IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Experimental Ogg vorbis Bitrate Peeler, Bitrate reduction of ogg vorbis
vinjey
post May 20 2005, 20:10
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 20-May 05
Member No.: 22175



Hi All,

Ours is an embedded software solutions company that focuses on developing embedded software solutions specific to the DSP market. Today we have released free trial version of the VINJEY ogg vorbis decoder available for download.

http://www.vinjey.com/ogg_downloads.html

On the downloads section we have provided experimental version of the bitrate peeler. This bitrate peeler reduces the bitrate by cutting the packets based on the factor input provided by the user. Source code of this experimental bitrate peeler comes along with our free trial version of the decoder.

Regards,
Vinoth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post May 21 2005, 02:12
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



I've tried, and it's amazingly fast!! Wow blink.gif
But quality is, hmmm, unusable.

I've peeled a q6 encoding at various level [original size : 6 571 kb / 172 kbps]
0.9 : 6 571 -> 5 909 KB (154 kbps): some ringing problems, but limited impact.
0.8 : 6 571 -> 5 257 KB (137 kbps) : ringing starts to be annoying, sometimes *really*annoying.
0.7 : 6 571 -> 4 601 KB (120 kbps) : poor quality, with terrible artifacts. Quality is lower than 64 kbps original encoding.
0.6 : 6 571 -> 3 949 KB (103 kbps) : now, it starts to be horrible, even on my laptop poor -telephone quality- speekers. Could be compared to 48...64 kbps WMA quality.
0.5 : 6 571 -> 3 288 KB (82 kbps)
0.4 : 6 571 -> 2 629 KB (69 kbps) : positive point: it keeps a lot of high frequencies. But artifacts are too obvious, even for untrained people.
0.3 : 6 571 -> 1 974 KB (52 kbps) : unlistenable.


Question: could quality be improved?

This post has been edited by guruboolez: May 21 2005, 02:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post May 21 2005, 02:32
Post #3





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



I kept the same track, start to encode it at q10 (500 kbps/423 kbps for true), before peeling. Reducing the size from 66% (bpeel 0.33) in order to obtain a portable friendly bitrate (140 kbps): quality is terrible, despite of 'high' bitrate !? WMA@64 kbps are not as bad.
'Shrinked' at 50%, quality starts to be acceptable. There are artifacts (unacceptable for the bitrate, mainly warbling), but overall quality is correct. Bitrate is 212 kbps (corresponding to an original q7 encoding).
At 60% of original size (254 kbps), quality becomes really decent (few artifacts, but some warbling problems are still there).
These warbling issues are still easily audible at 80% (339 kbps), and could also be noticed at 90% (381 kbps).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rutra80
post May 21 2005, 21:31
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 810
Joined: 12-September 03
Member No.: 8821



Guruboolez did you try to compare to transcoded files? I mean, having that 172kbps OggVorbis file as the source, which one sounds better - the same file peeled to 82kbps, or the same file transcoded to 82kbps? AFAIK peeling is supposed to give better quality than transcoding within the same format...
Anyway, it's good to have the very first bitrate peeler (correct me if I'm wrong). Keep improving it vinjey smile.gif

This post has been edited by rutra80: May 21 2005, 21:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 21 2005, 21:38
Post #5


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4853
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (rutra80 @ May 21 2005, 10:31 PM)
Anyway, it's good to have the very first bitrate peeler (correct me if I'm wrong). Keep improving it vinjey smile.gif
*


You are wrong smile.gif

There was another peeler before, but it had also bad quality (and iirc, some bugs as well).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maikmerten
post May 21 2005, 22:07
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 219
Joined: 12-February 02
Member No.: 1312



well, the bad quality is no surprise. Just chopping away data from the end of the packets won't ensure the "more important" data is preserved. This is not the peeler's but the encoder's fault as it doesn't sort data inside the packet according to their impact on quality AFAIK.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moozooh
post May 23 2005, 11:49
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 22-September 04
From: Moscow
Member No.: 17192



