IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
aoTuV beta 4.5 released, a new aoTuv-beta for low bitrates
fpi
post Nov 6 2005, 16:30
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 24-October 05
Member No.: 25326



QUOTE (fpi @ Nov 6 2005, 08:57 AM)
QUOTE (Aoyumi @ Nov 5 2005, 08:51 PM)
QUOTE
Any vorbis can encode at 20-25? (at 44 and stereo)

For the moment, it is impossible.


I know this is not reccomended, but with oggdropXPd (and I think also with other programs) is possible to go down to 12 Kbps @ 44.1 KHz stereo using ABR with:
Min. Bitrate = 0
Nom. Bitrate = 12
Max. Bitrate = 0

I think Min. Bitrate and Max. Bitrate = 0 means there is no limit, thus give a higer quality than CBR @ 12 Kbps.
*



Sorry, I just found that ABR @ 12 Kbps with oggdropXPd is automatically resampled to 8 KHz, while ABR @ 32 Kbps is resampled to 24 KHz.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 6 2005, 17:29
Post #27


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (Leo 69 @ Nov 5 2005, 04:10 PM)
Lets wait a bit, maybe Aoyumi will give some explanations about this version and what we should expect from it. If it is OK, it would be wonderful if john33 compiles an OggDropXPd with this thingy inside. Is it possible, John ?  rolleyes.gif
*

Generic, P3 and P4 compiles of oggdropXPd now at Rarewares. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kurtnoise
post Nov 6 2005, 20:09
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 326
Joined: 26-June 02
From: Aix-en-Provence
Member No.: 2400



Thanks John...

Could you update also libvorbis.dll with this new Aoyumi stuff ?


--------------------
http://www.unite-video.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5412 :: An overview of all lossless Audio Formats (in french language ;-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Nov 6 2005, 21:03
Post #29


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3726
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (kurtnoise @ Nov 6 2005, 07:09 PM)
Thanks John...

Could you update also libvorbis.dll with this new Aoyumi stuff ?
*

Surely, but do people want the full range of compiles, or is this considered somewhat experimental at this stage?


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moozooh
post Nov 6 2005, 21:12
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 22-September 04
From: Moscow
Member No.: 17192



I didn't test it thoroughly, but it seems to me that the most important point was to increase the effectiveness of encoder by making same samples sound the same at lower bitrate. For example, I cannot distinguish one sample @ -q2 from another, but the one created with b4.5 is smaller. That's all I can say for now.
I really think that we must gather and do a couple of short tests just to show that b4.5 is better than 1.1, and then make it the recommended version. Aoyumi's work deserves it. smile.gif


--------------------
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorsol
post Nov 6 2005, 22:10
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 7-March 05
From: Managua
Member No.: 20434



QUOTE (de Mon @ Nov 6 2005, 07:43 AM)
QUOTE (jorsol @ Nov 5 2005, 10:46 PM)
I canīt really hear the diference, is hard to say that is a big improvment, ok I only made one test (at -q 0), so I canīt really say that is not effective and I donīt have a "extreme hear" so it just only my opinion.
*
Which file was bigger? aoTuV b4 or aoTuV 4.5? May be this improvment affects size while keeping quality same?
By the way, did you use one of the famous 'hard samples' or any randomly chosen 'easy sample'?
*

Ok, the file created by 4.5 is smaller by a few kbytes, probably this is the improvment, same quality in smaller size... and not is not one of the famous hard samples, is a sample that I choose and probably an easy one...

Anyway great job Aoyumi, all Vorbis fans apreciate your hard work, I imagine that if wasnīt for you, we are still using the 1.0.1 version (or probablily 1.0.2 rolleyes.gif ) I think that the Xiph boys are busy in other things... like Theora...

This post has been edited by jorsol: Nov 6 2005, 22:12


--------------------
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Nov 6 2005, 23:04
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



Tried it on two samples - harpsicord and Prodigy "You'll Be Under My Wheels" (both of them require high bitrates with b4 q6. 1st one q6 average is 237 and second q6 average bitrate is 300!)

I tested them on -q -2, q 0, -q 1. b4 vs b4.5. I can't say I found out any difference. May be, JUST MAY BE, b 4.5 preserves high frequencies better but I can't be sure.
Also I tested each version against original file on -q 0 and -q 1. And it was slightly more difficult to ABX between b4.5 and original than b4 and original due mentioned possible better high freq preservation.

P. S. Harpsicord sample is not the sample others use. It is just from my collection.

This post has been edited by de Mon: Nov 6 2005, 23:05


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MedO
post Nov 7 2005, 00:42
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 24-August 05
Member No.: 24095



QUOTE (de Mon @ Nov 7 2005, 12:04 AM)
And it was slightly more difficult to ABX between b4.5 and original than b4 and original due mentioned possible better high freq preservation.


I tried to ABX b4 to original and b4.5 to original in a pop sample at -q0, and I think it was harder with b4.5 when concentrating on the distortions in the main voice only. However, it was still easy when listening for a different artifact (close-to-noise parts of the sound being replaced by real noise... don't know if that makes any sense to you, I just don't know the right terminology) that is present in both.

