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: Vorbis quality – wrong direction? (Read 53275 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #50
The Modest Tuning Beta2 won my own test.  Apparently it's superior to other Vorbis encoders on this kind of sample. (sharp attack, symbal)
Although aoTuV b1 is also thinkable as a good choice for its reasonable bitrate.

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #51
Quote
However, it was not so good because the average bitrate of MTb2 is too high (around 160-170kbps).

Perhaps next time you could compare it to 1.01 -q5 as well?  Results would be interesting, IMO.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #52
It certainly is surprising that lossless coupling is doing so badly compared with uncoupled.  Theoretically, you'd expect they should be the same! 

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #53
Quote
It certainly is surprising that lossless coupling is doing so badly compared with uncoupled.  Theoretically, you'd expect they should be the same! 

Indeed, it's very odd. However, I was able to ABX between LC and UC with score at 15/20.  Also, they don't actually seem to be same.

lc_uc.png

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #54
Quote
Quote
It certainly is surprising that lossless coupling is doing so badly compared with uncoupled.  Theoretically, you'd expect they should be the same! 

Indeed, it's very odd. However, I was able to ABX between LC and UC with score at 15/20.  Also, they don't actually seem to be same.

lc_uc.png

Monty made a good point in IRC that this is to be expected since compilers do random things to FP computations

 

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #55
[span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%']...One year later[/font][/span]

Just for curiosity, I've tried another comparison, using the same samples, in order to check vorbis's progress during three years, and especially during the last one.
I kept vorbis RC3 (march 2002), vorbis 1.01 (march 2003), and add the most advanced vorbis encoder: aoTuV beta 3. I'd like to check the amount of noise/coarseness audible with aoTuV compared to an old encoder which wasn't too affected by this problem.

results:



ABX log/scores are here.

There are still audible issues with aoTuV at this bitrate, but they are much lower than vorbis RC3. One exception: the last sample, which RC3 performed differently (and to my ears: better) on brass (micro-attacks sample).
Bravo to Aoyumi!

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #56
Wow.  That is some nice improvement.

It looks like aoTuV is pushing Vorbis in the right direction instead of regressing it
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?

Reply #57
Quote
There are still audible issues with aoTuV at this bitrate, but they are much lower than vorbis RC3. One exception: the last sample, which RC3 performed differently (and to my ears: better) on brass (micro-attacks sample).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=273435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The handling of a micro attack is one of the big subjects truly.

I know that QuantumKnot is performing the trial for solving this problem.
Probably, I am looking forward to it.