IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME 3.96 FINAL vs. 3.90.3 Test, Test/Result Thread
tigre
post Apr 13 2004, 16:17
Post #1


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



This is stolen from here mostly, since only few things have changed...
----------------------------------------------------------------------


The purpose of this thread is to (finally) test LAME 3.96 throughly enough to make it the new recommended LAME version and enhance communication between LAME developers and the HA.org community. The recent confusion about the different LAME versions and compiles (-Qrcd trouble etc.) have led to the decision that moving along with LAME development has been postponed for long enough and LAME 3.90.X can hopefully be declared dead very soon.
Please test as many samples as possible according to the following guidelines and post any results here.


1. Use the following LAME compiles (last updated on 2004/04/13):
lame3.90.3
lame3.96 final

2. The focus of the test should be --alt-preset/--preset standard, since it will allow us to make conclusions regarding the overall performance of the 'code level tweaked' VBR presets. Other VBR/ABR/CBR presets are interesting too, but not as important. If problems with --alt preset standard are detected feel free to compare extreme and insane too. Test the following combinations please:

VBR/ABR
(~256kbps) 3.96 --preset extreme vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset extreme
(~210kbps) 3.96 --preset standard vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard
(~160kbps) 3.96 -V 4 vs. 3.96 --preset 160 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 160*
(~128kbps) 3.96 -V 5 vs. 3.96 --preset 128 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128*

CBR
(320kbps) 3.96 --preset insane vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset insane
3.96 --preset cbr <bitrate> vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset cbr <bitrate>

If you want, you can additionally test VBR/ABR vs. CBR at comparable bitrates

3. You may use any sample you want, as long as you upload a losslessly compressed version of that (or provide a working link), so others can verify your results. The upload thead is here. Using samples that have been used for testing 3.96beta is a good idea to show progress/regressions.

4. Your test results have to include the following:
  • ABX results for
    3.90.3 vs. Original
    3.96 vs. Original
    3.96 vs. 3.90.3
  • ABC/HR results are appreciated especially at lower bitrates, but shouldn't be considered a requirement.
  • (Short) descriptions of the artifacts/differences
Notes:

*
Since ABR presets decrease gain as workarround against audible clipping on decoding of loud tracks, please use replaygain (trackgain) for decoding to .wav / ABXing, ideally using foobar2000 (apply to the original as well to get matching volume, of course!). On quiet tracks --scale 1 can be added after --(alt-)preset <bitrate> on encoding alternatively. Details see here


There won't be a separate discussion thread for now. To make it easy to find posts containing results, please start such posts (only!) with "
RESULT". Results matching the requirements that have been posted elsewhere will be added to the "Results" post.

-----------------------------------------------
Edit 1 [2004/04/13]: typo fixed (3.96b2 -> 3.96), thanks to Lyx
Edit 2 [2004[04[14]: Replaygain/--scale related comment added. (-> "*")


This post has been edited by tigre: Apr 14 2004, 19:03


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 13 2004, 17:10
Post #2


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



Test results so far:


VBR/ABR


~ 256kbps

----------------------- 3.96 --p extreme vs. 3.90.3 --ap exteme
3.96 --p extreme > 3.90.3 --ap extreme :: drone_short :: freakngoat :: 0x verified so far
---------------------------------------------------
3.96b1 --p extreme < 3.90.3 --ap extreme :: Lazy_Jones :: owowo :: 0x verified so far

----------------------- 3.96 --p extreme vs. 3.96 -V 1
3.96 --p extreme < 3.96 -V 1 :: drone_short :: freakngoat :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*



