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: listening test at 160 kbps (Read 74324 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #25 –
Guruboolez, thank you very much! I believe you make a valuable contribution to Vorbis development. But may I advise you to use LAME APS instead of official Vorbis encoder since the last one is the real outsider (if you are going to do any tests again). I believe it will collect much more audience and results will be very very welcome by HA community. IMHO. And thanks a lot again.
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #26 –
madoka@ex-sounds> I'm not really interested to test an experimental/outdated encoder. We don't know anything about aoTuV beta 1 performances at any level (pre-echo, noise, etc...). A patched version of aoTuV beta2 is preferable in my opinion, because we approximately know how performs this version on many situation.

de Mon> I don't want to mix multiformat and multicodec in the same test. Especially when the sample are limited to one specific problem. Lame APS will probably lose against vorbis on pre-echo, even against CVS encoder. Challenge is interesting, but with various problem samples.
I used CVS in order to have an idea about performances of aoTuV compared to a reference code. It's really important, to prove (or conclude) that a "fork" encoder is better than the reference one.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #27 –
Quote
de Mon> I don't want to mix multiformat and multicodec in the same test. Especially when the sample are limited to one specific problem. Lame APS will probably lose against vorbis on pre-echo, even against CVS encoder. Challenge is interesting, but with various problem samples.
I used CVS in order to have an idea about performances of aoTuV compared to a reference code. It's really important, to prove (or conclude) that a "fork" encoder is better than the reference one.

Thanks for reply. Anyway it was interesting to know your opinion. 
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #28 –
Thanks for the test, Guruboolez.
Would it be possible to input all ranks in a program that would draw a graph with error bars ? Reading and comparing all ranks to check for consistency or contradictions is a pain.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #29 –
I've done a quick merge of aoTuV beta 2 and GT3b2:

http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/oggencagt.exe

Use for testing only.  There might be some values from GT3b2 which I haven't ported over but the most important ones, such as pre-echo triggers and impulse block tunings are included.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #30 –
Merge sounds pretty good.  Well at least I can't tell it apart from my gt3b2 files which I couldn't tell apart from the CD.  Can't say I tried a really hard sample with it though and I only tried a few files.
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #31 –
QuantumKnot> does this version include Garf tunings (i.e. from -q 5,00 to -q 10,00) or are your own tunings (-q 2 to -q 5) also build-in?
I'll test this encoder, but it's difficult for me to do it before wednesday.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #32 –
Quote
QuantumKnot> does this version include Garf tunings (i.e. from -q 5,00 to -q 10,00) or are your own tunings (-q 2 to -q 5) also build-in?
I'll test this encoder, but it's difficult for me to do it before wednesday.

This is just aoTuV along with Garf's stuff (-q 5 to 10).  There are no tunings of mine (-q 2 to 5) but if you want, I can add them in when I'm free...a sort of megamix

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #33 –
It would be nice. Imagine that aoTuV+GT3 will appear to be the best solution on pre-echo sample at -q5...10 on a very soon test (TEST NO.2, to be done). aoTuV+QK is already the best (according to my limited test: TEST NO.1, finished) at lower bitrate. I suppose that people will request this megamix, in order to have a federative vorbis encoder. Then, a new listening test will be needed, in order to be sure that merging three different tunings (aoTuV; GT3; QK32) don't break anything (TEST NO.3 - to be done).

Releasing the megamix vorbis encoder is a good opportunity to spare time and motivation, because TEST NO.2 won't be needed anymore


(sorry for childish explanation)

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #34 –
It would be interesting to find out how all these new Vorbis variants compare to the "benchmark" of mppenc 1.14 --standard --xlevel. Transient handling/Pre-echo mitigation has always been a major strength of musepack so it could be helpful to see how far Vorbis has gotten in comparison.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #35 –
I'm also very interested by this comparison, but I'd like to test a good AAC encoder too (a gapless one, iTunes encoder is exclude). I'm therefore waiting for a major update of Nero AAC before starting this comparison.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #36 –
vorbis >200kbps seems useless to me, so perhaps (if others agree, obviously...) <=q6 should be the target comparisons.

at any rate, it's good to see so much interest in free formats, and as always, you guys (guru/harashin/QK/etc.) probably keep vorbis afloat in the midst of other progressing/superior formats

just an idea... but has modest tuning been tested much above the q4(...) setting of the ogg vorbis contendor tests? ...it seems premature to leave it out.


thanx!
later

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #37 –
Quote
I've done a quick merge of aoTuV beta 2 and GT3b2:

Would it be possible to get sources for this?  I'd like to make a linux version.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #38 –
Quote
It would be nice. Imagine that aoTuV+GT3 will appear to be the best solution on pre-echo sample at -q5...10 on a very soon test (TEST NO.2, to be done). aoTuV+QK is already the best (according to my limited test: TEST NO.1, finished) at lower bitrate. I suppose that people will request this megamix, in order to have a federative vorbis encoder. Then, a new listening test will be needed, in order to be sure that merging three different tunings (aoTuV; GT3; QK32) don't break anything (TEST NO.3 - to be done).

