Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Autumn 2006 Listening Test (Read 144003 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #25 –
There are a lot of FhG encoders: Adobe Audition, WMP, Nero(?), etc. Maybe we can decide which one to use - based on popularity? If popularity is important, we should stick to WMP.

Personally, I am against the idea of including multiple LAME or FhG encoders.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
There are a lot of FhG encoders: Adobe Audition, WMP, Nero(?), etc. Maybe we can decide which one to use - based on popularity? If popularity is important, we should stick to WMP.

Personally, I am against the idea of including multiple LAME or FhG encoders.
I agree.  WMP is most popular, and should be selected, IMO.  Also, tests have already been made to compare LAME 3.90.1 to 3.97b, both by guruboolez and halb27, leaning on the general superiority of the latter.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #27 –
I dare say that MP3 test at 96kbps by guruboolez suggests the winner. 

I also have no preference at this time without new aoTuV and WMA...
I will go for any listening test as a tester.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #28 –
And here I was getting excited at the prospect of a 80-kbps multi-format test. 

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #30 –
I can be patient if I try hard enough.

Welcome back, btw...condolences to you in this stressful time with your loss.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #31 –
This kind of MP3 @ 128 test should be a useful piece of advice for practical usage. Besides the standard audio quality test a table of speed measurements would help a lot when the users consider the pros and cons of the faster encoders.


Some comments about the possible contenders:

LAME

I guess LAME is going to produce best audio quality in this test if -V5 --vbr-new is going to be used again. BTW, has anyone really tested the current LAME version at -V5--vbr-new vs. plain -V5? I think we have only assumed that --vbr-new is slightly better.

LAME is the only encoder that provides gapless playback with certain player programs. For files that are meant to be stored permanently on a computer this probably makes LAME the only sensible choice. Gapless playback is also possible with Rockbox and possibly with some LAN devices. Perhaps LAME deserves a "plus point" for that. However, with "non-gapless" players this does not matter. A faster encoding speed can be a more important factor if the quality is otherwise acceptable. Though, it is always possible to encode only the albums that need gapless playback with LAME and use a faster encoder for the other files.

In general, the interesting point would be how much better audio quality LAME has (if at all) when compared with the current versions of the faster encoders. Is the difference significant?

FhG

As said, perhaps the WMP's MP3 encoder should be used because of its assumed popularity. (Though, most WMP users are probably not aware of the encoder differences and did not actually choose the encoder they use.) Too bad that it does not have a VBR mode. Another popular version of FhG is included with Musicmatch Jukebox. It has a VBR mode.

Helix

As said, this is the current version of Xing. The quality is fine at higher VBR settings (I have personally tried to ABX some Helix VBR settings that average at about 170-200 kbps). Has anyone experimented with Helix settings that produce about 128 kbps VBR files?

Gogo

I have compared Gogo 3.13 "-a -b 192 -m j -q 2" (abr 192 kbps, joint stereo, high quality) against LAME 3.97b2 "-V2 --vbr-new". The very subjective result was that Gogo ABR is good enough for making MP3 discs quickly for my car stereo. LAME was quite transparent with some problem samples when Gogo was not, but in casual listening my Gogo encoded audio tracks have been fine. With these settings Gogo is about 3.8x faster on my PC. ABR is also a nice mode for making MP3 CDs since the resulting size is predictable.

I have not tested anything like "-a -b 133 -m j -q 2", but it might be worth of trying.

iTunes

iTunes VBR bitrate setting "quarantees" the minimum bitrate. I suppose its VBR 128 kbps setting would produce too big files. Hopefully the VBR 112 kbps setting would be close enough to the test target. iTunes has also some additional adjustments that are not properly documented as far as I know.

Roberto mentioned that iTunes should have been tested at CBR 128 instead of VBR in his test result page two and half years ago. Why? Has someone tested iTunes 128 kbps CBR vs. VBR? Has anything changed since then?


- Edited the itunes part a bit.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #32 –
I'd like to see LAME@128 vs Multiformat@80 and any SBR+PS@32kbps.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #33 –
I'm going to wait for 80kbps multi format. Because my prediction for the mp3@128kbps test is that most if not all the contenders will be transparent and none will be statistically greater or worse than any others.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #34 –
Quote from: singaiya on
I'm going to wait for 80kbps multi format. Because my prediction for the mp3@128kbps test is that most if not all the contenders will be transparent and none will be statistically greater or worse than any others.


I agree. Since LAME MP3 in the last listening test was already near transparent I don't see the need to perform another MP3 test at this bitrate, if using LAME we are already near to transparency.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #35 –
If the test result would show that the much faster encoders are as transparent as LAME that would be good news for those who constantly convert on the fly. By much faster I mean FhG, Helix and Gogo. I have not tested iTunes speed.

