IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Request for test: Lame cbr 128
Gabriel
post Apr 25 2004, 13:56
Post #1


LAME developer


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



I have uploaded 3 test versions on gabriel.mp3-tech.org/lame: lameX, lameZ and lame3.

It would be helpfull if those sensitive to high freq problems with 3.96 preset cbr 128 could give me some indications regarding those 3 test versions: do they improve situation against 3.96 when encoding in 128kbps cbr?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Apr 25 2004, 14:41
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



Do you want us to compare the three versions to vanilla 3.96 (like the one on your site one?) or is it already included?


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Apr 25 2004, 18:42
Post #3


LAME developer


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



No, 3.96 is not included in the 3 test versions
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post May 25 2004, 18:01
Post #4


LAME developer


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



Now that Roberto's test is over, I will perhaps receive results on this test?

Right now I've got 0 answer in 1 month.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Jun 15 2004, 19:08
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



Sorry for the delay. I did a quick test on giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.flac, which is an obvious problem for lame at this bitrate.

CODE
ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: lame 128kbps cbr giveuptheghost-sincealways

1L = dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3_96.wav
2L = dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.X.wav
3R = dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3.wav
4R = dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.Z.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
weird mix of pre-echo(?) and rining during the first 10 seconds
---------------------------------------
1L File: dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3_96.wav
1L Rating: 2.5
1L Comment: heavy pre-echo
---------------------------------------
2L File: dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.X.wav
2L Rating: 3.5
2L Comment: hihat rings but is the clearerst of the 4
least pre-echo
---------------------------------------
3R File: dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3.wav
3R Rating: 3.0
3R Comment: Obvious 'clicks' within the first seconds
---------------------------------------
4R File: dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.Z.wav
4R Rating: 3.0
4R Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3_96.wav vs dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.X.wav
   9 out of 10, pval = 0.011
dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.X.wav vs dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3.wav
   8 out of 9, pval = 0.020
dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.3.wav vs dec\giveuptheghost-sincealways.sample18sec.Z.wav
   9 out of 10, pval = 0.011


The score of 3R should have been lower (around 2.7) due to the very annoying clipping it produces. I'll try to verify these results tomorrow and find more problem samples.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post Jun 16 2004, 03:09
Post #6





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



Edit - Clip used was 41_30sec.wav

LameX / LameZ are the winners of this test, stock 3.96 worst overall.

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

1R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameZ.wav
2R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\lame3.wav
3R = Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.96 Stock.wav
4L = Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameX.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
2 and 3 "skip" at around the 7 second mark while 1 and 4 do not, 2 and 3 also seem to have more warble than 1 and 4. Tested mainly in the 1-3 second range (click was not used to ABX files.)
---------------------------------------
1R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameZ.wav
1R Rating: 4.3
1R Comment: Slight loss of clarity, no real glaring issues, little bright and no pop at 7 seconds - cant ABX vs. 4.
---------------------------------------
2R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\lame3.wav
2R Rating: 3.5
2R Comment: Warbles, skips, bad overall
---------------------------------------
3R File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.96 Stock.wav
3R Rating: 3.0
3R Comment: Warbles like 2, skips, and the tamberines sound extremely harsh compared to the origional and the other samples (evident in 1-2 second range)
---------------------------------------
4L File: Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameX.wav
4L Rating: 4.3
4L Comment: 1 and 4 sound closest to the origional, no pops / clicks, very slight loss of clarity, slight under water sound (evident in all 128kbps recordings)
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameZ.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\lame3.wav
10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameZ.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.96 Stock.wav
10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameZ.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameX.wav
1 out of 2, pval = 0.750
Z:\Music\Test Samples\lame3.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.96 Stock.wav
10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\lame3.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameX.wav
10 out of 10, pval < 0.001
Z:\Music\Test Samples\3.96 Stock.wav vs Z:\Music\Test Samples\lameX.wav
10 out of 10, pval < 0.001

This post has been edited by ViPER1313: Jun 17 2004, 01:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Jun 16 2004, 20:13
Post #7





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



What sample did you use?

Please people, help testing. Even if it's just one sample. It doesn't take long.
This is not the HA.org community I used to like/admire so much.


--------------------
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
auldyin
post Jun 16 2004, 21:06
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 250
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 48



Would love to help out but my ears, which have been stuck on the side of my head (one on either side), for over 60 years are absolutely gubbed!!

Sorry...................., I can't hear you (echo, echo, echo)


auldyin
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ViPER1313
post Jun 17 2004, 01:50
Post #9





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



QUOTE (dev0 @ Jun 16 2004, 03:13 PM)
What sample did you use?

Please people, help testing. Even if it's just one sample. It doesn't take long.
This is not the HA.org community I used to like/admire so much.

Bah - it was late - my old favorite 41_30sec.wav dry.gif .
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jun 17 2004, 09:04
Post #10


LAME developer


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



Thank you for your help.
I think that I now have enough information to know in wich direction I should dig up.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[proxima]
post Jun 17 2004, 11:42
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 12-October 02
From: Italy
Member No.: 3537



With rebel.wav and applaud.wav samples, lameX is the best according to my tastes. LameZ is the worst.

This post has been edited by [proxima]: Jun 17 2004, 11:44


--------------------
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jun 20 2004, 13:10
Post #12


LAME developer


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



I uploaded 2 new test versions on http://gabriel.mp3-tech.org/lame
lameZs and lameX0. It would be helpfull if you could compare them using cbr 128kbps against 3.96.

