IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples, AAC (iTunes, Nero) - MP3 - Vorbis aoTuV
pepoluan
post Jan 22 2006, 18:48
Post #126





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (evereux @ Jan 23 2006, 12:37 AM)
Check the date of the original posts?
*
That might do it... however I think it is better for guru to edit his posting above for posterity...


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 23 2006, 08:49
Post #127





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (eltoder @ Jan 21 2006, 11:40 AM)
Fantastic job, guru. Don't you have some kind of HA award yet? smile.gif

QUOTE
The good surprise comes from LAME MP3, which get the best mark (3,95)

Am I missing something, or plot says that it's Vorbis who get 3,95 and LAME get 3,94?
*


Youp...
Gecko already noticed it... I finally changed the plot, but I can't currently upload it (my new ftp needs a provider access IP to access to the ftp). This week end smile.gif

pepoluan> I publish tests few hours or days after I finish them. Evereux's advice is fine wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 24 2006, 13:00
Post #128





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



About half have been integrated here.

Please check it up I'm sure there are mistakes. I have a terrible headache and can't really concentrate.

Will try to finish it up tomorrow.


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Jan 24 2006, 13:06
Post #129





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 24 2006, 02:00 PM)
About half have been integrated here.

Please check it up I'm sure there are mistakes. I have a terrible headache and can't really concentrate.

Will try to finish it up tomorrow.
*

great thingie this page! thx a lot! smile.gif


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 26 2006, 13:47
Post #130





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Dang. Those tables make me dizzy.

All guru's tests, I think, have been listed in this HA Wiki page.

I am darned sure there are mistakes. For instance, I'm not sure of the links. But I have no time today, so please check the page out and tell me what's the mistakes. Or fix it yourself if possible laugh.gif

Oh and please forgive the coloring. It's not yet finished. Still an "alpha version" page laugh.gif will "go beta" if you guys tell me where the bugs are...

Hmmm.... just one drawback here... nearly all tests are guru's... where are the others...

This post has been edited by pepoluan: Jan 26 2006, 13:48


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 26 2006, 18:40
Post #131





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Uhh, guru, I noticed your lossless test is no longer accessible...

So I haven't put that in the listening tests page.


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 28 2006, 07:35
Post #132





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 26 2006, 06:40 PM)
Uhh, guru, I noticed your lossless test is no longer accessible...

So I haven't put that in the listening tests page.
*

http://guruboolez.free.fr/lossless/

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
=trott=
post Jan 28 2006, 09:25
Post #133





Group: Members
Posts: 117
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 14513



QUOTE (smz @ Nov 19 2005, 02:33 PM)
My interpretation is that iTunes @ ~130 Kb/s comes super close to LAME @ ~196 Kb/s (the "high anchor", LAME 3.97 beta 1 –V2 --vbr new) and is definitely better than LAME @ ~130 Kb/s.
*


...which just goes to show that statistics can prove anything. In sebastian's multiformat test mp3 and in fact all other contenders were statistically tied. (possibly making an exception to vorbis aotuv). This also holds true for this test, I believe. (excepting the one classical test...)

I'd rather say that itunes 130 comes super close to lame 196 while still not being all that much better than lame 140.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 28 2006, 09:33
Post #134





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (=trott= @ Jan 28 2006, 09:25 AM)
QUOTE (smz @ Nov 19 2005, 02:33 PM)
My interpretation is that iTunes @ ~130 Kb/s comes super close to LAME @ ~196 Kb/s (the "high anchor", LAME 3.97 beta 1 –V2 --vbr new) and is definitely better than LAME @ ~130 Kb/s.
*


In sebastian's multiformat test mp3 and in fact all other contenders were statistically tied. (possibly making an exception to vorbis aotuv). This also holds true for this test, I believe. (excepting the one classical test...)
*


Not exactly. There's a clear hierarchy for both tests:

NON-CLASSICAL (50 samples)
1. high anchor
2. iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV
4. LAME MP3 and Nero Digital AAC

