I've been reading this forum for a long time but this is my first post. I just had to write about it because it's so funny...

News about Vorbis 1.0 on a Swedish site (idg.se) where users are allow to comment on the news kind of made me laugh, not the article itself but the comments. If you read Swedish you can check it out yourself...
http://idg.se/ArticlePages/200207/15/20020...30_TST2.dbp.asp

One of them thinks mp3pro is the best he's ever heard, sounds better than mp3 at 128kbit/s. Another thinks 96kbit/s VQF sounds like 192kbit/s mp3 and the pros can vouch for that, 192kbit VQF is practically CD quality.

Most of them thinks it's stupid that new formats concentrate on sounding better at smaller filesizes since harddrives are cheap and it would be better if they concentrated on quality instead...

Is it just me who thinks this is silly???

Edit: please, I mean no offence. I just thought the whole thing was funny, take it for what it is and nothing else. If you can't take it please stop reading now...

LOL

contradiction

Forgive them, cause they do not know what they are saying.
In time, I'm sure they will be enlightened.

Edit: This is meant as a joke, not an attack. Please note the original smiley.

Translation of relevant text from the Swedish forum:





/ Tobbe

Some more comments have been posted but most of them use the same kind of broken logic if you ask me. Hope I'm not offending a bunch of people now...

Imagine also computer hardware/software review with that ballistic knowledge.

Aaaargh!

LOL

I stopped reading comment sections and forums of major news sites or communities, coz most just spout crap and try to convince everyone that it's true. You as person having real knowledge about the topic are usually the dumbass. The rule there is the loudest one is the right one. Best you can do is leave them there and let them die dumb. I've gotten sick about it!

Reminds me to that video compression thread on a forum, which made me discuss 11 pages on a VBB board with that guy, me reasoning, he just dissing me. Finally who was right according the general community? Him. So fitting a NTSC frame including sound into 28bytes seems reasonable, just coz someone was louder than a reasonable guy. Pretty sad today on the net.

Well, they are swedish

*Ducks and runs for cover*

Tom,

I can only agree. The art of discussion on the internet is dying, at least if you want to do it in a civilized manner. There are a few good places left but many are just full of trolls and loudmouths. Pissing contests, "mine is bigger than yours" and "I know I'm right" is a common thing. Sad really...

YingYang,

I can see Denmark from here so you'd better duck before I throw something at ya...



There's a comment on the article now that says, and I translate...

"There's a format under Quicktime (that cost a lot of money) which name I forgot...This format can encode 44kHz 16bit stereo in 20kbit/s...the quality wasn't that great, barely acceptable... but if I raised it to 40kbit/s I couldn't tell the difference from the original...(I have a pretty nice Yamaha THX amplifier...)"

Man how in the bloddy hell cant he remember only 3 imponent letters: A - A - C

Anyway QTs implementation suxor against psytel which by the way is the closest to best quality/ISO compliance

And speaking about his comment, i dont like vorbis at -q 0 and its the best out there (not saying its bad, just mean its not "CD Quality" , cant believe people think anything lower than 64kb 44.1 khz stereo can sound good in this decade.. sheesh

As a final thought, we also suck here talking about their lameness, so i suggest this thread should rot in hell LOL :Rofl:

The "format" is Qdesign Music Codec 2. (www.qdesign.com)

And, believe it or not, it's a good format for ridiculously small bitrates (Around 24kbps). It got pretty good remarks at an AES formal test, BTW, better that FhG AAC and WMA at these bitrates.

But it sucks A LOT for anything above 64kbps.

Regards;

Roberto.

Well, that discussion I mentioned was about stuffing 20 DVDs in high quality on one 650MB CD. lol

speaking of video craziness: there was one thread on the divxnetworks forum advocating squeezing 3-4 full-length dvds onto a cd (not just theoretical, people actually tried this, go figure). He first encoded at a normal 1-cd bitrate with divx 5, then re-encoded (transcoded?) the divx5 material at a super low bitrate with divx3.11 sbc. Ended up with a 200mb 2-hour movie, with 32kbit/sec audio. Said it wasn't the 'highest' quality, but it looked great on his TV. Funny thing is, people were agreeing with him!

Dear god I remember that! LOL

Phobos,

I actually feel a bit bad now... It's just hard not to laugh at these comments because some of them act as if they are experts on the subject and their reasoning is so flawed. Heaven knows I'm not an expert myself...

I dabble a bit with mpeg video as well and I have seen similar comments that subject. It's just so funny but I suppose I shouldn't laugh, not out loud in forums at least...

Maybe some people are laughing at me right now... alien super beings or something...just kidding...

floyd,

that was one of the most horrible video stories I've ever heard! Maybe the guy should patent that method of compression...*LOL*

The world is full of experts isn't it......

I had seen a thread about getting them to fit on pocket CD. But that does average out to 3 or 4 per CD. Somehow 320x240 15fps 22khz mono audio does not sound all that appealing to me. I supose it could work but I don't see the point. I know I would not want to watch it even on my TV.

