IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
New Public Listening Test (July-August 2011), Discussion on preparation
IgorC
post Jun 24 2011, 20:00
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (kwanbis @ Jun 24 2011, 01:23) *
I'm actually more interested on multiformat.


In case of multiformat there are next possibilties:

Vorbis AoTuV, AAC (which one ?), CELT/Opus (?), MP3 (?)

Let's decide if test will be multiformat or AAC. Deadline was set until 1st of July

Right now Kennedyb4, Kohlrabi(?), /mnt are interested in AAC test.
Kwanbis and Zarggg - multiformat


Who else?

The list of codecs for ~100 kbps AAC test:
CODE
Candidates:
1. Nero
2. At least one Apple encoder (CVBR or TVBR) or two of them (?)
3. Fraunhofer
4. Winamp's Coding Technologies and Divx (Pre-Test)

QUOTE (Notat @ Jun 24 2011, 01:41) *
As I understand it, transparency for the latest batch of codecs is believed to be somewhere between 128 kbit and 64 kbit, thus the proposed testing at 96 kbit.

As we try to resolve this further, we should also try to deal with the fact that outside scientific and developer circles, transparency at 128 kbit is not well appreciated. Is there some testing we can do that will bring a greater appreciation?

Many people base their disdain for lossy coding on the performance of early encoders. Can we, to show how far the art has progressed, compare some crusty but widely-used encoder at high bit rate to newer ones at lower bit rates?

Last Sebastian's test had the old l3enc MP3 encoder. It showed how bad can be this old mp3 encoder in comparison with the modern MP3 encoder.
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jun 24 2011, 20:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CoRoNe
post Jun 24 2011, 22:20
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 31-May 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 22417



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jun 18 2011, 21:00) *
I will strongly suggest to perform first LC-AAC test and only then go for Multiformat.
Because later it can turn into a lot of discussion of not right choice of AAC encoder for Multiformat test.
Although I am solely interested in the multiformat test, I have to agree with you here, IgorC. I'd say each audioformat in the multiformat test needs to be represented by the best encoder around.
Another aspect I'm really interested in; besides all ~96kbps samples, including some 128kbps samples encoded with an old mp3 encoder. I think this even more interests me than a battle between ~96kbps samples encoded with all sorts of state-of-the-art encoders. How cool would it be seeing a ~96kbps sample outperforming an "old" 128kbps sample!


--------------------
DC-Bass Source Mod: http://reino.degeelebosch.nl
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 24 2011, 22:27
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



Hi. Sorry for my bad English.

In my opinion we should perform 96 kbps multiformat testing with next encoders:

Vorbis aoTuV 6.03
Nero AAC 1.5.4.0 (or maybe QT AAC, unfortunately I'm not sure too)
CELT, of course
LAME 3.98.4 (but something tells me that we should try FhG for this bitrate. at least for me it sounds better at 128 kbps)

Can we include more then one encoder per format into the test? Otherwise we must first of all determine the best encoder @96kbps for mp3 and AAC. I see no other ways.

And how about WMA (or even WMA 10 Pro)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jun 24 2011, 22:36
Post #29





Group: Developer
Posts: 3208
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
How cool would it be seeing a ~96kbps sample outperforming an "old" 128kbps sample!

I cannot see a practical side in this...


BTW, Nero also has several modes: vbr, cbr, abr, abr 2pass...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dsimcha
post Jun 25 2011, 01:10
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 2-November 04
Member No.: 17953



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jun 24 2011, 15:00) *
Let's decide if test will be multiformat or AAC. Deadline was set until 1st of July

Right now Kennedyb4, Kohlrabi(?), /mnt are interested in AAC test.
Kwanbis and Zarggg - multiformat


Who else?
I'm also only interested in a multiformat test.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jun 25 2011, 01:17
Reason for edit: Please quote only that which is relevant, and position it above your reply to aid readers in following the discussion. Edited accordingly
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jun 25 2011, 04:56
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jun 24 2011, 18:27) *
Can we include more then one encoder per format into the test? Otherwise we must first of all determine the best encoder @96kbps for mp3 and AAC. I see no other ways.

Yes, it's possbile to include 2 encoders of the same format but then we should exclude one of the formats. The max. number of codecs should be 4. The previous tests indicates that it's affordable number of codecs to test.


QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jun 24 2011, 18:27) *
And how about WMA (or even WMA 10 Pro)

Statistics indicates that very very few persons who use it. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=86830

QUOTE (dsimcha @ Jun 24 2011, 21:10) *
I'm also only interested in a multiformat test.

ok, but I will ask people to specify also encoders for multiformat and/or AAC candidate tests.

It should be highlighted that if multiformat will be conducted first then AAC test will be in next year.
The only thing that changes is chronological order.

Current update:
Multiformat - Zarggg, Kwanbis, dsimcha - (3)
AAC - Kennedyb4, Kohlrabi, /mnt - (3)
Multiformat / but realize that it will be difficult to choose best encoder per format - Corone, Steve Forte Rio - (2)

Who else?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Jun 25 2011, 06:45
Post #32





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2353
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



I do not like WMA at all, but i find it more interesting to test it than lets say CELT. I would do

MP3 LAME
AAC iTunes
Vorbis AoTuv
WMA



--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
muaddib
post Jun 25 2011, 08:20
Post #33





Group: Developer
Posts: 398
Joined: 14-October 01
Member No.: 289



I am for an AAC test.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jun 25 2011, 08:27
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (muaddib @ Jun 25 2011, 04:20) *
I am for an AAC test.

Me too. There a lot of news for AAC world. Last Nero, iTunes and new FhG. Damn, it would be great.
I've received preview version of FhG. it looks interesting.

What about Nero encoder? 1.5.4 is ok, right?

QUOTE (kwanbis @ Jun 25 2011, 02:45) *
I do not like WMA at all, but i find it more interesting to test it than lets say CELT. I would do

MP3 LAME
AAC iTunes
Vorbis AoTuv
WMA


I guess it's WMA PRO 10. Right?

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jun 25 2011, 08:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pri3st
post Jun 25 2011, 08:32
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 12-June 02
From: Greece
Member No.: 2282



AAC test would be great.


--------------------
http://www.last.fm/user/gpanoulas
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 25 2011, 08:37
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



If so, I'm for an AAC test too.

But what dou you think about competition between:

Nero AAC, QT AAC, LAME MP3, FhG MP3?

Thus we can find out the winner for mp3 and aac using the results of only one test. Or someone insist on iclusion other encoders to the AAC test?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jun 25 2011, 08:52
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Pri3st @ Jun 25 2011, 04:32) *
AAC test would be great.

QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jun 25 2011, 04:37) *
If so, I'm for an AAC test too.

Great.

QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jun 25 2011, 04:37) *
But what dou you think about competition between:

Nero AAC, QT AAC, LAME MP3, FhG MP3?

Thus we can find out the winner for mp3 and aac using the results of only one test. Or someone insist on iclusion other encoders to the AAC test?

Here I really don't know what to say. You can suggest this set of codecs and we will see if some other members will be interested to test these encoders.
But I think LAME and FhG encoder have been already compared between themselves in one of Sebastian's public test. Both were tied.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jun 25 2011, 08:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 25 2011, 09:05
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



So what encoder we should choose for our test - LAME or FhG? Сonsidering the results for 128 kbps test, I suppose it is LAME 3.98 smile.gif

And I'm still don't see the final solution about the list of formats (for future multiformat test) - will it be aac/celt/mp3/vorbis or aac/celt/vorbis/wma or some else combination?

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jun 25 2011, 09:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
johnb
post Jun 25 2011, 09:08
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 15-November 03
From: Munich
Member No.: 9858



I vote for doing a AAC test only first, even though I currently don't use it.
Later on, multiformat would be fine.

Cheers
johnb
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jun 25 2011, 09:20
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jun 25 2011, 05:05) *
So what encoder we should choose for our test - LAME or FhG?

And I'm still don't see the final solution about the list of formats (for future multiformat test) - will it be aac/celt/mp3/vorbis or aac/celt/vorbis/wma or some else combination?

Well, we are in the middle of suggestion period for set of codecs. People make suggestions and the next weekend all of us will analyse suggestions and will make final conclusion. Let's wait for suggestions of other members.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jun 25 2011, 09:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 25 2011, 09:30
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



Ok, then my final suggestion:

1) AAC Test:

Nero AAC
QT AAC
Fraunhofer
CT AAC (Winamp)

2) Multiformat test:

AAC (winner)
CELT
Vorbis aoTuV
WMA Pro

smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jun 25 2011, 10:13
Post #42


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



How can a multi format test be considered complete without testing MP3 alongside the others?