QUOTE (rutra80 @ May 21 2005, 11:31 PM)
AFAIK peeling is supposed to give better quality than transcoding within the same format...
*

If you re-encode the file, psymodel is applied.
AFAIK, when you peel, it isn't.
That's why peeling is not a useful option, anyway…


--------------------
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robin
post May 23 2005, 13:05
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-January 04
Member No.: 11038



QUOTE (Mo0zOoH @ May 23 2005, 02:49 AM)
If you re-encode the file, psymodel is applied.
AFAIK, when you peel, it isn't.
That's why peeling is not a useful option, anyway…
*


Can't a peeler use the same psymodel as the encoder, to somehow peel the bits with the least impact? (I'm a n00b)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ariakis
post May 23 2005, 13:10
Post #9





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 145
Joined: 26-March 03
Member No.: 5677



QUOTE (Robin @ May 23 2005, 07:05 AM)
Can't a peeler use the same psymodel as the encoder, to somehow peel the bits with the least impact? (I'm a n00b)
*


This complexity could be avoided if the encoder just arranged data within the packets in such a way that the most important information was at the beginning of each one. Then the peeler could trust the original encoder's psymodel evaluation and truncate the packets, leaving optimal quality at the desired bitrate, with no extra complexity. Measure once, cut twice, one might say? blink.gif

This post has been edited by Ariakis: May 23 2005, 13:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robin
post May 23 2005, 13:13
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-January 04
Member No.: 11038



QUOTE (Ariakis @ May 23 2005, 04:10 AM)
This complexity could be avoided if the encoder just arranged data within the packets in such a way that the most important information was at the beginning of each one.  Then the peeler could trust the original encoder's psymodel evaluation and truncate the packets, leaving optimal quality at the desired bitrate, with no extra complexity.  Measure once, cut twice, one might say?  blink.gif
*


A really good idea, and I take it that oggenc doesn't arrange the data in this way yet...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HbG
post May 23 2005, 13:14
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 12-May 03
From: The Hague
Member No.: 6555



And now for the million dollar Question: Why doesn't the encoder do this?
Is this so hard to do, or is it a chicken and egg problem, noone bothering because there weren't any peelers?
Or was it Vorbis' design philosophy that the peeler itself would have to be intelligent and apply proper selection on what to throw away and what to keep?

I wish i had answers.. smile.gif


--------------------
Veni Vidi Vorbis.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ariakis
post May 23 2005, 13:19
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 145
Joined: 26-March 03
Member No.: 5677



Nope, not yet. I've never really looked at the code, so I dunno how hard it'd be to modify the current encoders to arrange the data in such a way. I do know that there was discussion (long past) about writing a utility that would losslessly rearrange the data in existing sub-optimal streams to increase their quality when peeled. Unfortunately, I don't think any actual utility was ever released, since nobody with the required coding ability and internal understanding took up the "bounty" on peeling.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ariakis
post May 23 2005, 13:26
Post #13





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 145
Joined: 26-March 03
Member No.: 5677



QUOTE (HbG @ May 23 2005, 07:14 AM)
And now for the million dollar Question: Why doesn't the encoder do this?
Is this so hard to do, or is it a chicken and egg problem, noone bothering because there weren't any peelers?
Or was it Vorbis' design philosophy that the peeler itself would have to be intelligent and apply proper selection on what to throw away and what to keep?

I wish i had answers.. smile.gif
*


I would think that it would be impressively difficult for the encoder to determine exactly which bits to consider above the rest, as it would require something like a feedback loop in the psymodel.

It seems that the encoder would have to know what it would choose to encode at q4.0, then what it would choose at q3.0, then at q2.0, and place the difference, in decreasing order, at the end of the packets.

Details would be arranged in such a fashion: [q-1][q0][q1][q2][q3][q4]

This may be easily possible, I have no idea how the psymodel works currently. The simplest, but most computationally intensive method, would just be to calculate certain "key" quality values from the desired original value downward, and do the aforementioned detail-sorting... but that's far from optimal complexity efficiency, I would think. If only there were "bit-wavelets." biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Ariakis: May 23 2005, 13:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post May 24 2005, 08:50
Post #14





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (rutra80 @ May 21 2005, 09:31 PM)
Guruboolez did you try to compare to transcoded files?
*

No need to compare directly peeled and reencoded files. Peeled files are so worse... Vorbis never sounded as bad with reencoding.

