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: Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test (Read 276234 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #25 –
Quote
I think we can drop WMA or even FAAC safely now, there's no improvements (version is still the same) since the last test, it is fine to just refer to the previous results


Actually, if you're referring to the Multiformat 128kbps listening test done by rjamorim in May 2004, WMA has since been upgraded to version 9.1, a fact that seems to escape many people. Microsoft has done a rather poor job of making this widely known, so it's understandable that it's flown well below the radar of most listeners.

Besides that, it's the codec supplied on the majority of new PCs sold today. Omitting it from the test would be like omitting the Honda Accord from a roundup of family sedans.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #26 –
Quote
Actually, if you're referring to the Multiformat 128kbps listening test done by rjamorim in May 2004, WMA has since been upgraded to version 9.1, a fact that seems to escape many people. Microsoft has done a rather poor job of making this widely known, so it's understandable that it's flown well below the radar of most listeners.


I was under the impression the WMA Std did not get an upgrade with the WM9.1 release.  Has anyone actually compared the output of 9 and 9.1 to see if there is in fact an update?

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #27 –
Quote
Ogg Vorbis, AoTuV 4.5 if it's OK with Aoyumi
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I just received green light from Aoyumi. He also told me to use a quality preset, so I think I'll go with something around 4 (exact quality level depends on the samples and the resulting average bitrate).

Quote
I just thought of another reason not to use ATRAC3: Sebastian is a nice guy. He doesn't deserve to feel the infinite pain involved with installing and using SonicStage 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341430"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, just in case...

[a href="http://www.transilvania2000.com/www.maresweb.de/SonicStage.png][/url]

Running on a virtual machine with Windows 98.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #28 –
Quote
I was under the impression the WMA Std did not get an upgrade with the WM9.1 release.  Has anyone actually compared the output of 9 and 9.1 to see if there is in fact an update?


I assure you that Microsoft didn't just change the version from 9 to 9.1 just for fun. Forums regarding the topic:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=31029

and

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=27037&hl=

According to the second link, there is an ABX-audible difference between the two versions. I use WMA for my personal ripping purposes, and the main improvement I've noticed is a bitrate increase for each VBR Quality setting. At the highest setting it's a nice compromise between the quality of the lossless and the compatibility of the lossy versions of the format.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #29 –
Quote
I don't understand why everyone insist to inlude WMA Standard instead of the Pro version... You don't cripple other formats the same way, but wma everybody wants WMA to be bad and just to make sure it is, only test the ancient WMA Std. Ask Woodinville which version to use, and I'm pretty sure he suggest using Pro instead of Std.

One is playable on portable players, the other one is not.
Btw, they are NOT the same format, but two different formats.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #30 –
I vote for Atrac3 and WMA Standard because I have a feeling that Atrac3 could beat WMA nowadays.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #31 –
Quote
Quote
I don't understand why everyone insist to inlude WMA Standard instead of the Pro version... You don't cripple other formats the same way, but wma everybody wants WMA to be bad and just to make sure it is, only test the ancient WMA Std. Ask Woodinville which version to use, and I'm pretty sure he suggest using Pro instead of Std.

One is playable on portable players, the other one is not.
Btw, they are NOT the same format, but two different formats.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341482"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And not even Windows Media Player supports ripping to WMA Pro.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #32 –
Quote
And not even Windows Media Player supports ripping to WMA Pro.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341487"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The freely available Windows Media Encoder 9 does. WMA Pro is aimed more at content producers than consumers such as most of us.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #33 –
For what it's worth, here's my take.

My preffered linup would be Nero, iTunes, Vorbis, Lame, WMAStd, WMAPro, and a Low Anchor.  Obviously, this introduces one more codec than on previous 128kbps tests conducted by Roberto.  In the first 128kbps test their were six competitors and no low-anchor.  Theoretically, the low anchor should be easy to ABX from the original, thus not really require any extra time or effort.  As such I think having seven codecs is acceptable, as long as one is a low anchor.

As far as bitrates go, you'll probably want to independantly verify, but I've encoded 291 tracks from an assortment of genre's using the new Nero codec (4.2.1.0).  The closest preset I found was the VBR/Stereo - Internet 90-100 kbps [LC AAC].  On my test tracks, this provided an average bitrate of 133kbps.  Some may consider this too far from the target bitrate, but I do believe it is probably not possible to get closer to the target of 128kbps.