And YOU thougth the people in the Swedish forum was just writing crap!!!

Come on, I read the the thread and yes many posts are just BS, but none really claimed to be experts, they are just regular users. When I followed the link to this forum (I've never been here before) I thought I would read some really insightfull comments that would explain some of the errors in the IDG.SE forum.

But what do I found?

The people commenting the other poeple with words like: "this is silly", "let them die dumb" and "cause they do not know what they are saying"

If YOU all are so good, them cant you atleast show people some RESPECT?


credits to Phobos who have discovered the same as I
"we also suck here talking about their lameness"

Hahaha Neo.. I had forgotten the best part, decimating the frames to 15 fps. LOL. Obviously that would totally ruin any video thats not 29.97 fps since most films are at 23.xx fps. And the guy refused to listen to reason either (wouldn't admit that encoding twice didn't help; could just encode once with divx5 at a low bitrate)

seabii: well, I don't know swedish, so that sort of inhibits my ability to say anything on a swedish forum. And if you want some of the errors explained, do your OWN research, search this forum and you will find, or ask questions in a polite manner. You'll get a good response.

seabii,

there there...calm down. I only said some of the posts were funny and some give the impression of being experts. Many of the posts were just curious, although idg.se is generally full of trolls and 'experts'. Most people here could probably not read the posts themselves as they are in Swedish and they were probably speaking about those kinds of posts in general. I take full responsibility....

Not much use in giving advice to people on another forum as most of them will probably never find this site but if you ask nicely I'm sure everybody will try and answer your questions if they can...

I knew this would happen, I apologize....

:rofl:

thnx matez, i also remember that "full dvd movies in 130mb no bs", it first sounded like a good idea, but heck i tried it and just think "how in the bloddy hell can somebody be patient enough to watch this???"

Maybe thats the quantity but not quality to an extreme hehehe, double transcoding ROFL

seabii: I discussed VBB 3 pages about compression algorithms with a guy that hadn't a clue at all. He didn't know WHAT i was talking about, but was sure it was CRAP what I talked. Why should I pay them any respect?

tom has got a point

yeah everybody that comes here at first sounds like a n00b, but lots of ppl are willing for help WITH FACTS.

on with tha flame warz :evil: :argue: :flamewar: :rant2: :rant: :flipoff:

OMG, what have I done!?!? :eek:

Must...stop....thread......before it's...too....laaate....arrgh!

I was also a n00b, and when someone told me right, I accepted it coz I acknowledged he knows more.

But today this ain't happening anymore.

What's the use of explaining LZW, Huffman etc to justify why compressing a Windows XP ISO into 2.5megs is just not possible, if he doesn't WANT to believe me, even I backed myself up? I don't give these people respect. Or like I have to fight with people over the Windows Server versions without them ever having used any Windows NT Server. Just to name a few examples.

As I said before, I've been majorily pissed off on a lot of bigger public forums. I just hope this won't happen here too (means a flood of 4l1|<n0//1n6 l33+ k1ll3r n00bs).

I'm the one who wrote that MP3 pro was the best I've ever heard. I want to explain why I wrote that. First of all it was a comparison between the ordinary MP3 format and the MP3 pro format. I compressed the same track direct from a CD both in MP3 format (128 kbit, Fraunhofer codec) and in The MP3 pro format (64 kbit). The MP3 pro file sounded better in 64 kbit than the ordinary MP3 did in 128 kbit.

I don't think there's anything strange with that. Any one here that has an different opinion?

By the way, I don't like the quality you get with MP3 format and I don't like the sound quality you get in a computer. Music should be played in a good stereo. Nothing else. But if you work with computers I guess MP3 is inevitable

I don't doubt your knowledge about audio and other stuff that is discussed on this site. I have looked around in some discussions and found a lot of valuable information.

But that was not my point, my point was that some people in this forum did not hesitate to say that the people in the swedish forum were ignorant and did not based their comments on facts. Even though some of you dont understand swedish which made me a little confused since you claimed them for not base the comments on knowledge. I know there is a lot of people just trying to show off and be the louddest in forums (especially if they are related to news which make the threads short lived) but in this case I guess it kind of back fired since you responded in the same way, with pretty nasty comments.

Well enough about this! I guess I have made my point since some of you have apologized or edited your messeges.

I just couldnt help myself yesterday but I sensed some sort of "we are better than they because we have our own forum!" in the comments in this thread.

God bless you all, and have a nice day, I will!

(At least I found a good forum were I can find info about digital formats)

Muppfarmor: I cannot clearly disagree with you since I never fiddled around much with Mp3pro, but AFAIK remember I didn't like it much and would choose 128 kbs Lame MP3 over 64 kbs MP3Pro IIRC.

That said I will recommend you checking out Vorbis when version 1.0 is released one of these days. It should (OK, it will) beat both of those formats at those bitrates.

Welcome To HydrogenAudio. Please do stick around.

The problem is the psychological influence of the 'Pro' in MP3Pro. Funny as it may seem, because you 'know' it's MP3Pro, it may 'sound' better to your mind (not your ears).

