IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MP3 at 128kbps public listening test, Discussion thread
Continuum
post Jan 3 2004, 13:53
Post #151





Group: Members
Posts: 473
Joined: 7-June 02
Member No.: 2244



OT:
QUOTE (danchr @ Jan 3 2004, 01:44 PM)
<nitpick mode>
It's Mac, not MAC. MAC is something your ethernet card has, while Mac is short for Macintosh.
</nitpick mode>

Then why do you use "mac" in your signature? tongue.gif
Really, all-caps is just a way of emphasizing...
rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 3 2004, 16:14
Post #152


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



Good... lots of replies smile.gif

So, I reckon Gogo is wellcome? In this case, it'll be featured instead of Audition Legacy.

@Guruboolez: I don't think 6 codecs is too much considering some of them will (theoretically) sound bad. And I agree, I don't think there will be more MP3 tests happening, so it's better if this one covers most significative encoders.

Also, I agree with the idea of adding Fatboy. But, in this case, what sample will be replaced?

For those that don't remember the sample list:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=12358&

Regards;

Roberto.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jan 3 2004, 17:42
Post #153


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



I still think that you should consider new Lame. Perhaps a new release could be available soon...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 3 2004, 17:43
Post #154


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



How "soon"? wink.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jan 3 2004, 18:01
Post #155


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Well, probably between 1 and 2 weeks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 3 2004, 18:09
Post #156


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



I plan to start my test on the 14th.

So please try to hurry wink.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 3 2004, 18:51
Post #157





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



According to the fact that 3.90.3 is the same as 3.90 for abr encodings, I'd like to see the newest lame encoder in the test. After all, lame 3.90 is more than two years old now. I know it was heavily tested; but then, why not considering this public listening test as a first step for a complete checking? Even if 3.94 is beta... (recommanded version of musepack is still alpha...)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoFiYo
post Jan 3 2004, 19:57
Post #158





Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 2-January 04
Member No.: 10896



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 3 2004, 09:51 AM)
According to the fact that 3.90.3 is the same as 3.90 for abr encodings, I'd like to see the newest lame encoder in the test. After all, lame 3.90 is more than two years old now. I know it was heavily tested; but then, why not considering this public listening test as a first step for a complete checking? Even if 3.94 is beta... (recommanded version of musepack is still alpha...)

I would like to see whether the technical improvements since 3.90x (substep quantization and all the other quality improvement changes detailed in history.html) will really result in better quality than the time-tested version like 3.90.3 smile.gif .
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eltoder
post Jan 3 2004, 21:10
Post #159





Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 16-May 03
From: nsk.su
Member No.: 6653



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 3 2004, 11:51 PM)
According to the fact that 3.90.3 is the same as 3.90 for abr encodings, I'd like to see the newest lame encoder in the test. After all, lame 3.90 is more than two years old now. I know it was heavily tested; but then, why not considering this public listening test as a first step for a complete checking? Even if 3.94 is beta... (recommanded version of musepack is still alpha...)

Guruboolez, may be you could do a presonal listening test between 3.90.3 and 3.94 like you did for WMA and Vorbis before previous test? This will not only help with test decision, but also provide some usefull information.

-Eugene


--------------------
The greatest programming project of all took six days; on the seventh day the programmer rested. We've been trying to debug the !@#$%&* thing ever since. Moral: design before you implement.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Continuum
post Jan 3 2004, 21:17
Post #160





Group: Members
Posts: 473
Joined: 7-June 02
Member No.: 2244



I think before a build from the 3.94 branch can be considered, all known problems (e.g. this one unsure.gif) should be resolved, and a short comparison test (perhaps only individual) should be performed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 3 2004, 23:02
Post #161





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



eltoder> if I find time enough and some motivation, why not.
Continuum> I don't see any problem in the mentioned thread with abr/cbr settings ??
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Continuum
post Jan 4 2004, 08:06
Post #162





Group: Members
Posts: 473
Joined: 7-June 02
Member No.: 2244



QUOTE (lazka @ Dec 20 2003, 06:22 PM)
quickly ABXed fsol.flac
with preset 128
(3.90.3 and 3.94b1)

both 14/14 but 3.90.3 is (much) better

-lazka

But I don't know the status of that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AstralStorm
post Jan 4 2004, 08:40
Post #163





Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 22-April 03
From: /dev/null
Member No.: 6130



That opinion on quality can be biased, he ought to use HR program for quality comparison.

This post has been edited by AstralStorm: Jan 4 2004, 08:45


--------------------
ruxvilti'a
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 07:35
Post #164


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



Well, the test is almost upon us.

I already selected the switches for each encoder. This is what we will have:

-Lame 3.95 --preset 128
-FhG Audition VBR quality 40, only mid/side stereo enabled, Current - Best codec
-iTunes VBR Highest quality, 112kbps base bitrate, joint stereo, smart encoding
-AudioActive CBR 128kbps, high quality
-Gogo 3.12 -b 128 -a
-Xing 1.5 VBR quality normal

That list can be considered soft-frozen, it will only change if some major issue is brought to my attention.

