IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Best Lossy codec for "Andrea Bocelli - Opera", Lossy Andrea Bocelli!
Porcus
post Apr 1 2013, 15:10
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1780
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Gecko @ Apr 1 2013, 10:05) *
Does this Andrea Bocelli recording have special properties which would make it specifically suitable/unsuitable for a certain encoder?

In my mind that is kind of a trick question because I think of lame mp3, apple aac et al. as general purpose tools. Considering e.g. harpsichords though, certain encoders might have an edge.


The OP can answer for him-/herself, but it could just be due to the OP having observed that this forum seems to appreciate more information and frown at general uninformative thread titles like "help me choose codec" – in which case I think it is perfectly OK to let the forum actually explain whether this piece of information does matter or not.

This post has been edited by Porcus: Apr 1 2013, 15:12


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
totalz
post Apr 2 2013, 05:12
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13-February 04
Member No.: 11987



I remember the digital album from itunes, "Andrea Bocelli – Notte illuminata" was absolute horrible, a total waste of money and 'talent', IMO! If I might add, "WTF!" Out of respect for the 'professionalism' of Apple, I have to wonder what went wrong! Is it because of AAC mp4a or Apple, or both!?

So I asked this question to see what codec people use for tenor? "Test it yourself" is probably the best way to avoid arguing, what's good for oneself may not for other. Anyway, I do appreciate others' opinions. Even one can provide the ultimate track for testing, this kind of question will be asked from time to time, because technologies evolve, I certainly hope to keep it that way, don't u?

I'm re-'testing' the whole album with my old android phone now, encoded by oggenc2 -q 2. So far, I'm happy with the sound and the size.

cheers.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 05:20
Post #28





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 1 2013, 21:12) *
I have to wonder what went wrong! Is it because of AAC mp4a or Apple, or both!?

Until you have the original source material you will never know. Otherwise this anecdote is completely useless, especially in light of this discussion and your stated goal.

EDIT:
Please read the next post by IgorC. It pretty well summarizes how I feel about this post I quoted as well as the sentiments discouraging ABX in favor of a monkey-see-monkey-do philosophy, both as a member and as a moderator.

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 2 2013, 06:37


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Apr 2 2013, 06:24
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 2 2013, 01:12) *
I remember the digital album from itunes, "Andrea Bocelli – Notte illuminata" was absolute horrible, a total waste of money and 'talent', IMO! If I might add, "WTF!" Out of respect for the 'professionalism' of Apple, I have to wonder what went wrong! Is it because of AAC mp4a or Apple, or both!?

Sorry, do you realize how is it disrespectful for all these people who were kind with you and actually have answer your questions and have provided solid information (that we have worked together and for free!) while you demonstrate with your pure anecdotical statements that you haven't take the time to understand their answers or simply don't care.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Apr 2 2013, 06:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
totalz
post Apr 2 2013, 07:19
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13-February 04
Member No.: 11987



QUOTE (IgorC @ Apr 1 2013, 21:24) *
QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 2 2013, 01:12) *
I remember the digital album from itunes, "Andrea Bocelli – Notte illuminata" was absolute horrible, a total waste of money and 'talent', IMO! If I might add, "WTF!" Out of respect for the 'professionalism' of Apple, I have to wonder what went wrong! Is it because of AAC mp4a or Apple, or both!?

Sorry, do you realize how is it disrespectful for all these people who were kind with you and actually have answer your questions and have provided solid information (that we have worked together and for free!) while you demonstrate with your pure anecdotical statements that you haven't take the time to understand their answers or simply don't care.



What the heck are u on about? How am I being disrespectful as I merely stated the incident with Apple? And how u claimed in the group as "we" but offer nothing in the discussion. So what have u provided as 'we'? And if not free, how much do u want to charge? Have u actually read the posts, or just spam on any one word u don't like?

@greynol, so what's this monkey-see-monkey-do philosophy? Are u denying there's a best way to do certain thing? Even this can change in time!


And for what I've said, of course I blame Apple, and what's that got to do with disrespectful???

This post has been edited by totalz: Apr 2 2013, 07:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 07:24
Post #31





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I gave a right way with the wrong way; twice now. Also I told you exactly what was wrong with your useless Apple anecdote. In case you don't understand, let me put it another way: what proof do you have that Apple is to blame?

As far as what IgorC has provided, he has taken the time and effort to organize public listening tests so people have some basis for making recommendations and can point to actual data. Unfortunately, people will misinterpret the data and falsely declare winners or losers when there might not be any, but that's the way this stuff goes. Such a declaration was provided linking to such a test. Did you read it? Did you review the results? If so did you see who organized it? Were you asked to pay anything?

...and to continue on with the theme of showing respect for this forum, it's "you" not "u". Refer to TOS #10.