MedO
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ErikS
post Nov 7 2005, 01:11
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 8-October 01
Member No.: 247



QUOTE (MedO @ Nov 7 2005, 01:42 AM)
I tried to ABX b4 to original and b4.5 to original in a pop sample at -q0, and I think it was harder with b4.5 when concentrating on the distortions in the main voice only.
MedO
*


Just a quick question here: after comparing b4 to the original and b4.5 to the original but not b4 to b4.5, is it really correct to draw any conclusions about the quality improvements from b4 to b4.5? I would call the method above a sighted test, and would only use that when the differences are very obvious... Were there obvious differences in your files between b4 and b4.5?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Nov 7 2005, 02:27
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



QUOTE (ErikS @ Nov 6 2005, 04:11 PM)
QUOTE (MedO @ Nov 7 2005, 01:42 AM)
I tried to ABX b4 to original and b4.5 to original in a pop sample at -q0, and I think it was harder with b4.5 when concentrating on the distortions in the main voice only.
MedO
*


Just a quick question here: after comparing b4 to the original and b4.5 to the original but not b4 to b4.5, is it really correct to draw any conclusions about the quality improvements from b4 to b4.5? I would call the method above a sighted test, and would only use that when the differences are very obvious... Were there obvious differences in your files between b4 and b4.5?
*



In my test the difference was subtle. I think if we want reliable test, a listener first has to find such -q meaning (with potentially weaker encoder version) at which ABXing becomes VERY DIFFICULT. Then use the new version and encode a file which is about the same size as 1st encoding. If there are any improvements - the second encoding will not be possible to ABX. The main difficulty is an ABXer has to find a proper -q meaning for each sample. The second difficulty are improvements which affect quality at lowest bitrates and ABXing from the original becomes very easy. So maybe we should use 'very easy samples'?


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ErikS
post Nov 7 2005, 05:33
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 8-October 01
Member No.: 247



QUOTE (de Mon @ Nov 7 2005, 03:27 AM)
[...] So maybe we should use 'very easy samples'?
*


The obvious thing to do is a blind test between two encoded files, A=v4.0 and B=v4.5, which have comparable filesizes. It doesn't matter what kind of samples you use. If you can hear a difference between the two versions, then go ahead and rate which one you find more pleasing...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rt87
post Nov 7 2005, 05:52
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 28-October 03
Member No.: 9505



QUOTE (Leo 69 @ Nov 6 2005, 12:10 AM)
Lets wait a bit, maybe Aoyumi will give some explanations about this version and what we should expect from it. If it is OK, it would be wonderful if john33 compiles an OggDropXPd with this thingy inside. Is it possible, John ?  rolleyes.gif
*

And John please compile oggenc2.6 and ogg vorbis dlls using aoTuV b4.5 as well. smile.gif


--------------------
Sorry for my English.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bubka
post Nov 7 2005, 06:24
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 21-July 02
Member No.: 2692



wow, this is amazing at q0, makes me with i had an vorbis portable, i am stuck with using q25 wma...


--------------------
Chaintech AV-710
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Nov 7 2005, 14:22
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



QUOTE (ErikS @ Nov 6 2005, 08:33 PM)
The obvious thing to do is a blind test between two encoded files, A=v4.0 and B=v4.5, which have comparable filesizes. It doesn't matter what kind of samples you use. If you can hear a difference between the two versions, then go ahead and rate which one you find more pleasing...
*


As I said before the difference between b4 and b4.5 is very small and I can't decide which one is better at such a low bitrate . sad.gif
I hope others would.

This post has been edited by de Mon: Nov 7 2005, 14:38


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Leo 69
post Nov 7 2005, 15:39
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 16-May 04
From: UK - Russia
Member No.: 14117



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 6 2005, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (Leo 69 @ Nov 5 2005, 04:10 PM)
Lets wait a bit, maybe Aoyumi will give some explanations about this version and what we should expect from it. If it is OK, it would be wonderful if john33 compiles an OggDropXPd with this thingy inside. Is it possible, John ?  rolleyes.gif
*

Generic, P3 and P4 compiles of oggdropXPd now at Rarewares. smile.gif
*



Сool ! Thanks mate!

BTW Aoyumi, are you going to make tunings for high bitrate in the future versions ? Thanks for your great work.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Leo 69: Nov 7 2005, 15:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moozooh
post Nov 8 2005, 00:06
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 22-September 04
From: Moscow
Member No.: 17192



QUOTE (de Mon @ Nov 7 2005, 04:22 PM)
As I said before the difference between b4 and b4.5 is very small and I can't decide which one is better at such a low bitrate . sad.gif
*

I think the question is which one makes the file smaller. wink.gif


--------------------
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kurtnoise
post Nov 8 2005, 10:22
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 326
Joined: 26-June 02
From: Aix-en-Provence
Member No.: 2400



QUOTE (john33 @ Nov 6 2005, 09:03 PM)
Surely, but do people want the full range of compiles, or is this considered somewhat experimental at this stage?
*

well...just libvorbis.dll is enough for testing I think. Not the full range of compiles.