Releasing the megamix vorbis encoder is a good opportunity to spare time and motivation, because TEST NO.2 won't be needed anymore


(sorry for childish explanation)

Sounds fair enough.  I'll do the megamix merge.  q 5 is common between Garf's tunings and mine.  Which one is preferred?

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #39 –
Quote
It would be interesting to find out how all these new Vorbis variants compare to the "benchmark" of mppenc 1.14 --standard --xlevel. Transient handling/Pre-echo mitigation has always been a major strength of musepack so it could be helpful to see how far Vorbis has gotten in comparison.

In a very general sense, throw enough bits at it, and it will probably sound sharper.  That seems to be what pre-echo improved Vorbis encoders seem to do, hence the wild bitrate increases whenever there are sharp attacks.  q 5 is one place where I've tried to get the sharpness of GT3b2 but with lesser bits.

Musepack, being a subband coder, has better time resolution, so it generally will need to throw less bits at transients than minimalistic transform coders, like Vorbis, to give the same quality.  But since these tests are performed at q values determined to give a target bitrate on real-life music (rather than avg bitrate on killer samples), then it would be interesting to compare, yes.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #40 –
Quote
q 5 is common between Garf's tunings and mine.  Which one is preferred?

no idea. Wasn't GT3b2 recommanded at -q 5 up to a recent date? So maybe this one 

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #41 –
Quote
Quote
q 5 is common between Garf's tunings and mine.  Which one is preferred?

no idea. Wasn't GT3b2 recommanded at -q 5 up to a recent date? So maybe this one 

No problem.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #42 –
I was busy and my condition wasn't good enough to perform such tests last weekend. I even failed to ABX some encoders on castanets.

I found aoTuVb2 + GT3 is my preferable Vorbis encoder at -q5 on this sort of samples. It's worth to mention that some encoders are distinguishable for other reasons than pre-echo. (Mostly HF boost)



pre-echo_results.zip

Edit: I can't upload test samples at the upload forum for some reason.
Edit2: Result for trust is replaced with latest one.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #43 –
Thanks Harashin.  Wow, what happened with aoTuV+QK on trust? 

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #44 –
Quote
Wow, what happened with aoTuV+QK on trust? 

Somehow I felt it was brighter than others. I'll test trust sample again tomorrow.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #45 –
Quote
Quote
Wow, what happened with aoTuV+QK on trust? 

Somehow I felt it was brighter than others. I'll test trust sample again tomorrow.

Thanks.  If it is true that it appeared brighter, compared with the aoTuV+GT3b2, then it pinpoints a particular set of values that Garf changed which I didn't touch and that may prove useful.  Awesome

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #46 –
QuantumKnot,

I would like to join Phong and ask for the source. In fact every version you create, please upload the source too. I am on linux, but linux compile will not do it. As a matter of principle I always need the source.

PS: After painful deliberation, I moved from Lame to Vorbis and I am just about to kick off transcode my entire already FLAC-ed archive to Vorbis. So I follow the developments of the last few months with a lot of interest. You, Garf, Aoyumi, Guruboolez, Harashin and Phong rock!!! You guys are the heros of Vorbis. I hope that Monty does take notice. OK maybe the man just wait until the new HA recommended Vorbis emerges. But then I will really expect him to incorporate these changes.

Many thanks for your hard work.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #47 –
OK, here is the binary for Vorbis Megamix (aoTuV beta 2 + QKTune beta 3.2 + GTune 3 beta 2).  From q -2 to 1 is aoTuV only.  From q 2 to 4 is QKTune + aoTuV.  And from q 5 to 10 is GT3b2 + aoTuV.  I haven't tested this binary much (other than look at average bitrates) so use it for testing only and report any problems here.  Bitrate versus quality over the whole range would be a very interesting graph.

Megamix Binary:

http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/oggenc-megamix.exe

Megamix DLLs:

http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/vorbis-megamix-dlls.zip

Vendor tag:  Vorbis Megamix: aoTuV beta 2 + QKTune beta 3.2 + GTune 3 beta 2

For those who requested the source files, they are below:

http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/vorbis-megamix-src.zip
http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/vorbi...tuvqk32-src.zip
http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/vorbi...uvgt3b2-src.zip

If you are familiar with the GT3b2 source code and have some spare time on your hands, do a cross-check between the megamix and aotuvgt3b2 merge sources to see if I have left anything out.  I've done my best in limited time to include the most important tunings (short block, pre-echo trigger, etc), but there may be something I missed.  Thanks.


EDIT:  Updated binary and source so it has the proper vendor tag

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #48 –
You are too awesome QK

I'm playing around with it a little now.  I'll put it up to hard samples later.  Sounds pretty good on some regular music though
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #49 –
Quote
You are too awesome QK

I'm playing around with it a little now.  I'll put it up to hard samples later.  Sounds pretty good on some regular music though

Some ABC/HR tests would be nice