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: Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test (Read 276202 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #525
Quote
Quote
However, unfortunately it can't display wma bitrates correctly. For example, the about 75 kbps Satie.wma file shows up as 176 kbps.
I'm using the "Bitrate" attribute to get the bitrate and I have no idea what WMP10 uses to get the information.

Best regards,
~ Florian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=345405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, no problem. I guess we can rely on the file size and duration in seconds, right?

Bitrate = Filesize in bytes * 0.008 / Duration in seconds

Example: Thin Lizzy - Whiskey In The Jar, 342 seconds, 6.840.511, 160 kbps CBR:

6840511 * 0.008 = 54724.088
54724.088 / 342 = 160,012 kbps

Edit: I think you can use the following export that generates a decent HTML file:

Code: [Select]
$puts(counter, 0)
<html>
  <head>
    <title>Bitrate Table</title>
    <style type="text/css">
      body { background-color: #fff; color: #000; }
      th { border-bottom: 1px solid black; text-align: left; }
      .even { background-color: #ddd; }
    </style>
  </head>
  <body>
    <table width="100%%">
      <tr>
        <th>Artist</th>
        <th>Title</th>
        <th>Album</th>
        <th>File Size</th>
        <th>Duration</th>
        <th>Bitrate</th>
      </tr>
$loop(%_folderpath_rel%)
$puts(counter, $add($get(counter), 1))
      <tr$if($odd($get(counter)),, class="even")>
        <td>%artist%</td>
        <td>%title%</td>
        <td>%album%</td>
        <td>$fmtNum(%_file_size_bytes%)</td>
        <td>$fmtNum(%_length_seconds%)</td>
        <td>$mul($div($div(%_file_size_bytes%, %_length_seconds%), 1000), 8)</td>
      </tr>
$loopend()
    </table>
    <hr>
    <p>
      Total Size: $fmtNum(%_total_size_raw%)<br>
      Total Duration: $fmtNum(%_total_time_raw%)<br>
      Bitrate: $mul($div($div(%_total_size_raw%, %_total_time_raw%), 1000), 8)
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #526
I considered adding WMA Professional instead of Standard since the reported bitrate for Q50 (which is pure VBR) was around 134 kbps. However, according to my tests, it's 154 kbps: http://www.maresweb.de/bitrate.htm

Damn, forget about that. I used Q75. I will re-encode the files. Sorry!

 

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #527
Quote
I'm ok with either Shine or Blade.  Blade does have an additional advantage of being used in a previous test.

ff123
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345296"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks. If we have two options, and one is even slightly better, why not use that one? We do want to get the maximum out of this test, don't we?

Quote
I don't know if WMP uses quality based VBR or bitrate based VBR (yes, call me clueless regarding this since I never used WMP for ripping).
If it's bitrate based, it's doing a two-pass encoding, if it's quality based, the bitrate is either too low (Q50) or too high (Q75).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345373"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WMP doesn't offer the 2-pass mode. That's why I already said that it's similar to WMA Pro in that regard. It has very low real world usage value.

A few more things.

You should try encoding the samples with VBR50. If the bitrate is close to 128kbps or above, we could use those instead of the 2-pass encodes. I think this would be preferable to that damn 2-pass mode.

And for the bitrate tables you can use Mr QuestionMan. It should report correct bitrates for all formats and if you need a different export function, I can quickly add it.

Edit: Oh, and I think we agreed that it's useless to test WMA Pro. If we can't test WMA properly, we should just drop it. We know anyway that it certainly won't win the test...

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #528
Quote
Edit: Oh, and I think we agreed that it's useless to test WMA Pro. If we can't test WMA properly, we should just drop it. We know anyway that it certainly won't win the test...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345495"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, what can we do if WMA Standard is boyloving? I'd prefer testing WMA Pro over MusePack or ATRAC if we can't test Standard.