However, I seriously doubt that the other encoders can be as good as LAME.

In any case the sample choice would be critical for making the differences show up. This time the samples should be known to be problematic especially for MP3.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #37 –
It'd be nice if you stuck 160 kbps MP3 itunes CBR in there, if for no other reason than it's probably the most commonly used MP3 coding in the world.  It's the default MP3 setting for itunes.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #38 –
Sounds like a good idea to test different mp3 encoders comprehensively.

How about including something like the old blade or the original l3enc (was that the oldest?), to see how much encoders have improved since the birth of the codec.

I also think it's a good idea to compare -vbr-new vs the regular lame, perhaps also the old athaa trick that reportedly still improves sound quality.

I'm all for testing iTunes too, crap or not, people deserve to know where it stands.

How many codecs/settings should the test include? With two lames, 4 other modern encoders, and an old one, the total is 7.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #39 –
Too much - consider anchors. Or do you see the old encoder as anchor? There shouldn't be more than 5 contenders I would say.

I guess these are in for sure:

LAME
Helix
iTunes
FhG (WMP, MMJB, something else?)

Now what about Gogo? Also, what should the high anchor be? Maybe LAME -V2? What about low anchor - Shine or Blade?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #40 –
I say blade or l3enc could double as anchor, shine is not the oldest encoder, and the goal is to show how far the codec has progressed since it's inception, aside from using it as anchor. I would favour l3enc for this purpose as blade's source wasn't really intended to be used as a serious encoder whereas l3enc was. Then again with l3enc you may risk other encoders falling below the anchor - i don't know them well enough to judge the risk of that happening.

But, which version.. the initial 0.99a from the 16th march '94 or perhaps another? I don't know if any had bugs or quality issues or how they differ.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Too much - consider anchors. Or do you see the old encoder as anchor? There shouldn't be more than 5 contenders I would say.

I guess these are in for sure:

LAME
Helix
iTunes
FhG (WMP, MMJB, something else?)

Now what about Gogo? Also, what should the high anchor be? Maybe LAME -V2? What about low anchor - Shine or Blade?

isn't the original the high anchor? i would add gogo.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #42 –
Of course not. The high anchor is something else. Question is: do we actually need a high anchor? Multiformat at 128 kbps didn't have one.

BTW: Shine, while not being the oldest, is the most simple MP3 encoder.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #43 –
A high anchor would most likely be transparent to most people most of the time.
I'm not sure how useful that would be.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
BTW: Shine, while not being the oldest, is the most simple MP3 encoder.


I'm aware of that, but it won't tell you what 12.5 years of development have done for mp3. That's why i think it makes sense to have l3enc double as low anchor.

Shine is almost never used, is it?
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #45 –
Quote from: gaekwad2 on
A high anchor would most likely be transparent to most people most of the time.
I'm not sure how useful that would be.


You guys should read what anchors are good for then.

And HbG, popularity is not a criterion for choosing a low anchor. A low anchor is supposed to sound really bad, it should be the worst. I am not sure if l3enc might not beat iTunes. On the other hand, if we choose l3enc as low anchor and iTunes or whatever other contender is worse than the anchor, it shows that the contender really sucks.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Quote from: gaekwad2 on

A high anchor would most likely be transparent to most people most of the time.
I'm not sure how useful that would be.


You guys should read what anchors are good for then.

And HbG, popularity is not a criterion for choosing a low anchor. A low anchor is supposed to sound really bad, it should be the worst. I am not sure if l3enc might not beat iTunes. On the other hand, if we choose l3enc as low anchor and iTunes or whatever other contender is worse than the anchor, it shows that the contender really sucks.


as i recall, blade@128-160kbps used to give me headaches with all the ringing happening.. i'm all for blade for a low anchor

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #47 –
To make sure the low anchor is clearly worse than the contenders, it would make sense to lower the bit rate. e.g. shine @ 96 kbps or something like that. A high anchor is useless since lame is pretty much transparent @ 128 kbps. It would be too hard to distinguish the anchor from the contenders.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #48 –
Quote
as i recall, blade@128-160kbps used to give me headaches with all the ringing happening.. i'm all for blade for a low anchor


Oh, I remember having the same feeling after listening to Vengaboys' "We're going to Ibiza" which I encoded for my little cousin five years ago when I didn't even hear about LAME.

Quote
A high anchor is useless since lame is pretty much transparent @ 128 kbps.


But we're going to use some killer samples, too.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #49 –
Sincerly i don't know if Kbps is still the right choice... i think that quality settings (something like ones tha Vorbis uses)  could be better.

Anyway, just my opinion