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: Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2 (Read 4727 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

I've heard a couple times that rc3 has more problems than Garf's tuned 160 version on some problem clips...  I'm wondering if anybody thinks that Garf's tuned 160 vbr mode is better than the current rc3 at the same nominal bitrate (i.e., -q 5.0).

As noted elsewhere, I don't plan to do any archiving until at least the next release of ogg, be it rc4 or 1.0... this question is more coming out of curiosity.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

Reply #1
Quote
Originally posted by timcupery

As noted elsewhere, I don't plan to do any archiving until at least the next release of ogg, be it rc4 or 1.0... this question is more coming out of curiosity.


RC4 is not supposed to have any improvements in the high bitrate area, so you're either going to have to encode now or wait until RC5.

--
GCP

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

Reply #2
As always, thanks for the info, Garf.

Still wondering what you (and others) think about how Garf-Tuned 2 at 160 vbr  compares to RC3 -q 5.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

Reply #3
the GT2 mode has annoying HF artefacts as Volcano mentioned some time ago. I can clearly hear them now. IMO RC3 _is_ better

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

Reply #4
If the size doesn't bother you, I'd recommend Garf's tuned -b350 mode. The average bitrate is between 300 and 320kbps. Sounds totally transparent to me, and I can't detect pre-echo even with the most difficult samples. This tuned mode gives more attention to transients then RC3 does, so I'm still sticking with this mode.

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

Reply #5
Quote
Originally posted by Corsair
If the size doesn't bother you, I'd recommend Garf's tuned -b350 mode. The average bitrate is between 300 and 320kbps. Sounds totally transparent to me, and I can't detect pre-echo even with the most difficult samples. This tuned mode gives more attention to transients then RC3 does, so I'm still sticking with this mode.


Not actually true.  Not only does rc3 have impulse blocks ('dump insane amounts of bits into *this* block') but it has short-block trigger fixes the rc2 based GT2 doesn't.

Monty

Ogg -q 5 vs. Garf-Tuned 2

Reply #6
Xiphmont wrote:

Quote
Not actually true. Not only does rc3 have impulse blocks ('dump insane amounts of bits into *this* block') but it has short-block trigger fixes the rc2 based GT2 doesn't.


I haven't done any extensive testing (due to lack of time), but I found that -q8.5 is (roughly) the bitrate equivalent of -b350 GT2, tested on some songs. The difference with transient samples is more bigger, since GT2 tends to go very high in bitrate with this sort of samples. But -q8.5 (rc3) still has some pre-echo here and there - for example, drums.wav (the beggining of Metallica - The Small Hours). There are even worse cases, like c44.wav (I can't remember where I found this clip)- it doesn't sound transparent even at -q9.0, but everything sound fine with -b350 GT2.

If you don't have these clips, I can mail them to you.