Edit: I am currently encoding my collection to Standard Q50 and Q75 and Professional to Q50. Whatever comes close to 128 kbps (+/- 10%; 12 kbps) is going to be an option.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #529
Quote
Quote
Edit: Oh, and I think we agreed that it's useless to test WMA Pro. If we can't test WMA properly, we should just drop it. We know anyway that it certainly won't win the test...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345495"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, what can we do if WMA Standard is boyloving? I'd prefer testing WMA Pro over MusePack or ATRAC if we can't test Standard.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345497"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We just drop it. One less contender would just make the test easier. The test will be HARD enough anyway.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #530
One thing to watch out for when comparing WMA bitrates: MS have a habit of considering 1024 bits = 1 Kb, and not 1000 bits = 1 Kb.  This is why some non-MS tools show WMA 2-pass files as 131 Kb/s, but the MS tools show the same files as 128 Kb/s (128 * 1.024 = 131).

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #531
Quote
Quote
I'm ok with either Shine or Blade.  Blade does have an additional advantage of being used in a previous test.

ff123
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345296"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks. If we have two options, and one is even slightly better, why not use that one? We do want to get the maximum out of this test, don't we?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345495"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you trolling, or do you have problems to understand what an anchor is?. We're not looking for the "maximum" for a low anchor, but for the competitors themselves. An anchor is not a competitor. There's not point to try to optimize the low anchor quality; otherwise it wouldn't be an anchor anymore. We simply looking for something bad, really bad.

Quote
WMP doesn't offer the 2-pass mode. That's why I already said that it's similar to WMA Pro in that regard. It has very low real world usage value.

Do you read what people are saying? THE PURPOSE OF THE TEST IS NOT TO TEST WHAT POPULAR TOOLS ARE OFFERING. Otherwise, bye bye aoTuV, bye bye LAME beta. How many time must we repeat this, especially to a moderator!

Quote
And for the bitrate tables you can use Mr QuestionMan. It should report correct bitrates for all formats and if you need a different export function, I can quickly add it.

WMA and WMAPro bitrate estimation are wrong with MQM in some cases.


Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #533
Quote
We're not looking for the "maximum" for a low anchor, but for the competitors themselves. An anchor is not a competitor. There's not point to try to optimize the low anchor quality; otherwise it wouldn't be an anchor anymore. We simply looking for something bad, really bad.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uhm, for me an anchor implies not only something that should be a reference in the current test, but also something that should anchor the test in respect to other tests. That way one could look at two different tests performed at different times, with different competitors and by different people and get an idea about how the codecs compare to each other over the two tests, since the anchor is the same and should recieve comparable score in both tests.

Do the ITU papers on listening tests mention anything about the use of anchors?

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #534
Quote
Quote
Quote
I'm ok with either Shine or Blade.  Blade does have an additional advantage of being used in a previous test.

ff123
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345296"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks. If we have two options, and one is even slightly better, why not use that one? We do want to get the maximum out of this test, don't we?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345495"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you trolling, or do you have problems to understand what an anchor is?. We're not looking for the "maximum" for a low anchor, but for the competitors themselves. An anchor is not a competitor. There's not point to try to optimize the low anchor quality; otherwise it wouldn't be an anchor anymore. We simply looking for something bad, really bad.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you dense, or do you have a problem understanding that I want to make the test as efficient as possible? If we can use the same anchor as in a previous test and that will give us great comparison value, why not make use of it? This test will be VERY demanding, so we should try to get the most out of it. What's there hard to understand? I very well understand that it has to be bad, don't try to twist my words. It's a minor issue, I agree, but I'm a perfectionist and I try to do everything as good as possible.


Quote
Quote
WMP doesn't offer the 2-pass mode. That's why I already said that it's similar to WMA Pro in that regard. It has very low real world usage value.

Do you read what people are saying? THE PURPOSE OF THE TEST IS NOT TO TEST WHAT POPULAR TOOLS ARE OFFERING. Otherwise, bye bye aoTuV, bye bye LAME beta. How many time must we repeat this, especially to a moderator!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How is that the same? LAME beta is just a progression of LAME. It's what everybody uses and even more people will use in the future. The same with aoTuV.

And wtf has my moderator status to do with it? Please go read TOS #1 again.

Quote
Quote
And for the bitrate tables you can use Mr QuestionMan. It should report correct bitrates for all formats and if you need a different export function, I can quickly add it.

WMA and WMAPro bitrate estimation are wrong with MQM in some cases.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fixed this, and will include it in the new version. Sidenote: WMA is very #@%^^*%&.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #535
Quote
Quote
Quote
WMP doesn't offer the 2-pass mode. That's why I already said that it's similar to WMA Pro in that regard. It has very low real world usage value.