CLASSICAL (150 samples)

1. high anchor
2. iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV
4. LAME MP3
5. Nero Digital AAC

Most tested contenders are not statistically tied smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
=trott=
post Jan 28 2006, 09:50
Post #135





Group: Members
Posts: 117
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 14513



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 28 2006, 12:33 AM)
Not exactly. There's a clear hierarchy for both tests:

NON-CLASSICAL (50 samples)
1. high anchor
2. iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV
4. LAME MP3 and Nero Digital AAC

CLASSICAL (150 samples)

1. high anchor
2. iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV
4. LAME MP3
5. Nero Digital AAC

Most tested contenders are not statistically tied smile.gif
*


I must have misunderstood something about sebastian's test then...excepting the low anchor there of course, can they not be considered as tied? I see the (relatively small) difference in this test, but in sebastian's I...cannot smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 28 2006, 10:13
Post #136





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 28 2006, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 26 2006, 06:40 PM)
Uhh, guru, I noticed your lossless test is no longer accessible...

So I haven't put that in the listening tests page.
*
http://guruboolez.free.fr/lossless/

wink.gif
*
Ahh, merci beaucoup!

I've put that in the listening tests page, External Tests section.

BTW, the listening tests page has "gone beta"! Yay! Feel free to check it out.

Side note: blink.gif FLAC lost by a wide margin?? Gee I really must check out LA...


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 28 2006, 10:14
Post #137





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (=trott= @ Jan 28 2006, 09:50 AM)
I must have misunderstood something about sebastian's test then.
*


QUOTE (=trott= @ Jan 28 2006, 09:25 AM)
This also holds true for this [i.e. guruboolez's one] test, I believe. (excepting the one classical test...)
*


My comment was about the last sentence. All contenders are indeed tied for Sebastian's tests, but not for mine smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 28 2006, 10:16
Post #138





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 28 2006, 10:13 AM)
Side note: blink.gif FLAC lost by a wide margin?? Gee I really must check out LA...
*

Off-topic: there are no looser or winner with a lossless comparison. FLAC is also close to top for decoding speed.

EDIT: you should rather link the WIKI lossless page which offers several links for different lossless comparison. Mine is included smile.gif

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Jan 28 2006, 10:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 28 2006, 10:50
Post #139





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 28 2006, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 28 2006, 10:13 AM)
Side note: blink.gif FLAC lost by a wide margin?? Gee I really must check out LA...
*
Off-topic: there are no looser or winner with a lossless comparison. FLAC is also close to top for decoding speed.

EDIT: you should rather link the WIKI lossless page which offers several links for different lossless comparison. Mine is included smile.gif
*
Uhh... stupid me... I just realized... it is a Listening Test... lossless tests surely do not belong here... huh.gif

I've removed the link to guru's lossless test site.

By "lost", I mean that FLAC's compression is ... how I put it? not that good ... tongue.gif


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Jan 28 2006, 23:37
Post #140





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 28 2006, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 28 2006, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 28 2006, 10:13 AM)
Side note: blink.gif FLAC lost by a wide margin?? Gee I really must check out LA...
*
Off-topic: there are no looser or winner with a lossless comparison. FLAC is also close to top for decoding speed.

EDIT: you should rather link the WIKI lossless page which offers several links for different lossless comparison. Mine is included smile.gif
*
Uhh... stupid me... I just realized... it is a Listening Test... lossless tests surely do not belong here... huh.gif

I've removed the link to guru's lossless test site.

By "lost", I mean that FLAC's compression is ... how I put it? not that good ... tongue.gif
*


Yes, but it has wider support than LA, encodes/decodes faster and has error correction.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 29 2006, 02:24
Post #141


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 28 2006, 07:13 AM)
I've put that in the listening tests page, External Tests section.