No need for extensive tests, just quick tests are enough.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[proxima]
post Jun 20 2004, 14:54
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 12-October 02
From: Italy
Member No.: 3537



A quick test with LisztBMinor.wav and Atom_heart_mother.wav denotes no progression with both versions against v3.96. Ringing/HF issue is always present.
Difficult to say which one is better, all the three are annoying.


--------------------
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jun 20 2004, 15:24
Post #14


LAME developer


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



Thank you. No need for further testing with those ones
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jun 20 2004, 15:39
Post #15


LAME developer


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



Once again, new test versions:
lamel159
lameX99
lameZl

Same thing: just a quick test would be fine
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[proxima]
post Jun 21 2004, 00:11
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 12-October 02
From: Italy
Member No.: 3537



Unfortunately all the three new experimental versions are not better than 3.96 stable, the samples tested are the same as above. As before, ranking is very difficult.

This post has been edited by [proxima]: Jun 21 2004, 00:12


--------------------
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jun 24 2004, 20:27
Post #17


LAME developer


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



I uploaded new test versions:
lameX1
lame_over1
lame_under1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wabbit
post Jun 24 2004, 20:54
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 9-January 04
Member No.: 11073



1. X1
2. under1
3. 3.96
4. over1
5. 3.90.3

Just a quick 2 minutes test with my favourite sample (from Nightwish - Over the Hills and Far Away).


[Edit]
Amnesia:
1. 3.90.3
2. 3.96
3. X1
4. under1
5. over1 (very bad quality)

[Edit again]
After a small pause, I tried to ABX X1, under1 and 3.96 with the first sample. Failed. smile.gif
The differences are very small, almost zero. Only over1 is clearly worse.

This post has been edited by wabbit: Jun 24 2004, 21:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atlantis
post Jun 24 2004, 22:13
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 250
Joined: 27-December 02
From: ROMA, Italy
Member No.: 4269



Test 1 (almeno_stavolta.wav)
CODE
ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: gab

1L = E:\Download\test\x1.wav
2L = E:\Download\test\over1.wav
3R = E:\Download\test\under1.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1L File: E:\Download\test\x1.wav
1L Rating: 3.2
1L Comment:
---------------------------------------
2L File: E:\Download\test\over1.wav
2L Rating: 2.8
2L Comment:
---------------------------------------
3R File: E:\Download\test\under1.wav
3R Rating: 4.5
3R Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:


Test 2 (korn)
CODE
ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: gab1

1L = E:\Download\test\under1.wav
2R = E:\Download\test\x1.wav
3L = E:\Download\test\over1.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1L File: E:\Download\test\under1.wav
1L Rating: 4.1
1L Comment:
---------------------------------------
2R File: E:\Download\test\x1.wav
2R Rating: 3.6
2R Comment:
---------------------------------------
3L File: E:\Download\test\over1.wav
3L Rating: 4.8
3L Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:


Best performer seems under1, then over1, then x1.
On a quick test 3.96 is slightly above x1


--------------------
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jun 25 2004, 11:31
Post #20


LAME developer


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



Are you sensitive to high frequency distortions as featured in 3.96?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atlantis
post Jun 25 2004, 14:25
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 250
Joined: 27-December 02
From: ROMA, Italy
Member No.: 4269



I've tested the 3 versions (under1, over1, x1) and only did a quick comparison with 3.96, cause lack of time.
On the first sample I've abx'd (almeno_stavolta.wav, which I'll upload later) distorsions where easy to pick (both in x1 and 3.96), not so easy with under1, on the second one distortions were much more harder to find.

But, in order to provide more helpful results, I'll test them against 3.96 this weekend.


--------------------
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[proxima]
post Jul 7 2004, 13:43
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 12-October 02
From: Italy
Member No.: 3537



lameX1, lame_over1 and lame_under1 with Atom_hearth_mother.wav sample has still Ringing/HF issue. Difficult to say which one is better. I tested only this sample but i firmly believe that the problem is easy detectable even with others.
Unfortunately this problem seems to be very difficult to resolve sad.gif


--------------------
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jul 7 2004, 14:11
Post #23


LAME developer


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



QUOTE
Unfortunately this problem seems to be very difficult to resolve

I am starting to think that perhaps what you are hearing could be different from the problem reported by viper.

About the high frequency problem, could it also be in 3.95?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[proxima]
post Jul 7 2004, 14:31
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 12-October 02
From: Italy
Member No.: 3537



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jul 7 2004, 02:11 PM)
I am starting to think that perhaps what you are hearing could be different from the problem reported by viper.

HF problem i'm referring to is the same i noticed with VBR (mostly resolved with --athaa-sensitivity 1). All experimental versions you have provided are affected by this problem. Regarding CBR, during 3.96 beta development you changed quantization selection mode and sfscale for ABR/CBR up to 160kbps because of slight improvement of this damned hf issue (i remember some tests i've done). The problem with 3.96 stable was slightly reduced but is still very annoying for me.
QUOTE
About the high frequency problem, could it also be in 3.95?

Yes, --preset cbr 128 with LAME 3.95.1 is affected too. If necessary (let me know) in these days i will look for the first past version where the problem occurs.

This post has been edited by [proxima]: Jul 7 2004, 14:38


--------------------
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Jul 7 2004, 17:21
Post #25


LAME developer


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



Ok, it seems that I mixed 2 problems:
*high frequency problem
*"skipping"
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: 17th April 2014 - 11:18