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Polar
post Jun 25 2011, 11:15
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 12-February 04
Member No.: 11970



I'm also in favour of an (LC-)AAC test. As on the AAC side, there are probably only 3 or 4 contenders for the crown, amongst which Nero and Apple, therefore I agree that it would be interesting to compare them to some vintage MP3 codec at 128k CBR, such as Fraunhofer's L3enc or MP3enc, as a 4th or 5th contender in the test.

I also still volunteer to host the test samples on my web server, as I did a couple of years ago for the 128k MP3 test.

This post has been edited by Polar: Jun 25 2011, 11:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LithosZA
post Jun 25 2011, 14:36
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 26-February 11
Member No.: 88525



I think an LC-AAC test would nice and then we can use the winner in a mult-format test

For the multi-format test I would prefer constrained VBR or CBR at 96Kb/s for streaming purposes.

- CELT/OPUS
- Vorbis aoTuV
- LAME MP3
- Winner of the LC-AAC test
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Jun 25 2011, 19:32
Post #45





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2353
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jun 25 2011, 07:27) *
I guess it's WMA PRO 10. Right?

Correct.

QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jun 25 2011, 09:13) *
How can a multi format test be considered complete without testing MP3 alongside the others?

Exactly my thoughts.

QUOTE (LithosZA @ Jun 25 2011, 13:36) *
For the multi-format test I would prefer constrained VBR or CBR at 96Kb/s for streaming purposes.

Do people actually care bout streaming quality that much? I tend to think that people that care about quality would not be listening to 96kbps music.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jun 25 2011, 19:34
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



I will include suggestion of developers as well. It won't be right just don't count them. Later we will see what should be done in this case.

Also if members have voted for Apple encoder I submit them to iTunes (CVBR) because until now TVBR produces very low bitrate for the test (~92 kbps).

Current votes:

Multiformat - Zarggg, Kwanbis, dsimcha, (3)
AAC - Kennedyb4, , /mnt, muaddib, Steve Forte Rio, IgorC, Pri3st, johnb, Polar, LithosZA - (8 +1 developer)
Multiformat / but realizes that it will be difficult to choose best encoder per format - Corone (1)

Not sure what Kohlrabi wants.

Codecs:

MP3 LAME – Kwanbis, Nick.C, LithosZA, IgorC (4)
Vorbis AoTuV – Kwanbis, LithosZA, IgorC, Steve Forte Rio (4)
CELT – Steve Forte Rio, LithosZA, IgorC, (3)
WMA/WMA Pro – Kwanbis, Steve Forte Rio, (2)

iTunes AAC (constrained VBR) - Kennedyb4, Zarggg, Kwanbis, Steve Forte Rio, IgorC, Polar (6)
Nero – Zarggg, Steve Forte Rio, IgorC, Polar (4)
FhG AAC - /mnt, Steve Forte Rio, IgorC (3)
Winamp’s CT AAC – Steve Forte Rio, IgorC (2)
QuickTime AAC (true VBR) – Kennedyb4, benski (1 + 1 developer against)
FAAC – Kohlrabi (1)

Old encoder with higher bitrate – Notat, Corone, Polar, (3)
To include only one Apple encoder in AAC test (CVBR or TVBR) – IgorC, Benski (2) (1 + 1 developer)

Who else?

This post has been edited by IgorC: Jun 25 2011, 19:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 25 2011, 20:37
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



QUOTE
Also if members have voted for Apple encoder I submit them to iTunes (CVBR) because until now TVBR produces very low bitrate for the test (~92 kbps).


Hm, didn't know it. But in my opinion constraining of the bitrate isn't a good idea. Please, move my vote from CVBR to TVBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexxander
post Jun 25 2011, 21:08
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



Me multiformat including at least:
MP3 LAME
Nero
QuickTime AAC (true VBR)

and optionally, preferring Vorbis:
Vorbis AoTuV
iTunes AAC (constrained VBR)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
richard123
post Jun 26 2011, 02:48
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 348
Joined: 9-January 03
Member No.: 4498



QuickTime AAC (true VBR) or iTunes AAC (constrained VBR), prefer TVBR
Nero
FhG AAC
Lame mp3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
muaddib
post Jun 26 2011, 08:35
Post #50





Group: Developer
Posts: 398
Joined: 14-October 01
Member No.: 289



QUOTE (IgorC @ Jun 25 2011, 09:27) *
QUOTE (muaddib @ Jun 25 2011, 04:20) *
I am for an AAC test.

What about Nero encoder? 1.5.4 is ok, right?

I am not working for Nero anymore.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Closed 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 - 12:07