Do you read what people are saying? THE PURPOSE OF THE TEST IS NOT TO TEST WHAT POPULAR TOOLS ARE OFFERING. Otherwise, bye bye aoTuV, bye bye LAME beta. How many time must we repeat this, especially to a moderator!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How is that the same? LAME beta is just a progression of LAME. It's what everybody uses and even more people will use in the future. The same with aoTuV.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345514"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think what Guru meant is that MMJB, iTunes, etc. are more popular rippers and encoders and we are not using them because of that.

Quote
WMA is very #@%^^*%&.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345514"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


At least one thing we have in common.

Edit: BTW, what's wrong with using MP3Tag for the conversion if I rely on duration and file size?


Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #537
Quote
I think what Guru meant is that MMJB, iTunes, etc. are more popular rippers and encoders and we are not using them because of that.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345515"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, Guru is specifically refering to the LAME beta and Aoyumi's version of Vorbis. Eg, non final versions.

Quote
Edit: BTW, what's wrong with using MP3Tag for the conversion if I rely on duration and file size?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345515"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that's the best solution with WMA. I don't think there is a single software out there apart from latest WMP that reports bitrates correctly all the time for WMA files.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #538
Quote
Quote
I think what Guru meant is that MMJB, iTunes, etc. are more popular rippers and encoders and we are not using them because of that.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345515"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, Guru is specifically refering to the LAME beta and Aoyumi's version of Vorbis. Eg, non final versions.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345518"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Really, I think he was referring to popular tools. You were saying that WMA 2-pass VBR is useless to test since nobody uses it in real world and that we should test what WMP offers. Therefore, since LAME beta and AoTuV are not really included in popular tools (again, MMJB, iTunes, etc.), we shouldn't test them because they are meaningless too.

Quote
Quote
Edit: BTW, what's wrong with using MP3Tag for the conversion if I rely on duration and file size?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345515"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that's the best solution with WMA. I don't think there is a single software out there apart from latest WMP that reports bitrates correctly all the time for WMA files.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345518"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Excellent.
At this time, I would like to thank Florian for this great tool.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #539
Quote
fb2k just encoded 48/318 files and the average bitrate of WMA Standard at Q50 is 104 kbps. Should I let it finish or is it enough to see that Q50 is too low?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345517"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try to encode the samples only. As I said, if they reach 128ish bitrates, I think they should be prefered instead of the 2-pass encodes.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #540
Quote
fb2k just encoded 48/318 files and the average bitrate of WMA Standard at Q50 is 104 kbps. Should I let it finish or is it enough to see that Q50 is too low?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345517"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


36 songs later and we're still averaging 104 kbps.

I will check Q75 when I get back from the graveyard.

Regarding the samples, that question is still open since we didn't decide on the samples, yet. Again, does anyone have some samples which he or she thinks that should be tested? If not, I will use 8 posted from the 64 kbps test and 12 from Roberto's test.


Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #542
Quote
We just drop it. One less contender would just make the test easier. The test will be HARD enough anyway.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I propose a third option if 128K 2-pass WMA ends up being dropped because of an inability to legally attain full songs.

Instead of using Shine or Blade as an MP3 low anchor, use 64K CBR WMA standard for the anchor.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #543
I would like to cast a vote to include wma@q50 anyway...with the understanding that:

1) it comes out on top in the test: wma truly is a superior audio codec since it performs as well as another codec while using a lower bitrate.
2) it comes out on bottom in the test: we can draw no conclusion since the bitrate was much lower.

After all, outcome (1) is the claim made by microsoft.

for wma q75 the inverse would be true, but it would be too difficult to test.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #544
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
I'm ok with either Shine or Blade.  Blade does have an additional advantage of being used in a previous test.

ff123
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345296"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks. If we have two options, and one is even slightly better, why not use that one? We do want to get the maximum out of this test, don't we?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345495"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you trolling, or do you have problems to understand what an anchor is?. We're not looking for the "maximum" for a low anchor, but for the competitors themselves. An anchor is not a competitor. There's not point to try to optimize the low anchor quality; otherwise it wouldn't be an anchor anymore. We simply looking for something bad, really bad.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you dense, or do you have a problem understanding that I want to make the test as efficient as possible? If we can use the same anchor as in a previous test and that will give us great comparison value, why not make use of it? (...) but I'm a perfectionist and I try to do everything as good as possible.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345514"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The debate about the anchor is one week old. You didn't proposed BLADE, but HE-AAC. There's nothing wrong about using Blade instead of Shine, but there's a problem with restarting a debate that is supposed to be over. Moreover, Blade wasn't used last year, but two years ago, with a completely different set of sample. For that simple reason, Blade can't be safely considered as "a great comparison value".