~ 210kbps
------------- 3.96 --p standard vs. 3.90.3 --ap standard
3.96b1** --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: spahm :: Pio2001 :: 1x verified by Wombat
3.96b1** --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: Birds :: Wombat :: 0x verified so far
3.96b1** --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: hokuscaredpiano :: Moitah :: 0x verified so far
3.96b1** --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: Lazy_Jones :: owowo :: 1x verified by freakngoat
3.96 --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: fatboy :: High Fidelity :: 1x verified 2Bdecided
3.96 --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: Drone_short :: freakngoat :: 0x verified so far
3.96 --p standard > 3.90.3 --ap standard :: awe32_20sec :: 2Bdecided :: 0x verified so far
---------------------------------------------------
3.96b2 --p standard = 3.90.3 --ap standard :: 41_30sec :: ViPER1313 :: 0x verified so far
---------------------------------------------------
3.96b2 --p standard < 3.90.3 --ap standard :: myf_4sec :: LoFiYo :: 0x verified so far
3.96b2 --p standard < 3.90.3 --ap standard :: Hustlejet :: harashin :: 0x verified so far
3.96b2 --p standard < 3.90.3 --ap standard :: Chanchan1 :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96b2 --p standard < 3.90.3 --ap standard :: Hosokawa___Atem_lied :: harashin :: 0x verified so far
3.96 --p standard < 3.90.3 --ap standard :: 41_30sec :: Gecko :: 0x verified so far

--------- 3.96 --p fast standard vs. 3.90.3 --ap fast standard
3.96 --p fast standard > 3.90.3 --ap fast standard :: myf_4sec :: LoFiYo :: 0x verified so far


~ 160kbps
---------------------------------------------------
3.96b2 -V 4 < 3.90.3 --ap 160 :: myf_4sec :: LoFiYo :: 0x verified so far


~ 128kbps
-------------------- 3.96 -V 5 vs. 3.96 --p 128
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: Atrain :: ff123 :: 2x verified by tigre, [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: BachS1007 :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: FloorEssence :: ff123 :: 2x verified by tigre, [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: Layla :: ff123 :: 2x verified by tigre, [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: MidnightVoyage :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: Waiting :: ff123 :: 2x verified by [proxima], tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: Blackwater :: tigre :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 > 3.96 --p 128 :: LifeShatters :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
---------------------------------------------------
3.96 -V 5 < 3.96 --p 128 :: BeautySlept :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96 -V 5 < 3.96 --p 128 :: Blackwater :: ff123 :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 -V 5 < 3.96 --p 128 :: TheSource :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 < 3.96 --p 128 :: LisztBMinor :: tigre :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 < 3.96 --p 128 :: BachS1007 :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far

-------------------- 3.96 -V 5 vs. 3.90.3 --ap 128
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: fatboy :: FatBoyFin :: 1x verified by High Fidelity
3.96b2 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Its_me :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96b2 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: entierren con rumba :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Atrain :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: BeautySlept :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: FloorEssence :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Layla :: ff123 :: 2x verified by tigre, [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: LifeShatters :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: MidnightVoyage :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Thear1 :: ff123 :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Waiting :: ff123 :: 2x verified by [proxima], tigre
3.96 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Blackwater :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
---------------------------------------------------
3.96 -V 5 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: BachS1007 :: tigre :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Blackwater :: ff123 :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: TheSource :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 -V 5 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: LisztBMinor :: tigre :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 -V 5 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Atrain :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far
3.96 -V 5 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: FloorEssence :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far

-------------------- 3.96 --p 128 vs. 3.90.3 --ap 128
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Atrain :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: BeautySlept :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: FloorEssence :: ff123 :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Layla :: ff123 :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: LifeShatters :: ff123 :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: MidnightVoyage :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Thear1 :: ff123 :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Waiting :: ff123 :: 1x verified by tigre
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: applaud :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: campestre :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: fatboy :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Preecho1 :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
---------------------------------------------------
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Waiting :: ViPER1313 :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: BachS1007 :: tigre :: 1x verified by Atrain :: [proxima]
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: FloorEssence :: tigre :: 1x verified by Atrain :: [proxima]
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Layla :: tigre :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: LifeShatters :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: LisztBMinor :: tigre :: 1x verified by [proxima]
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Blackwater :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: ct_reference :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: fall :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: rebel :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Atrain :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far