QUOTE
AFAIK peeling is supposed to give better quality than transcoding within the same format...
I doubt so. It's a fast solution to reduce bitrate, but not a quality-based solution. Look at DVD Shrink vs CCE reencoding... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinjey
post May 24 2005, 20:55
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 20-May 05
Member No.: 22175



Hi All,

Thanks for the testing and inputs provided so far.

We have implemented this bitrate peeler primarily to test the new decoder developed by us. To put it in other words, bpeel is one of the 14 tools we developed and tested the decoder. So we didn't have really much of chance to check the bpeel as a tool and hence bpeel was released without much or no internal testing.

Now with inputs from different people on mailing lists, forums and emails we have found how much importance people give for a bitrate peeler without any noise ;-). This has kindled interest among our engineers to start working on bitrate peeler. Once we have some updates on our work on bitrate peeler we will post back the results.

Regards,
Vinoth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post May 26 2005, 20:38
Post #16





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



QUOTE (vinjey @ May 24 2005, 11:55 AM)
Now with inputs from different people on mailing lists, forums and emails we    have found how much importance people give for a bitrate peeler without any noise ;-). This has kindled interest among our engineers to start working on bitrate peeler. Once we have some updates on our work on bitrate peeler we will post back the results.

Regards,
Vinoth
*



Great! Thank you very much and go on! Every trip begins from the first step. And it's done. smile.gif It would be very good to have a good peeler.


--------------------
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
kjoonlee
post May 27 2005, 09:19
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



QUOTE (Garf @ May 22 2005, 05:38 AM)
QUOTE (rutra80 @ May 21 2005, 10:31 PM)
Anyway, it's good to have the very first bitrate peeler (correct me if I'm wrong). Keep improving it vinjey smile.gif
*


You are wrong smile.gif

There was another peeler before, but it had also bad quality (and iirc, some bugs as well).
*


Minor correction: There were three peelers prior to this. The first two were by segher. One was called Rhubarber, but I cannot remember the name of the other one, except that it sounded vaguely Nordic.

The third contestant seems to be something called specbis, which primarily aims to be an independant Vorbis implementation, but has peeling capabilities as well.


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 27 2005, 09:56
Post #18


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4853
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (kjoonlee @ May 27 2005, 10:19 AM)
Minor correction: There were three peelers prior to this. The first two were by segher. One was called Rhubarber, but I cannot remember the name of the other one, except that it sounded vaguely Nordic.
*


Aardappelschilmesje

It's Dutch.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kjoonlee
post May 27 2005, 10:30
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



Heh. smile.gif Thanks. So.. aard means ground (like in aardvark), appel means apple, aardappel means potato, and aardappelschilmesje means potato peeler?


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post May 27 2005, 10:34
Post #20


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4853
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



Exactly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post May 27 2005, 14:41
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



QUOTE (kjoonlee @ May 27 2005, 01:30 AM)
aardappelschilmesje means potato peeler?
Exactly. It's simple. The dutch kinda speak german whistling.gif
aard appel schil mesje == erd apfel schäl messer = Kartoffelschälmesser.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Oct 25 2005, 19:59
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



lol does that mean "ground apple" ? smile.gif


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChuckSplatt
post Oct 25 2005, 20:11
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 23-February 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 12206



QUOTE (xmixahlx @ Oct 25 2005, 10:59 AM)
lol does that mean "ground apple" ? smile.gif
*


Yep, the French use the same phrase - "pomme de terre" = apple of the earth = potato.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephanV
post Oct 25 2005, 20:21
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 6-May 04
Member No.: 13932



I wouldn't translate 'aarde' to 'ground', 'soil' or 'mould' are better translations.


--------------------
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
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 - 03:25