Quote
How is that the same? LAME beta is just a progression of LAME.

It's a matter of coherence. You can't say on one side "don't use 2-pass because it's not available with the dominant software" and use on the other side encoders such as aoTuV or LAME beta which are not available with dominant softwares. WMP doesn't offer 2-pass encoding, but WMP, iTunes, MMJB, Nero... don't offer 3.97 beta and aoTuV beta 4.51. If we allow LAME and Vorbis to compete with non-popular tools, there's no reason to refuse this right to WMA.

Quote
It's what everybody uses and even more people will use in the future. The same with aoTuV.
Everybody can use 2-pass encoding with adequate tools (DbPowerAmp, CLI encoders).

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #545
Actually, thinking about it WMA Q50 is really useless for this test. Not only are the bitrates too low, the quality is awful too, as my test shows.

And damn, I just noticed that the bitrates are wrong there too. #@%$& piece of WMA crap...

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #546
Quote
Quote
fb2k just encoded 48/318 files and the average bitrate of WMA Standard at Q50 is 104 kbps. Should I let it finish or is it enough to see that Q50 is too low?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345517"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


36 songs later and we're still averaging 104 kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345521"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fear that you're loosing your time. Two persons have already noted that WMA VBR50 produce too low bitrate, and that VBR 75 produce a too high one. VBR 50/75 are not corresponding to our current needs (~130 kbps). VBR 2-pass would be nice as replacement setting, but our problem is now logistic (collecting tracks, cutting them accurately, etc...). Then you have WMA CBR 128, with all possible reproachs of people which are going to blame your test (and yourself) for having deliberately handicap WMA just to see the other win the test.

If I was at your place, I'd simply forget WMA. I agree since the beginning with Gambit that 4 competitors may be enough. But you can also replace it by another VBR competitor, such as MPC or WMAPro if this latter offer a VBR mode suitable for our needs.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #547
Quote
WMP doesn't offer 2-pass encoding, but WMP, iTunes, MMJB, Nero... don't offer 3.97 beta and aoTuV beta 4.51. If we allow LAME and Vorbis to compete with non-popular tools, there's no reason to refuse this right to WMA.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345526"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still don't think it's the same. I don't know, can anybody else state their opinion?

Plus, most people that use WMP rip to WMA, iTunes to AAC, Nero offers LAME, dunno about MMJB.

Quote
Everybody can use 2-pass encoding with adequate tools (DbPowerAmp, CLI encoders).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345526"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true. But it's also true that nobody will.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #548
Quote
Plus, most people that use WMP rip to WMA, iTunes to AAC, Nero offers LAME, dunno about MMJB.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

iTunes is also suitable for MP3 encoding, and the popularity of iTunes encourage me to think that many many people are using it for MP3 ripping.
Nero Digital use LAME, but I don't think that LAME beta is currently provided.
Winamp also use LAME, but you can see in the changelog that they're explicitely waiting for the next stable version to leave the 3.96 engine ([a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38089&hl=winamp]source[/url]).
MMJB and WMP are using Fraunhofer engine.

For aoTuV beta 4.51 (and all other beta), there's only OggDropXPd (and maybe some others). The most popular Vorbis tools are sticking with official encoders.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #549
My opinion:

Please include WMA; just use 2-pass separately on each sample (unless someone provides evidence that CBR will provide better performance). Yes this isn't entirely fair and there will be zealots who will complain, but smart people will be able to interpret the results in a sensible manner. Useful information about the performance of WMA can still be obtained from comparing 2-pass WMA to pure VBR from other encoders.

MP3, AAC, Vorbis, and WMA are the ideal formats for this test and not including one of them would be a poor decision. Just make sure your analysis explains why using 2-pass VBR was not ideal, and mention the samples where it might have hurt/helped WMA.