For anyone about to bring up the issue of fairness, I quote Roberto:
Quote
The quality settings chosen for the VBR codecs were chosen because they average out to about 128kbps over a number of encoded albums. It would be unfair to tie the hands of VBR codecs and punish them for being smart about where to spend what turns out to be the same number of bits over the long run.


For reference, at 133kbps, my tracks total 1024mb.  If the average were 128kbps, they would total 985mb.  This represents only a 4% increase of bitrate/filesize.  I would imagine the margin of error for this test is going to negate a 4% bitrate increase.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #34 –
WMA Std will probably make a suitable low anchor, since this is a low bitrate test after all.  WMA Pro is an interesting contender, and has not been tested adequately.

ATRAC3 has been tested to death, and the ppl who still use it are not interested in listening test results.  Keep the rootkit company's software safely away

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #35 –
seeing as how HA is seen as some-what reliable source for audio info (writers from Wired come here) i think WMAPro should be tested just to prove that Pro doesnt always meen better (see http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html and http://www.rjamorim.com/test/32kbps/results.html for example).
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']"We will restore chaos"-Bush on Iraq[/span]

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #36 –
Quote
Theoretically, the low anchor should be easy to ABX from the original, thus not really require any extra time or effort.  As such I think having seven codecs is acceptable, as long as one is a low anchor.


The problem with several codecs is not only the fatigue, but the need to iterate codecs several times to come to a ranking among them. I realized that at my low bitrate tests. Even though there was very little fatigue involved, as reference was instantly recognizable for most cases, people spent too much time checking samples again and again to see who won over who.

Quote
Some may consider this too far from the target bitrate, but I do believe it is probably not possible to get closer to the target of 128kbps.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In my tests, the limit I tried to pursue was 10% bitrate difference from the format consuming least bits to the format consuming most. Therefore, 133 would not be a problem as long as there is no format consuming less than 120.

Quote
seeing as how HA is seen as some-what reliable source for audio info (writers from Wired come here) i think WMAPro should be tested just to prove that Pro doesnt always meen better (see [a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html]http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html[/url] and http://www.rjamorim.com/test/32kbps/results.html for example).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341521"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Neither of these tests featured WMA Pro. Pro actually doesn't even go down to 32kbps, and only goes down to 64kbps using a VBR mode that's completely unreliable as far as bit allocation goes.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #37 –
I'd say ATRAC doesn't really have to be tested since it's used by a very limited user group, unlike MP3, AAC, Vorbis or WMA.
Also, I don't think that the ATRAC lovers will accept the test results anyways.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #38 –
Out of curiosity, I'm interested how WMA Pro, ATRAC3 or Musepack would compete. But nevertheless, WMA Standard and FhG-fastenc are more often used with commercial audio-software.

I suggest Coding Technologies aacPlus @ 64 kb/s as low anchor. Maybe it's quite close to 128 kb/s with some samples.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #39 –
Quote
I suggest Coding Technologies aacPlus @ 64 kb/s as low anchor. Maybe it's quite close to 128 kb/s with some samples.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341556"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry? If this encoder has 64 kbit/s CBR mode, how do you expect it to get close to 128?


As for me, I vote for WMA Std and Pro to be included in this test. And as low anchor... maybe FAAD or Blade (less likely).
Not really a Signature.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #40 –
Quote
Sorry? If this encoder has 64 kbit/s CBR mode, how do you expect it to get close to 128?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341559"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like he means quality, not bitrate. Somehow I believe that there really are some samples to which this would be a reasonable assumption. So including 64 kbps HE AAC would be interesting indeed and so how far low bitrate codecs have came since 1995.

But somehow I believe that including a lower bitrate codec without including FhG @ 128 would be unapproprite.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #41 –
Quote
Out of curiosity, I'm interested how WMA Pro, ATRAC3 or Musepack would compete. But nevertheless, WMA Standard and FhG-fastenc are more often used with commercial audio-software.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341556"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't think MusePack should be tested at 128 kbps because it was optimized for higher bitrates. As for ATRAC3, see my comment above.
Including WMA is another story.

One more question regarding samples - what would you say about using the same sample set as in Roberto's last multiformat 128 kbps test?

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #42 –
Quote
One more question regarding samples - what would you say about using the same sample set as in Roberto's last multiformat 128 kbps test?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341570"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Shouldn't this be discussed in it's own thread?