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 2 2013, 07:51


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Apr 2 2013, 08:03
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 242
Joined: 29-July 12
Member No.: 101859



Sorry, it was never an intention of mine to start a conversation that would have people upset at one another. I guess I was looking to have some back and forth with experienced folks regarding real life useage of encoders (what personal music have they abx'ed, what encoder/settings, what headphones/speakers, what in particular do you listen for), as opposed to simply pointing the OP towards our well known test data, which uses samples not everybody has or listens to. I guess now I see the reason nobody likes to answer the 'what codec/settings' questions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 08:11
Post #33





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



The answer is and always will be ABX or ABC to find out. Involving yourself in this process is far more useful than simply taking someone's advice especially when it is done without any critical thought.

What's the average bitrate using Vorbis q2 with opera? Now read the part in the original post about the smallest size possible.

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 2 2013, 08:52
Reason for edit: ABC because we don't always strive for transparency when choosing lossy compression. Maybe I should have just said DBT.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Apr 2 2013, 08:41
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 242
Joined: 29-July 12
Member No.: 101859



QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 2 2013, 03:11) *
What's the average bitrate using Vorbis q2 with opera? Now read the part in the original post about the smallest size possible.

I know you were being 100% rhetorical but you asked, George Orff-Fortune, Empress of the World-O Fortuna clocks in at 86kbps average at vorbisq2, according to rockbox. Quick look at all the tracks puts them all in the 80-86 range.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 08:45
Post #35





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I thought I was but I was completely wrong in my assumption about how the q system works. I could not readily find the answer in our wiki in a cursory search like I can for Lame, but went ahead and committed my words anyway.

I will probably never forget that lower q means lower bitrate and I thank you for that regardless of how foolish it made me look. smile.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 2 2013, 08:48


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Apr 2 2013, 09:13
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Mach-X @ Apr 2 2013, 04:03) *
I guess I was looking to have some back and forth with experienced folks regarding real life useage of encoders (what personal music have they abx'ed, what encoder/settings, what headphones/speakers, what in particular do you listen for)

Until 2011 there was a common beleive and recommendation to use Nero as AAC encoder and sometimes Apple. "Oh, Joe who is the exprienced audio guy and he recommended to use Nero".
During 2006-2007 Nero HE-AAC was best solution at 48-64 kbps so people have assumed it's the most optimal for high bitrates as well.
But when AAC encoders were tested at 96 kbps it was a big surprise for many people that Nero came out the last (yes, the last) in quality terms.

And ironically now we're getting back with statements like:
QUOTE (Mach-X @ Mar 31 2013, 01:14) *
I've heard Nero or Apple aac is somewhat better than fhg but I haven't bothered to test.


So if You have a link to real test, results or something that one could say "OK, I buyt it" then post it. Otherwise it's just another "I have heard...", "I was told", "but the experienced people..." etc.

There are some links to some really real tests:
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-96-a/index.htm
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111029/1319840519

As You can see You have made a wrong statement about Nero encoder and "experienced folks regarding real life usage of encoders" tells as much as nothing.

QUOTE (Mach-X @ Apr 2 2013, 04:03) *
as opposed to simply pointing the OP towards our well known test data, which uses samples not everybody has or listens to.

Those samples are of most common styles like pop, rock, techno, classic etc (not some synthetic stuff). So the public tests are actually very representative of real usage. And much more representatives than these most used phrases of "experienced people say", isn't it?


So, an anecdotal experiences is simply NOT argument. They're proved to be wrong in 99.99% of cases, especially true with such conditions as personal prejudice and placebo.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Apr 2 2013, 09:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Apr 2 2013, 10:15
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (Mach-X @ Apr 2 2013, 08:03) *
I guess I was looking to have some back and forth with experienced folks regarding real life useage of encoders (what personal music have they abx'ed, what encoder/settings, what headphones/speakers, what in particular do you listen for)

By the by, such curiousities could be somewhat satisfied browsing people's answer in a typical poll thread...


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Apr 2 2013, 10:43
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 1780
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 2 2013, 05:12) *
So I asked this question to see what codec people use for tenor?

“any”, more or less. In addition you've had a few specific suggestions on not only codec, but also encoder and settings. Not satisfied yet?

QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 2 2013, 07:19) *
Are u denying there's a best way to do certain thing?

To do “a certain thing” for one specified purpose? For the purpose of transparency for a single person on a single encoding, there is the “good enough to be transparent” way, and if that's your only criterion, then all those will be tied. You have existence but not uniqueness of ““a best way””. If you need lowest possible bitrate, then that particular person has to do the testing him-/herself. (Speaking in totally general terms, for g33x, there may even fail to be “a best way”.)

QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 2 2013, 07:19) *
Even this can change in time!

Yeah ... if your goal is merely transparency, then bringing more codecs and encoders to the table, will expand the group tied for first place. If your goal is also lowest possible bitrate, then that person might have to do the testing over and over again. In principle.

QUOTE (totalz @ Apr 2 2013, 07:19) *
And for what I've said, of course I blame Apple, and what's that got to do with disrespectful???

