26
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 8-October 01
Member No.: 247



QUOTE (JEN @ Nov 18 2003, 07:23 AM)
Im sure both versions of OggEnc are exactly the same below -q5 smile.gif

sure? I thought between q4 and q5 it interpolates the settings and thus would make use of garf's tunings in varying amount. More so the closer to 5 you get.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEN
post Nov 18 2003, 08:33
Post #7





Group: Banned
Posts: 1131
Joined: 19-September 02
Member No.: 3407



@Eriks - maybe you are right!

@tsioc -
QUOTE
So, would they sound the same with different quality value but same bitrate?

its possible

QUOTE
well, what I meant was that with 1.0.1 I can set the quality to 5, and the bitrate is around 160. With GT3B1, I have to lower the quality to 4.6 to get the same bitrate.

I just encoded a file using the same settings as you and got different results. for example, 1.0.1 was at 182Kbps and GT3 was at 215Kbps. So, I think this type of comparison is not possible. I think the best think to do is to abx both and use which ever sounds best for you.

This post has been edited by JEN: Nov 18 2003, 08:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Nov 21 2003, 15:46
Post #8





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



Interesting point. The difference in quality-to-bitrate conversions does present a dilemma.

Given that GT3b1 has better transient and pre-echo handling in addition to the observation that the tunings in GT3b1 also affect most of the q 4 to 5 range, I suspect that you would get better performance by using GT3b1 and scaling the quality down until you get an average of 160. GT3b1 adjusts the instantaneous bitrates much more freely than 1.0.1.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 00:34