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #43 –
Quote
Sounds like he means quality, not bitrate. Somehow I believe that there really are some samples to which this would be a reasonable assumption. So including 64 kbps HE AAC would be interesting indeed and so how far low bitrate codecs have came since 1995.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341567"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


True, I didn't get that. Maybe because I was assumpting that even low anchor encoder should get close to 128 kbps bitrate...
Not really a Signature.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #44 –
Quote
Quote
Sorry? If this encoder has 64 kbit/s CBR mode, how do you expect it to get close to 128?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341559"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like he means quality, not bitrate. Somehow I believe that there really are some samples to which this would be a reasonable assumption. So including 64 kbps HE AAC would be interesting indeed and so how far low bitrate codecs have came since 1995.

But somehow I believe that including a lower bitrate codec without including FhG @ 128 would be unapproprite.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341567"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, the development of low-bitrate codecs should be tested separetely, I guess. I had a disussion about a 64 kbps listening test a few months ago, but the test was cancelled because Apple didn't release an HE-AAC encoder as I expected and at that time, the new Nero version was also about to come out "soon".

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #45 –
Quote
Quote
One more question regarding samples - what would you say about using the same sample set as in Roberto's last multiformat 128 kbps test?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341570"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Shouldn't this be discussed in it's own thread?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341576"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, yes, you are right, but I wanted to see what you think about the idea before opening a special thread just for this.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #46 –
For my own listening test (test is finish - results tomorrow), I used:

• AAC: Nero Digital VBR
• AAC: Apple iTunes VBR
• MP3 LAME 3.98 VBR
• Vorbis: aoTuV VBR

as low anchor, a very old AAC encoder
as high anchor, LAME 3.97 -V2 --vbr-new

I discarded atrac3+, MPC or WMA (both Std and PRO). Two of them are not usable with portable players (I don't cound PDA in this category), and the two remaining (atrac3+ and WMAstd) are really poor and simply uninteresting. Testing them is fine for curiosity, but for practical usage it's a waste of time IMO.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #47 –
Quote
The closest preset I found was the VBR/Stereo - Internet 90-100 kbps [LC AAC].  On my test tracks, this provided an average bitrate of 133kbps.  Some may consider this too far from the target bitrate, but I do believe it is probably not possible to get closer to the target of 128kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341501"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I got 125,7 kbps for Nero Digital -internet high with my 150 reference tracks.
For the samples "non-classical" samples, I got 133 kbps with the same setting.

Note if iTunes will be tested in VBR mode, there will be the same issue. iTunes AAC works as iTunes MP3 in VBR mode: the target bitrate also corresponds to the minimal bitrate. In other words, the encoder don't encode anything below 128 kbps (apart digital silence maybe). Consequently, the bitrate is necessary superior to 128 kbps. I got 133.33 kbps for classical and 137.x for non-classical.
Same issue will occur with LAME -V5.
Only exception is aoTuV, which benefits for a very flexible VBR mode.

These problems might be a good reason to discard all CBR encoder from the test and to use VBR encodings only outputting to the same approximate bitrate.
LAME -V5, iTunes AAC and Nero Digital are fortunately is this case. Same for Vorbis of course. I'm not sure that WMA VBR (Std and Pro) could be close to ~130 kbps. If they're not, it may end the debate about using or not this format in the test.
kl33per, or someone else, could you try different WMA settings to see if a 1-pass VBR mode could stay close to 130-135 kbps?

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #48 –
Sorry for posting this in three replies...

About WMA or ATRAC as low anchor:

- during the first multiformat test, Blade was used as low anchor. Final note = 1.99.
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html
- during the second listening test, WMA standard get a much higher note (3.65).

In other words, WMA seems to be too good to be considered as low anchor.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #49 –
Quote
Sorry for posting this in three replies...

About WMA or ATRAC as low anchor:

- during the first multiformat test, Blade was used as low anchor. Final note = 1.99.
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html
- during the second listening test, WMA standard get a much higher note (3.65).

In other words, WMA seems to be too good to be considered as low anchor.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341710"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, as mentioned already. If we discard ATRAC, we could test WMA and feature a low anchor. WMA is used by a lot more people than ATRAC.
Whether the standard encoder should be tested because it works on portables and it's also available in a lot of music stores or the professional due to its higher quality is uncertain. What do you guys think?