I asked this because I'm not able to compile myself this library (only vorbisenc/vorbisfile/vorbis in fact w/o optimizations).


--------------------
http://www.unite-video.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5412 :: An overview of all lossless Audio Formats (in french language ;-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
de Mon
post Nov 8 2005, 11:17
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 1-December 02
Member No.: 3940



QUOTE (Mo0zOoH @ Nov 7 2005, 03:06 PM)
QUOTE (de Mon @ Nov 7 2005, 04:22 PM)
As I said before the difference between b4 and b4.5 is very small and I can't decide which one is better at such a low bitrate . sad.gif
*

I think the question is which one makes the file smaller. wink.gif
*



With my samples sizes are almost identical.


--------------------
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PatchWorKs
post Nov 8 2005, 12:53
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 2-October 01
Member No.: 168



Uhm, waiting for a new Lancer !



B-1B Lancer info page

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
suur13
post Nov 8 2005, 17:54
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 29-July 05
Member No.: 23590



QUOTE (Nayru @ Nov 6 2005, 04:13 PM)
Download libogg-1.1.2.tar.gz and vorbis-tools-1.1.1.tar.gz from http://www.xiph.org/downloads/
Download libvorbis-aotuv_b4.5.tar.gz.tgz from http://www.geocities.jp/aoyoume/aotuv/
Unpack everything.
cd libogg-1.1.2
./configure
make
make install
cd ../aotuv-b4.5_20051105
chmod +x configure
chmod +x install-sh
./configure
make
make install
cd ../vorbis-tools-1.1.1
./configure
make
Run oggenc/oggenc


And when you are using oggenc from vorbis-tools 1.1.1, how does this use aotuv4.5 ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Linux Zealot Tro...
post Nov 8 2005, 18:15
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 30-September 04
Member No.: 17391



QUOTE (suur13 @ Nov 8 2005, 05:54 PM)
And when you are using oggenc from vorbis-tools 1.1.1, how does this use aotuv4.5 ?

Because oggenc uses the libvorbisenc/libvorbisfile libraries to do the encoding. So as long as you replace this library you should get the new encoding functionality.

You can also test it without installing and breaking packages:

CODE
cd aotuv-b4.5_20051105/
./configure
make
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./lib/.libs/

oggenc will now temporarily link against the new libraries and will encode with aotuv:
CODE
$>ldd /usr/bin/oggenc
    libvorbisenc.so.2 => ./lib/.libs/libvorbisenc.so.2 (0xb7eea000)
    libvorbis.so.0 => ./lib/.libs/libvorbis.so.0 (0xb7ec0000)
    libOggFLAC.so.1 => /usr/lib/libOggFLAC.so.1 (0xb7ea1000)
    libFLAC.so.6 => /usr/lib/libFLAC.so.6 (0xb7e6d000)
    libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xb7e4c000)
    libogg.so.0 => /usr/lib/libogg.so.0 (0xb7e47000)
    libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb7d1a000)
    /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7feb000)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Nov 8 2005, 22:48
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



QUOTE (Linux Zealot Troll @ Nov 8 2005, 10:15 AM)
Because oggenc uses the libvorbisenc/libvorbisfile libraries to do the encoding. So as long as you replace this library you should get the new encoding functionality.
*

yeah smile.gif it's pretty handy for packaging

from RareWares/Debian:
CODE
$ ldd /usr/bin/oggenc-aotuv
       linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
       libvorbisenc.so.2 => /usr/lib/libvorbis-aotuv/libvorbisenc.so.2 (0xb7ead000)
       libvorbis.so.0 => /usr/lib/libvorbis-aotuv/libvorbis.so.0 (0xb7e83000)
       libOggFLAC.so.1 => /usr/lib/libOggFLAC.so.1 (0xb7e59000)
       libFLAC.so.6 => /usr/lib/libFLAC.so.6 (0xb7e1c000)
       libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7df7000)
       libogg.so.0 => /usr/lib/libogg.so.0 (0xb7df1000)
       libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7cb9000)
       /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7fad000)

btw, aotuv 4.5 is at RW/Debian now


later


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alter4
post Nov 9 2005, 08:35
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 14-September 04
From: Belarus, Vitebsk
Member No.: 16992



I think aotuv beta 4.5 is safe to use.
my logic: new Aoyumi releaze is BETA 4.5, not new TEST version.
cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mekatype
post Nov 10 2005, 01:40
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 8-May 04
Member No.: 13957



So, b4.5 is supposed to perform better than b4 @ q3 and below, but what about @ q3 and better?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HotshotGG
post Nov 10 2005, 02:05
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24-March 02
From: Revere, MA
Member No.: 1607



QUOTE
So, b4.5 is supposed to perform better than b4 @ q3 and below, but what about @ q3 and better?


Sounds fine to me biggrin.gif. 4 and 5 were transparent to me long before all of the tweaking with the psychoacoustics. The only major thing that really needed to corrected was some of the noise normalization issues, which are still being addressed and have been fixed. How much better can you make it possible? Aoyumi has been at it for a while now and has done a great job.


--------------------
College student/IT Assistant
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 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: 18th April 2014 - 04:35