Buying music you don't like and blaming the record store for having destroyed it? It is likely less disrespectful than what I just decided against writing here.

This post has been edited by Porcus: Apr 2 2013, 10:47


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Apr 2 2013, 16:30
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 242
Joined: 29-July 12
Member No.: 101859



Well, the reason I said I've heard they are better but haven't bothered to test is because I'm from the school of thought that saying 'statistically in this listening test from year 2xxx it was proven as fact this flavour of AAC is better than that one' is meaningless. HOW much better? If the differences are so minute (and I'm sure they are) that at a 96 average bitrate an average person can't distinguish any meaningful differences without abxing 50 times on one specific sample, then it's NOT better, at least on a practical basis. All I was pointing out was that my threshold for fhg aac was quality level 4, but at 3 it was extremely difficult and required heavy concentration. I also said the same of vorbis q2. Yes I am broadbrushing, but sometimes that's all new users are looking for, is a place to start. And in this case the OP, while he got a little feisty for a bit, was completely satisfied with my recommendations. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 17:02
Post #40





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Your straw-man argument about organized listening tests and dismissal of the hard work that was done in preparing, participating in and presenting a meaningful result is noted. I feel confident that you're a strong proponent for the advocation of discovery and self-sufficiency.

In the meantime, the OP probably still thinks his baseless comments about Apple were OK.

BTW, I searched for all posts with the term foo_abx authored by you and found none.

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 2 2013, 19:00


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Apr 2 2013, 17:09
Post #41





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5159
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



While not having listened to the digital album about which the OP has been complaining, I’d like to point out that the placebo effect could have been responsible for the perception of terrible quality and that, even if the latter is valid and verified by other listeners, it is not logical to automatically blame Apple or their chosen lossy format. Doing so is just spreading FUD about things that are unconfirmed and whose reasons, if any, are unclear.

I hope posters here can now move past this subject and the associated outbursts, at least until the provision of evidence for the low quality and a convincing argument for why Apple and/or AAC are to blame. I’m tempted to bin it, but that would cause the loss of a few productive or at least educative details buried among the affected posts, so I’ll leave it here unless the SNR declines further.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gecko
post Apr 2 2013, 17:39
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 934
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 662



QUOTE (Porcus @ Apr 1 2013, 16:10) *
QUOTE (Gecko @ Apr 1 2013, 10:05) *
Does this Andrea Bocelli recording have special properties which would make it specifically suitable/unsuitable for a certain encoder?

In my mind that is kind of a trick question because I think of lame mp3, apple aac et al. as general purpose tools. Considering e.g. harpsichords though, certain encoders might have an edge.


The OP can answer for him-/herself, but it could just be due to the OP having observed that this forum seems to appreciate more information and frown at general uninformative thread titles like "help me choose codec" – in which case I think it is perfectly OK to let the forum actually explain whether this piece of information does matter or not.

I didn't mean to say that the information was irrelevant; the question wasn't rhetorical. Many of the answers so far seem to disregard that the OP is asking for a very specific album. It appears that either people don't know this album or don't deem this detail relevant. If we knew more about the recording, maybe that information could be exploited e.g.: "encoder X will probably bloat because of excessive HF-content" --> less candidates for a DBT.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Apr 2 2013, 17:58
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



This
QUOTE (Mach-X @ Mar 31 2013, 01:14) *
I've heard Nero or Apple aac is somewhat better than fhg but I haven't bothered to test.


and this
QUOTE (Mach-X @ Apr 2 2013, 12:30) *
If the differences are so minute (and I'm sure they are) that at a 96 average bitrate an average person can't distinguish any meaningful differences without abxing 50 times on one specific sample, then it's NOT better, at least on a practical basis.


are contradictions.

First You comment that some codec is better than other but later when the discussion changes its direction You start to claim that all codecs are all the same.
You contradict yourself let alone other people.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 18:16
Post #44





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Ok, enough. If Mach-X doesn't get it by now I don't know that he ever will.

Let's follow dB1989's cue and stick to the business of discussing the codec that provides the lowest acceptable bitrate for the title in question and the genre under which it can be classified.

This post has been edited by greynol: Apr 2 2013, 18:54


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Apr 2 2013, 19:48
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 242
Joined: 29-July 12
Member No.: 101859



"I've heard" is exactly that. Doesn't mean I'm in agreement, which is why I issued the second statement. Same as for aotuv vs libvorbis. Splitting hairs. There's no straw man argument if there's no argument. Objective listening tests are a fountain of wonderful information and I've hungrily enjoyed all of them and thank IgorC and others who conducted and partook in them. Otoh not everyone wants or has the means to get that technical or in depth or they just want a starting point, which i and others provided, op is happily using them, therefore this thread has served its purpose. Unless anyone else has an actual encoder suggestion that works better than others with opera (of which i would be curious how it works).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Apr 2 2013, 20:09
Post #46





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Great, fine, wonderful (not quite, but whatever). Let's get back on-topic.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 21st April 2014 - 12:12