---------- 3.96 -V 5 --athaa-sensitivity 1 vs. 3.96 -V 5
3.96 -V 5 --a-s 1 > 3.96 -V 5 :: Atrain :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 -V 5 --a-s 1 > 3.96 -V 5 :: Blackwater :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 -V 5 --a-s 1 > 3.96 -V 5 :: BachS1007 :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 -V 5 --a-s 1 > 3.96 -V 5 :: LisztBMinor :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far + missing ABX results*
3.96 -V 5 --a-s 1 > 3.96 -V 5 :: Bayle___Jeita_or_Waters___Murmur___Etching :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far
3.96 -V 5 --a-s 1 > 3.96 -V 5 :: Track01__Avison___Concerto_Grosso_30_sec :: [proxima] :: 0x verified so far



CBR


320kbps
no results so far


160kbps
no results so far


128kbps
---------------------------------------------------
3.96 --p cbr 128 < 3.90.3 --ap cbr 128 :: 41_30sec :: ViPER1313 :: 1x verified by SometimesWarrior, Brainchild4010
3.96 --p cbr 128 < 3.90.3 --ap cbr 128 :: Waiting :: ViPER1313 :: 0x verified so far
3.96 --p cbr 128 < 3.90.3 --ap cbr 128 :: Layla :: ViPER1313 :: 0x verified so far


* If a result doesn't match the minimum requirements (-> 4. in 1st post), the result is 'greyed out' until the missing data is provided or someone else confirms the results. If your result isn't included in this list at all, we're either too slow, or there's too much missing (ABX results, link to the sample, clear statment which version is better, information about lame version/setting used etc.). If you want to provide missing information, do it in a new post to ensure that we notice it.

** Results where 3.96 beta 1 --preset standard outperformed 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard were kept as the only difference between 3.96 beta1 and 3.96 final is the increased minimum bitrate, so no regression should be possible.

Results by [proxima] with past-beta-2 internal version that should give results identical with 3.96 final



------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: All results from other threads I could find that belong here are added. - Tell me, if I've missed something, please.


This post has been edited by tigre: Apr 21 2004, 15:25


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Apr 13 2004, 17:39
Post #3


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (Lyx @ Apr 13 2004, 06:19 PM)
small typo

QUOTE

4. Your test results have to include the following:
  • ABX results for
    3.90.3 vs. Original
    3.96b2 vs. Original  <--------
    3.96b2 vs. 3.90.3  <--------


  • ABC/HR results are appreciated especially at lower bitrates, but shouldn't be considered a requirement.


  • (Short) descriptions of the artifacts/differences

The latest version is 3.96, not 3.96b2.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
High Fidelity
post Apr 13 2004, 20:18
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 11-May 03
Member No.: 6548



RESULT


I did a short ABX with fatboy.wav
for preset standard and --preset 128

My results:

3.96 --preset standard vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard

3.90.3 vs. Original
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
Comment: Details and voice sounded a bit brighter (?) or more open - the original (I guess at least) softer but a bit more full

3.96 vs. Original
Total: 7/10 (17.2%)
Comment: Only minimal details in the background seemed a bit softer.
Hardly to ABX! Very good!

3.96 vs. 3.90.3
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
Comment: Soft details in the background a little bit different, but hard to ABX.


---------------------------

3.96 --preset 128 vs. 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128

3.90.3 vs. Original
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
VERY easy to distinguish metallic and distorted sound

3.96 vs. Original
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
Comment: still easy to distinguish from the original, but very much better than 3.90.3! less distorsion, sounds higher than original

3.96 vs. 3.90.3
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
Comment: 3.96 is the winner!!!

---------------


At least for fatboy.wav 3.96 is my favourite.