BTW, the listening tests page has "gone beta"! Yay! Feel free to check it out.
*


Jesus, dude, you didn't link to ff123's test. It's like, all heresies rolled into one - he is pretty much the man behind this whole mess, for starters smile.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 29 2006, 07:14
Post #142





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 29 2006, 08:24 AM)
QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 28 2006, 07:13 AM)
I've put that in the listening tests page, External Tests section.

BTW, the listening tests page has "gone beta"! Yay! Feel free to check it out.
*

Jesus, dude, you didn't link to ff123's test. It's like, all heresies rolled into one - he is pretty much the man behind this whole mess, for starters smile.gif
*
blink.gif Uh... URL please? I promise it will be put in the next revision...

*hit head with a sandbag* huh.gif stupid me...

EDIT:

Uhh... /me = stupid^2 ... what's Google for blink.gif but I see rjamorim has beaten me to it crying.gif ...

Well I did add a link to ff123's artifact training page near the top... hope I can atone for my sin this way tongue.gif

This post has been edited by pepoluan: Jan 29 2006, 07:30


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bodhi
post May 25 2007, 16:14
Post #143





Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 10-June 06
Member No.: 31712



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Nov 15 2005, 10:15) *
Few words to conclude the test…
It’s pretty clear that all encoders tested here correspond to a good or even a very good output quality. There are currently no winner between AAC (iTunes) and Vorbis. It’s funny to see that results are pretty close on the finish line when problems are so different. Encodings are not fully transparent, but quality is in my opinion excellent most often (but not always).
LAME offers to MP3 the chance to stay competitive against AAC and Vorbis. Not fully competitive, but the efficiency of this format forces the respect.
Nero Digital implementation of AAC is slightly disappointing, especially with classical music, which is still a weak point of this encoder. But the quality is far from disaster (it wasn’t the case two years ago), is on average really good, gets even better with “non-classical” music and should satisfy several users.
Last but not least, difference among all these encoders is really small (don't look too much on "zoomed" plots smile.gif )

But the average mark is somewhat misleading. LAME quality is ~0.5 point lower to iTunes or Vorbis, but it doesn’t mean for example that quality of encoded albums are 0,5 lower. This lower ranking is rather the expression of higher fragility than lower quality. LAME, and Nero Digital, are more inclined to serious distortions than Vorbis or iTunes AAC at the same bitrate. The concept of quality may be replaced with such encoders by the concept of strength or robustness. To illustrate this I made the following histogram (sorry for poor quality, I’ll change it later):



Here, Vorbis and iTunes both get a mark comprise between 4.5 and 5.0 for 50% of the tested samples, whereas Nero only achieve this state (near-transparency or full transparency) for 20% of the same samples. With the classical group of samples, 30% of the them were ranked below 3.0 with Nero when iTunes or Vorbis got the same notation of less than 10% of the sample. The two winners are stronger, and could handle more situations than LAME and Nero Digital AAC.


Hi,

would you still conclude this test the same way with "today's codecs"?

I'm not asking for a new test but just your opinion>

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BaByB0y
post May 29 2007, 02:29
Post #144





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 19-May 06
Member No.: 30926



Very nice biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
Through the Test, iTunes AAC and Vorbis do good job :x
nXqd
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TechVsLife
post May 29 2007, 21:27
Post #145





Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 29-May 07
Member No.: 43837



I'd like to test the harpsichord, sax solo, and any other classical music samples that are extremely distorted at v5 lame, at least to guruboolez (--I hope at least barely noticeable to me), to see if I need to go up to v3 or v2. Is there a link to download those samples?
Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 29 2007, 22:40
Post #146





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (TechVsLife @ May 29 2007, 22:27) *
I'd like to test the harpsichord, sax solo, and any other classical music samples that are extremely distorted at v5 lame, at least to guruboolez (--I hope at least barely noticeable to me), to see if I need to go up to v3 or v2. Is there a link to download those samples?
Thanks.