Also, it is my pleasure to inform you that all VBR codecs are in the range of 120-128kbps. So, no issues should arise about bitrate deviation.


About why Xing instead of RealOne:
RealOne and RealPlayer10 beta are two flaming pieces of garbage that refuse to install on my PC. Surprisingly, the installation process goes well and at the end it claims installation succesful, down to the requirement of restarting the PC (#%$&@!). But when I check the installation folder (whether before or after restarting), it's nearly empty and, not surprisingly, double clicking the .exe has no effect.

Since I can't be bothered to deal with such shitty software for an anchor, and I also won't risk a friendship asking a friend to try installing it on his PC, I gave up RealOne altogether and went back to Xing 1.5, that installed and ran perfectly. Real should take some hints from XingTech...


I didn't replace any sample with fatboy because noone suggested what sample to replace. So this test will have no problem cases, except the very evil and very interesting Waiting.

Next test will definitely feature evil samples.


Also, I would like to thank Gabriel Bouvigne and the rest of the (active) Lame team for rushing the 3.95 release on time for this test.

The schedule is kept, if there's no catastrophe until then, it will start on the 14th, next wednesday.

Best regards;

Roberto.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jan 12 2004, 08:24
Post #165


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE
I didn't replace any sample with fatboy because noone suggested what sample to replace. So this test will have no problem cases, except the very evil and very interesting Waiting.


I would have liked fatboy...
Why no setting up a poll for which sample to replace?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 13:29
Post #166


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jan 12 2004, 05:24 AM)
I would have liked fatboy...
Why no setting up a poll for which sample to replace?

Because it's already too late. :/

When I asked about it (Jan 3rd) there was plenty of time. Now there are only two days.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Jan 12 2004, 13:30


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
danchr
post Jan 12 2004, 13:48
Post #167





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 6-April 03
From: Århus, Denmark
Member No.: 5861



What about LAME 3.90.3 <-> 3.95? Will that be "only" testing & tuning by those interested in it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 13:52
Post #168


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (danchr @ Jan 12 2004, 10:48 AM)
What about LAME 3.90.3 <-> 3.95? Will that be "only" testing & tuning by those interested in it?

No 3.90.3 anymore. There are already too many codecs as it is.

And since 3.90.3 has already been tested a lot (128kbps extension and 64kbps test), I decided it would be better to try something newer this time.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AstralStorm
post Jan 12 2004, 17:35
Post #169





Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 22-April 03
From: /dev/null
Member No.: 6130



As the samples are same in 64kbps test and this one,
we can compare 3.95 vs 3.90.3 indirectly.


--------------------
ruxvilti'a
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 18:51
Post #170


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



Erm.. actually, I prefer you don't even try to do that :B

In the 64kbps test Lame was the higher anchor, so it was meant to win. Comparing lame to 64kbps samples, it's obvious it'll receive high scores. OTOH, in this test Lame will be amongst it's peers, so it's score will probably be lower even if 3.95 isn't worse in reality.

An example. The exact same Lame version, compile and settings were used in the 64kbps test and the 128 extension test. Still, at the 128 test Lame got a score of 3.66 points, while in the 64kbps test it got a score of 4.29.

Regards;

Roberto.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoFiYo
post Jan 12 2004, 20:37
Post #171





Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 2-January 04
Member No.: 10896



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 11 2004, 10:35 PM)
-Gogo 3.12 -b 128 -a

Since Lame is using the optimal 128kbps setting (--preset 128), gogo might as well use -b 128 -a -q 0. Would you allow that?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 21:47
Post #172


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (LoFiYo @ Jan 12 2004, 05:37 PM)
Would you allow that?

No problem.

Thanks for the suggestion.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jan 13 2004, 09:12
Post #173


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



I'd like to point that with 3.95, targetting 128kbps I think that -q1 and -q0 can really improve encoding quality.

On the other hand, they might not be representative of real-world use due to their slowness.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jojo
post Jan 13 2004, 14:01
Post #174





Group: Members
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25-November 02
Member No.: 3873



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jan 13 2004, 12:12 AM)
I'd like to point that with 3.95, targetting 128kbps I think that -q1 and -q0 can really improve encoding quality.

is it possible to use this setting along with aps? How much longer would that take? I mean it says in the ChangeLog that the new release is 10% faster, so what's the deal? I rather wait a bit longer and have a smaller file or a file with better quality...


--------------------
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jan 13 2004, 14:27
Post #175


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE
is it possible to use this setting along with aps?

I think that this is off-topic and would lead to endless debates.
I was speaking about 128kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >
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: 20th April 2014 - 22:01