IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What if OGG Vorbis had SBR or similar technology?
Hall
post Nov 4 2006, 17:27
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 20-March 05
Member No.: 20759



I have no technical understanding over how OGG Vorbis works, so here's some random thought.

HE-AAC sounded great because of SBR.
Try encode 48kbps AAC using LC profile, the quality sounded far worse than OGG Vorbis at 48kbps (AoTUV5).

I'm a Vorbis fan, I just feel a bit dissapointed the HE-AAC clearly outperforms OGG Vorbis at 32kbps/48kbps.



Whoops... Sorry guys.
Somebody has discussed this before.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=43277
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Junon
post Nov 4 2006, 18:44
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Germany
Member No.: 34518



Despite the quality enhancements SBR brings with itself there's no real need for it to be used in conjunction with a format like Vorbis, simply because this codec already delivers good performance in the low-bitrate regions. SBR works best with AAC-bitrates of 80 kbps and fewer, the ones usually used for portable players, leading to impressive quality. But the fact that it's only useful for portable-bitrates is also its major drawback, since it needs a lot of additional processing power and therefore has a noticeable impact on battery life. For this reason I clearly prefer Vorbis at ~80 kbps to HE-AAC at 48 or 64 kbps, i.e. even if SBR/PlusV was available for Vorbis, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use it anyway.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Nov 4 2006, 19:50
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



aoTuV b5 makes -q0 (~64kbps) sound pretty decent, to be honest, especially with a raised lowpass (the default appears to be too aggressive). Of course, lower than this, HE-AAC (without PS) does sound quite a bit better.

This post has been edited by Firon: Nov 4 2006, 20:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HotshotGG
post Nov 4 2006, 19:55
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24-March 02
From: Revere, MA
Member No.: 1607



QUOTE
I have no technical understanding over how OGG Vorbis works, so here's some random thought.

HE-AAC sounded great because of SBR.
Try encode 48kbps AAC using LC profile, the quality sounded far worse than OGG Vorbis at 48kbps (AoTUV5).

I'm a Vorbis fan, I just feel a bit dissapointed the HE-AAC clearly outperforms OGG Vorbis at 32kbps/48kbps.


It's been discussed a dozen time, plus being a conosseur of fine tastes SBR doesn't suite me very well. Vorbis uses a more natural approach called Noise Normalization. It's more eloquent and it's not patented. If it can be tweaked correctly it can give impressive results, which what I think Aoyumi is always consistently attempting to do.

This post has been edited by HotshotGG: Nov 4 2006, 20:06


--------------------
College student/IT Assistant
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ckjnigel
post Nov 11 2006, 17:52
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 12-October 01
Member No.: 278



Can someone tell me if the extreme variability of Ogg Vorbis VBR poses problems for use in streaming, as on the internet, satellite or cellular phone networks?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silversight
post Nov 11 2006, 19:07
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 310
Joined: 5-April 06
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 29203



QUOTE (ckjnigel @ Nov 11 2006, 17:52) *
Can someone tell me if the extreme variability of Ogg Vorbis VBR poses problems for use in streaming, as on the internet, satellite or cellular phone networks?


I use Oddcast with Lancer DLLs at -q-1 (~48 kbps) and don't have any problems; the bitrate never jumps higher than 51 kbps. Oddcast seems to use ABR, but I can't confirm that.


--------------------
Nothing is impossible if you don't need to do it yourself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Nov 11 2006, 19:21
Post #7


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Honestly I do not see the connection between SBR and noise normalisation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HotshotGG
post Nov 11 2006, 19:38
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24-March 02
From: Revere, MA
Member No.: 1607



QUOTE
Honestly I do not see the connection between SBR and noise normalization.


There is no connection with the way it works, but it's not patented and it's easier way of redistributing noise energy. "Similiar technology" at least the way I percieve it would work according to this. Even if it's not exactly the same.

This post has been edited by HotshotGG: Nov 11 2006, 19:40


--------------------
College student/IT Assistant
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ckjnigel
post Nov 11 2006, 22:33
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 12-October 01
Member No.: 278



^ Noticing Gabriel and HotshotGG above:
So, is there any project to create an open source tweak system to enhance hi-fi--ness at rates under 50 kbps? My understanding is that incorporating SBR and PNS in Ogg Vorbis is possible, but would require royalty payments. And I think Thomson has patents to wall off some tricks in its MP3Pro...
So, what alternatives can keep open source codecs competitive?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HotshotGG
post Nov 11 2006, 22:49
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24-March 02
From: Revere, MA
Member No.: 1607



QUOTE
So, is there any project to create an open source tweak system to enhance hi-fi--ness at rates under 50 kbps? My understanding is that incorporating SBR and PNS in Ogg Vorbis is possible, but would require royalty payments. And I think Thomson has patents to wall off some tricks in its MP3Pro...
So, what alternatives can keep open source codecs competitive?


PlusV is open-source technology similiar to SBR, but I don't think xiph developers feel it's needed. NN is similiar to PNS. Considering what a lot of companies are doing there isn't a whole lot that can be done on open source front and considering a lot of latest industry standards are heavily patented. It doesn't give a whole lot of room for innovation, but then again is it really needed?

This post has been edited by HotshotGG: Nov 11 2006, 22:51


--------------------
College student/IT Assistant
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Nov 11 2006, 23:51
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



Here is Garf's opinion
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=34075&hl=


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gameplaya15143
post Nov 12 2006, 03:18
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 8-January 06
From: Earth
Member No.: 26978



If you want to know how vorbis theoretically sounds with plusv...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=817234#post817234


--------------------
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Nov 12 2006, 11:15
Post #13


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Noise normalisation means that in a given frequency band you are trying to produce the same sound power in the quantized signal than in the the source file. It's not a coding tool, but just an encoder design choice.

SBR is parametrically recreating the higher freq part from the lower freq part.

PlusV is parametrically recreating the higher freq part, without considering the lower freq part.

PNS is recreating noise-like freqs synthetically.

(both SBR and PlusV are also using PNS)

Even if the floor representation of Vorbis is efficient, it still have to encode a lot more data than SBR or PlusV in high freq parts, and no, noise normalisation is not similar to SBR.

Note: PNS is part of AAC, AC3, WMAv2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Nov 13 2006, 05:17
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



gameplaya15143: that um, sounds... pretty lousy. Even with aoTuV b5 (and I changed your bat to use -q0 instead, because -q-1 and -q-2 sounded a LOT worse), it sounded bad.
But hey, maybe with tuning it'd be better right? tongue.gif

Oh, and here's some samples so you can compare for yourself. Included HE-AAC just for the sake of comparison.
30s clip of Alone Tonight by Above & Beyond.
http://download.utorrent.com/alonetonorig.wv - original
http://download.utorrent.com/alonetonplusv.wv - aoTuV b5 -q0 + PlusV; (full track was 48kbps when including plusv data)
http://download.utorrent.com/alonetonq-1.ogg - aoTuV b5 -q -1; (full track was 47kbps)
http://download.utorrent.com/alonetonhe48.aac - Winamp 5.31's CT AAC encoder, 48kbps HE-AAC (no PS).


Personally, I prefer vanilla -q-1 over PlusV, but I think it's just a matter of preference, 'cause neither sounds good. Neither are really competitive with HE-AAC.

On another note, vorbis at q-1 sort of reminds me of how MP3pro sounded.

This post has been edited by Firon: Nov 13 2006, 08:36
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: 20th April 2014 - 20:23