In tis thread: LAME problem samples you'll find harp40_1 which is the worst harpsichord sample to me.
It's not just a problem for Lame but a problem for many encoders (not just mp3), and usually it requires a higher quality setting than is usually necessary.

I don't know a sax problem but may be trumpet problems are similar.
There can be a tremolo issue with trumpets. There's a sample 'Trumpet: My Prince' (guess you'll find it when doing a HA Google search above) which has this tremolo issue with Lame 3.97 and 3.98 when using VBR, but also when using FhG CBR (I tried FhG which ships with current dbpowerAmp).
You can also find a trumpet problem in the above link (this was the very problem I started worrying about problem samples), but this problem is rather Lame specific at least when looking at mp3 (it's a problem to some other formats as well). 3.97final has improved on it, and with Lame 3.98b3 the problem is overcome (at least at a higher bitrate which I always use for having a safety margin).

I encourage you to use such a safety margin as well if you can afford the larger filesize. Looks like you're out for that.
Use for instance 3.98b3 -V1 or an ABR or CBR setting in the 200+ kbps range, for instance -b224 -h.
With such a setting music usually is transparent, and in those rare cases when it's not it's at least acceptable.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 29 2007, 22:59


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TechVsLife
post May 30 2007, 02:41
Post #147





Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 29-May 07
Member No.: 43837



Thanks, I found it after googling "trumpet: My prince."

The sax solo problem is seen in the scores given by guruboolez at the beginning of this thread.

Nothing leapt out at me on an attentive but not painfully concentrated listening, so I'd have to cheat by training myself in order to catch artifacts. I'll keep a lossless archive in case I gradually acquire the Power (Curse?), or in case someone I know has It, but probably -V 5 is fine for me (I've only tested -V 2 on those samples). The typical scratches on LP records seem to have been a much greater "distortion" than the anomalies people are talking about here?

I'd hate to think there's a perfect correlation between technical ability to hear the slightest changes, and ability to understand the music, but there's obviously some correlation. On the other hand, there's prob. some inverse correlation between obsession with technical issues and musical understanding. (unless someone comes up with an encoder that recreates or betters the original music (-V negative 2?), or that has the ability to rank it, e.g. Bach over Britten.)




QUOTE (halb27 @ May 29 2007, 17:40) *
QUOTE (TechVsLife @ May 29 2007, 22:27) *

I'd like to test the harpsichord, sax solo, and any other classical music samples that are extremely distorted at v5 lame, at least to guruboolez (--I hope at least barely noticeable to me), to see if I need to go up to v3 or v2. Is there a link to download those samples?
Thanks.

In tis thread: LAME problem samples you'll find harp40_1 which is the worst harpsichord sample to me.
It's not just a problem for Lame but a problem for many encoders (not just mp3), and usually it requires a higher quality setting than is usually necessary.

I don't know a sax problem but may be trumpet problems are similar.
There can be a tremolo issue with trumpets. There's a sample 'Trumpet: My Prince' (guess you'll find it when doing a HA Google search above) which has this tremolo issue with Lame 3.97 and 3.98 when using VBR, but also when using FhG CBR (I tried FhG which ships with current dbpowerAmp).
You can also find a trumpet problem in the above link (this was the very problem I started worrying about problem samples), but this problem is rather Lame specific at least when looking at mp3 (it's a problem to some other formats as well). 3.97final has improved on it, and with Lame 3.98b3 the problem is overcome (at least at a higher bitrate which I always use for having a safety margin).

I encourage you to use such a safety margin as well if you can afford the larger filesize. Looks like you're out for that.
Use for instance 3.98b3 -V1 or an ABR or CBR setting in the 200+ kbps range, for instance -b224 -h.
With such a setting music usually is transparent, and in those rare cases when it's not it's at least acceptable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post May 30 2007, 09:26
Post #148





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



mp3 problems samples aren't slight changes at all. The worst cases make me physically ill the more I listen to them and there is no need to abx even on -v2.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450x1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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: 19th April 2014 - 09:31