mmm... wholesale re-encoding.
Been waiting for this day for a long time =)
(well, waiting for the day when the listening tests on ogg vorbis 1.0 are done and the consensus is something along the lines of 'yeah cool go for it u fiends', but close)

Finally a good reason to go flush out those beta 4 and rc2 files (got rid of the beta 2 and beta 3 ones a while back =)

gnoshi - a happy puppy for the day

The things that I care the most is that the -q 6 will be lossless instead of q5. And you can't put a hold on the channel coupling, because the ECTL call does not exist right now.

Yea, now would be a good time for listening test.

Really? I mean, the pre-RC4 encoder is only a week old and look how long it took to go from RC2 to RC3 to pre-RC4. I don't keep up with the Vorbis development teams workload, but logically I thought they couldn't do much to the psymodel and stuff in a week.

Anyway, I think pre-RC4 sounds pretty damn nice at low bitrates so while reencoding to 1.0 means I'll have to redo about 30 albums, if it's even better quality perhaps it's worth it.

Ahem. We've already started.

Nah. I didn't meant finding problem samples. I was thinking of s full ABC/HR test, conduced by our friend ff123, with some samples at low bitrates (64kbps). Or medium bitrates (128kbps)...

Well, since I'm not up for doing listening tests and ABX'ing and all that stuff, I decided to go another route.

I thought it would be interesting to compare file sizes.

I chose an album that I knew (from past experience) would produce bloated files. I encoded Metallica's Load, using LAME 3.92 --alt-preset standard.

Using this method, the whole CD totaled 122MB after encoding. My next step was to see what Ogg quality level would produce similar file sizes.

Using Ogg 1.0 -q7, the entire CD totaled 112MB.

Not very scientific, but if q7 (or anything less) sounds as good or better than APS, then we have progress on the quality vs. file size front.

Guess I should encode an acoustic album and see how it fares with file sizes.

I'll leave the listening tests to the folks with the golden ears.

Hey, just a question for everyone else who has tried 1.0 (I am in the office and haven't poked around much yet).
What quality # correspond to about what bitrates these days? (eg. q 5 used to create about 160kbps files) and at what point does lossless channel coupling click in these days (if it has changed).
Thnx =)

edit: kxy, where did you find out q6 rather than q5 is lossless coupling now? (desparate for info.. =)

gnoshi

Yup, but would you call it Gogoogg or Ogggogo?

Ogg-a-gogo

oga-oga would be a cool name

What about Oggasm?

(Ogg/Assembly)

Ruairi

I had a chat with monty online. I was trying to find a quick and dirty hack to enable chanl coupling without regards to bitrates/q level. But he told me that ECTL call basically didn't exist yet. As it requires more testing.