This post has been edited by tigre: Apr 15 2004, 23:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 08:18
Post #5


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



RESULT

My settings:

3.90.3 --alt-preset 128 --scale 1
3.96 --preset 128 --scale 1
3.96 -V 5

Using the 12 samples I used for the first 64 kbs test

CODE
               3.90.3 ap 128     3.96 p 128     3.96 V 5
Atrain          3.8               4.4            4.6
BachS1007       5                 5              5
BeautySlept     4.2               4.2            4.2
Blackwater      5                 5              4.5
FloorEssence    3.6               4.2            4.7
Layla           3.9               4.4            5
LifeShatters    4.1               4.4            4.4
liszt           4.8               4.8            4.8
MidnightVoyage  4.2               4.5            5
Thear1          4.5               5              5
TheSource       5                 5              4.5
waiting         3.9               4.3            4.8


abchr results files at http://ff123.net/export/lame3.96test.zip
No ABX, though.

CODE
3.96V5   3.96p128 3.90.3ap
 4.71     4.60     4.33  

---------------------------- p-value Matrix ---------------------------

        3.96p128 3.90.3ap
3.96V5   0.384    0.006*  
3.96p128          0.040*  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3.96V5 is better than 3.90.3ap128
3.96p128 is better than 3.90.3ap128


Looks like 3.90.3 ap 128 is the clear loser for me on these 12 samples

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 14 2004, 10:50
Post #6


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



Thanks for the results so far.

I've performed a quick wave substraction test to find out for which settings the encoding results for beta1/beta2/final are identical. Results:
QUOTE
~128kbps
ABR:
final != beta1/beta2
CBR:
final != beta1/beta2
VBR (-V 5)
final == beta2 == beta1 (bit-identical)

~160kbps
ABR:
final != beta1/beta2
CBR:
final != beta1/beta2
VBR (-V 4)
final == beta2 == beta1 (bit-identical)

preset standard
final == beta2 != beta1

preset extreme
final == beta2 == beta1 blink.gif

preset insane
final != beta1/beta2


So the results from beta test thread are still valid for
3.90.3 --alt-preset 128 vs. 3.96 -V 5 (same for ap160 vs V4, but no results submitted)
3.90.3 --alt-preset standard vs. 3.96b2 --preset standard

edit: extreme/insane results added

This post has been edited by tigre: Apr 14 2004, 13:31


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 14 2004, 14:39
Post #7


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



The results post should be up-to-date now. Only the ABC/HR test by ff123 misses because I'm not sure if/how to add those results. I'd add them greyed out until they're verified with ABX results (by someone else) and only use the results with differences in ABC/HR ratings... Or should I add ABC/HR results like these as a completely separated section to results post?

Your opinion, ff123?


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 16:51
Post #8


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (tigre @ Apr 14 2004, 05:39 AM)
The results post should be up-to-date now. Only the ABC/HR test by ff123 misses because I'm not sure if/how to add those results. I'd add them greyed out until they're verified with ABX results (by someone else) and only use the results with differences in ABC/HR ratings... Or should I add ABC/HR results like these as a completely separated section to results post?

Your opinion, ff123?

Hmm, I don't know. I guess it's up to you. I'd like to see somebody else try all of those samples as well, though.

BTW, you'll notice that I added --scale 1 to the ABR command lines. That's because they include some gain reduction in them that the VBR settings don't.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 17:15
Post #9


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



I am unable to reproduce the dropout problem in 41_30sec.wav in 3.96final using

--preset cbr 128

I have uploaded my encode to: http://ff123.net/export/41_30sec_cbr128.mp3

I can distinguish from the original, but it doesn't sound worse than plain artifacting to me.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Apr 14 2004, 17:18
Post #10


LAME developer


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



QUOTE
I am unable to reproduce the dropout problem in 41_30sec.wav in 3.96final using

--preset cbr 128


There is a problem at 7.11s
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 17:26
Post #11


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Apr 14 2004, 08:18 AM)
QUOTE
I am unable to reproduce the dropout problem in 41_30sec.wav in 3.96final using

--preset cbr 128


There is a problem at 7.11s

Are you talking about the clicking sounds? I hear them in the reference too. Did you download my encode to see if it's the same?

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 14 2004, 17:32
Post #12


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 14 2004, 05:51 PM)
BTW, you'll notice that I added --scale 1 to the ABR command lines.  That's because they include some gain reduction in them that the VBR settings don't.

I didn't notice the gain reduction until know, probably because I used foobar2000 with replaygain (track gain) enabled for decoding. Given that fb2k decodes gapless on replaygain scanning, this should be a decent sollution to avoid volume-related problems as well.

Related questions: I assume that the gain reduction of ABR presets is used to reduce problems related to clipping on decoding of loud tracks.
- Is there some other reason like a clipping problem with encoding comparable to musepack?
- Based on this: Is using --scale 1 for the test 100% save or can it cause problems?
I'd like to modify the test recommendations for ABR presets according to the answers to these questions: Recommend using replaygain for decoding (including original file) and/or using --scale 1 for ABR.


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 17:48
Post #13


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (tigre @ Apr 14 2004, 08:32 AM)
I didn't notice the gain reduction until know, probably because I used foobar2000 with replaygain (track gain) enabled for decoding. Given that fb2k decodes gapless on replaygain scanning, this should be a decent sollution to avoid volume-related problems as well.

Related questions: I assume that the gain reduction of ABR presets is used to reduce problems related to clipping on decoding of loud tracks.
- Is there some other reason like a clipping problem with encoding comparable to musepack?
- Based on this: Is using --scale 1 for the test 100% save or can it cause problems?
I'd like to modify the test recommendations for ABR presets according to the answers to these questions: Recommend using replaygain for decoding (including original file) and/or using --scale 1 for ABR.

Back when Dibrom was tuning the cbr/abr presets, he noticed a clicking problem caused by clipping at low bitrates (I think the sample was badvilbel.wav). So he put in a gain reduction which is greater at lower bitrates and progressively gets smaller as the bitrate increases.

I don't know if this problem still exists or not, but at 128 kbit/s, it was just barely audible, if I remember.

--scale 1 is better than using replaygain upon decoding because there is a resolution issue when using replaygain on mp3's.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 14 2004, 18:07
Post #14


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



Thanks for the explanation, ff123.

QUOTE
--scale 1 is better than using replaygain upon decoding because there is a resolution issue when using replaygain on mp3's.

Could you please explain? AFAIK foobar2000 decodes to 32bit float, applies DSPs (e.g. volume change) and truncates/dithers to fixedpoint (e.g. 16bit for use with ABC/HR). Maybe I've too many different things to focus on right now, but I don't see a resolution issue.

I've added your results to the post BTW. I hope this motivates people to repeat the test with these samples (-> ABX ... ).


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 18:18
Post #15


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (tigre @ Apr 14 2004, 09:07 AM)
Could you please explain? AFAIK foobar2000 decodes to 32bit float, applies DSPs (e.g. volume change) and truncates/dithers to fixedpoint (e.g. 16bit for use with ABC/HR). Maybe I've too many different things to focus on right now, but I don't see a resolution issue.

Oh, ok then. I guess I was thinking of mp3gain, which can only adjust in 0.3 dB increments. If fb2k applies replaygain subsequent to decoding, then everything is fine.

Edit:

Regarding testing of the 12 samples: I think it's more important that 1 or 2 people verify the entire suite (even if ABX results are not supplied) than it is for several people to ABX several samples out of the 12. So it would look more like the tests performed to find the best vorbis encoder. However, beggars can't be choosers, so any verification at all is welcome.

ff123

This post has been edited by ff123: Apr 14 2004, 18:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Apr 14 2004, 18:36
Post #16


LAME developer


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



QUOTE
Are you talking about the clicking sounds? I hear them in the reference too. Did you download my encode to see if it's the same?

Yes, the clicking sound.

I downloaded your encoded file, and it is the same as mine. However I have to admit that I did not checked it the click was also in the original one.
It was pointed that there was "a serious bug" in this section of the clip, with "awfull clicks". I searched for it in the encoded, but not in the original.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gecko
post Apr 14 2004, 18:53
Post #17





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



RESULT

Sample: 41_30sec.flac (Which I downloaded from here some time ago. There is the (slight?) chance it is not the same as the one others have tested here)

Time: Always from 7.9 to 9.0 seconds, focusing on the hi-hats.

Setting: --alt-preset standard

(Results are in the order of testing)

3.90.3 - 3.96 -- 11/12 + 4/4 = 15/16
3.96 more "wet" (pre-/post-echo?)

orig - 3.96 -- 15/16
3.96 less sharp. Slightly muffled perhaps

orig - 3.90.3 -- 8/8
3.90.3 stops too early or something. The original seems to reverbarate longer.

The artifact 3.90.3 produces sounds quite different than the one from 3.96. [wild speculation]Maybe aggressive anti-post-echo whatever is causing it.[/wild speculation] Personally I find 3.90.3 gives the better representation. I'd rather have something that doesn't remind me of the squishy pre-echo sound.

ABXYing was relatively hard, so I tried something new which I would like to call conscious self deception. You listen to A and B... try to pick a distinct sound of one of the samples (say, A sounds more squishy). Now play back both X/Y and try to mentally project that sound onto both samples. Try to make them sound like what you think A sounds like in your brain. More often than not, you will find this projection only works well on one of the samples. That is your hot candidate. If the projection doesn't work, you probably only picked up some placebo difference. Just try again!

Hope I'm making sense.

This post has been edited by Gecko: Apr 14 2004, 18:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 14 2004, 21:56
Post #18


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (Gecko @ Apr 14 2004, 09:53 AM)
The artifact 3.90.3 produces sounds quite different than the one from 3.96. [wild speculation]Maybe aggressive anti-post-echo whatever is causing it.[/wild speculation] Personally I find 3.90.3 gives the better representation. I'd rather have something that doesn't remind me of the squishy pre-echo sound.

None of this sounds like a bug, which is what the talk about dropouts made it sound like. From the initial description, I was expecting something bad like the old Fraunhofer mp3enc 3.1 dropouts.

At this point, I think it's just normal artifacting which would naturally tend to sound worse in cbr than it would in abr or vbr.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post Apr 15 2004, 03:44
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 19-August 02
From: Maryland
Member No.: 3109



This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Saying that there are bugs or major problems with v3.96 is most likely wrong. I stated

QUOTE (ViPER1313 @ Apr 11 2004, 12:29 PM)
Lame v3.96 final seems to have a serious problem w/ 41_30sec in the 6-8 second range using --preset cbr 128. It sounds like a dropout / skip in the sound. This problem has been seen in Mitok's compile as well as ICL v8.0 and MSVC compiles made by myself. There is no skip using v3.90.3 . Could someone confirm this??

It's very possible it's just an artifact - nowhere did I ever state that v3.96 had a major drop-out problem with many clips. I still don't know why the clip seems to pop - I don't know why the clip would do it in one spot either and not over and over again. Has anyone checked the flac file for errors? Why would the psy model mess up on the one small section of the file (no the hardest to encode by any means.)

QUOTE (Gabriel @ Apr 14 2004, 01:36 PM)
It was pointed that there was "a serious bug" in this section of the clip, with "awfull clicks". I searched for it in the encoded, but not in the original.

Nowhere did I ever state this. Also, the artifact is not in the origional from what I can hear.

QUOTE (Gabriel @ Apr 13 2004, 11:33 PM)
I can confirm that there is a failure on this sample on frame 272, 2nd granule (7.11s) when encoding in cbr 128. The output on mp3X is very strange.

What do you mean by "failure?"

I agree that warnings of bugs and problems are not really necessary, but I feel that more testing is.

This post has been edited by ViPER1313: Apr 15 2004, 03:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Apr 15 2004, 08:41
Post #20


LAME developer


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



QUOTE
What do you mean by "failure?"

I mean that the scalefactors are looking very suspicious on the second granule of frame 272. This seems strange to me.
If you are interested, you can check it with mp3x (available from Mitiok if I remember well)

I do not see a whole failure over the 41_30 clip, but at this specific point there is something strange to me.

Regarding the 41_30 clip itself, this one is unusual. It seems that there is a carrier or pilot signal around 15kHz.

QUOTE
This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Saying that there are bugs or major problems with v3.96 is most likely wrong.

I totally agree.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Apr 15 2004, 09:33
Post #21


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Apr 15 2004, 07:41 AM)
Regarding the 41_30 clip itself, this one is unusual. It seems that there is a carrier or pilot signal around 15kHz.

That's TV line whistle - you find that on lots of recordings.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 15 2004, 14:42
Post #22


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



RESULTS

Tested settings:
Lame 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
Lame 3.96 --preset 128
Lame 3.96 -V 5

Tested samples from ff123's 64kbps test:

Atrain
BachS1007
BeautySlept

All encoded files were ABXed successuflly (p < 0.01) against the original and against each other. For details (abx logs, descriptions of the audible differeces) see attatched .zip file.

Results (ABC/HR ratings):

Atrain
2.0 Lame 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
3.0 Lame 3.96 --preset 128
3.5 Lame 3.96 -V 5

BachS1007
4.0 Lame 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
3.0 Lame 3.96 --preset 128
3.3 Lame 3.96 -V 5

BeautySlept
2.0 Lame 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
3.6 Lame 3.96 --preset 128
3.2 Lame 3.96 -V 5
Attached File(s)
Attached File  ff123s_samples_part1.zip ( 3.06K ) Number of downloads: 496
 


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Apr 15 2004, 15:28
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



I'm not sure if this is off-topic, so if it is feel free to move this post out of this thread.
I found an album where both 3.96b1 and 3.96final have severe problems to encode it gaplessly, while 3.90.3 does it just fine(or with to me inaudible glitches).

Its name is "Mathias Grassow - Himavat". Its an ambient album which seems to be hard to encode because it is a very synthetic- and pure-sounding album and mostly very quiet. Mostly only drones and often only two or one of them, so there aren't many layers of sounds(i think thats important for "masking"?).

I am sorry, i cannot provide samples right now, but i will try to do that soon - but it may take up to a week because i'm currently quite busy. If this is uninteresting, then just delete this post :-)

- Lyx


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post Apr 15 2004, 15:48
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 19-August 02
From: Maryland
Member No.: 3109



RESULT

Layla test sample using v3.90.3 and v3.96 final at --preset cbr 128 . I have a cold right now and everything I hear sounds like its lowpassed, so I do not know how this effects my ratings of the two files - I am certain that the beginning of Layla using v3.96 sounds worse than v3.90.3 though....

QUOTE
ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Layla --preset cbr 128

1R = Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.90.3 --preset cbr 128.wav
2L = Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.96 --preset cbr 128.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
Focused on first two seconds (clapping) of clip
---------------------------------------
1R File: Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.90.3 --preset cbr 128.wav
1R Rating: 4.5
1R Comment: Very little distortion, very good overall
---------------------------------------
2L File: Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.96 --preset cbr 128.wav
2L Rating: 3.0
2L Comment: Heavy distortion in first two seconds of file, bad pre-echo
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.90.3 --preset cbr 128.wav
    8 out of 8, pval = 0.004
Original vs Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.96 --preset cbr 128.wav
    8 out of 8, pval = 0.004
Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.90.3 --preset cbr 128.wav vs Z:\Music\Temp\Layla v3.96 --preset cbr 128.wav
    13 out of 14, pval < 0.001
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Apr 15 2004, 16:09
Post #25


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



Lyx: Could you give some more details please?

- How do you notice that there are gap problems - Are you talking about audible glitches / clicks or have you checked file length and/or offset manually?

- What did you use for playback / decoding?


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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 - 03:04