This is why it is needed to do blind tests. You want to know if the difference is real, i.e. it doesn't disappear depending whether you know what you are listening to or not.

The mind is very powerful in imagining things. If a test is not blind, it's often worthless.

Another problem is that you didn't indicate the specifics of your test (at least not here). I.e. what Fraunhofer codec (some are very buggy!), what music, how did you test, what's your equipment, etc...

It's possible that, for you, MP3Pro@64 is more transparent than MP3@128, but it's contrary to past experience from blind tests, so a more throughough investigation may be in order.

--
GCP

YinYang:

Thanks! This forum seems to be of very high quality

I have never tried the Vorbis format but it seems to be of good quality when you're talking about compressed music formats. But if I have to choose between MP3 and MP3 pro I choose the pro format since my quality test gave me better quality with the pro format. The truth is that I rarely compress my own records. I prefer to listen to them on my stereo. Muuuuch better quality

Garf:

Normally I compare music on expensive hi-fi equipment and have learned what to listen for when I compare. I used the same technique when I compared the MP3 pro format with the ordinary MP3 format. I think I wrote the wrong codec before. I think I used the Lame encoder. I ripped a record by the group Dive and the song Captain Nemo. I ripped it on my PC with a CD-r unit at reading the record at 1X. The I listened and compared small details in the song and the total experience. I was skeptic about MP3 pro at first but my test proved me wrong.

That's how the test was performed

muppfarmor (nice nick btw) ,

When I first tried mp3pro I was also very impressed but that was on small pc speakers. I guess I tried it on an easy song however because when I tried it on some more songs later it sounded terrible in some cases...

If it sounds good to you I guess it doesn't matter but I wouldn't recommend encoding music with it for archiving or future listening but maybe that's just me...

seabii,

maybe the comments were a bit harsh but I think it was all done in a humorous tone and at least nobody wrote in the original forum so it wasn't a personal attack of any kind. I'm sure nobody here thinks they are better than everybody else but for those who know a little bit more about audio compression the whole thing was a bit funny. Besides, they only reacted to what I wrote and commented on that, not the original forum. But as I said I'm sorry if anyone was offended, it certainly wasn't my intention. If I overreacted it was only because I have been reading a lot of forums lately where people who are clearly wrong trying to push their truth on other people who don't know better and some of the posts at idg.se set me off I guess (although only a few of them were like that)...

Hope you find this forum useful...

Oh, perhaps if you get one of these 24/96 cards http://www.m-audio.net/products/m-audio/delta.php you'll change your mind... BUT I still have to admit that I pass it through a good stereo amplifier... hehe btw: the quality of DACs on these cards are way better that many consumer CD players... and you don't have to stick with mp3s... there's lossless compression, there's mpc and ogg. Try to lurk on this forum for a while

lucpes:

I'd rather spend my money on highend hi-fi components than smusic stuff in my PC. If you want the best quality, you need to spend equal amount of money on each part (headphones, speakers, soundcard etc). Cuz no chain is stronger than the weakest link. Same goes in your ordinary stereo.

ajp:
True, I only tested the MP3 pro on one track. I used my Sennheiser HD-570 as listening device. My soundcard isd not the best but I could still here the difference. As you say, it might be okay for storaging music or something

muppfarmor:

$$$=doesn't necessarily equal quality

I know it may not be ideal with your setup but I'd recommend getting a decent soundcard with a digital out and hooking that up to your hi-fi. Its not the easiest (or prettiest) to set up, but watching divx's on a big TV with a nice sound system is sweet, as is playing some nice mpc's or lossless files in a HUGE playlist with a 120 gb drive

And once you get this going, trust me you won't *ever* use mp3pro again!

floyd:

I know that $$$ is not equal to good equipment. Me and my brother are always searching for equipment that are worth its price. My equipment at home is not very expensive but sounds good. I hate those brands that charge you $5000 for speakers with a wooden box that sounds like a cardboard box when you knock on them. Same with speaker and signal cables. Often expensive but not better than other cheaper ones. I use a swedish brand called Jenwing and their cables called Supra. Low price but very good sound quality.

I don't see why I should rip down my cd's to a hard drive and listen through the computer when you will get losses on the way. The biggest loss is when you rip down the CD to the hard drive. As I have said before in other forums. CD's is not all about 1 and 0.

Do you have a CD-ROM with the same quality as a good quality CD player? Few have and I'm not sure that there is one on the consumer market.
I might want to rip my cd's when I can get exact (almost) copies down to my hard drive without any losses at a affordable price.

So basically:

a) We still don't know anything about the equipment
b) You don't even know what codec you used, let alone version or settings
c) You did not do a blind test or any kind of ABX test

Your test is totally worthless and fatally flawed, and _that_ is why people here were laughing with you.

--
GCP

A rip, when done with a ripper that understands error correction, is perfect
and lossless.

Jitter and relevant artifacts do not play here.

--
GCP

Garf:

There is no such thing as a prefect rip. Not even real audio copiers can make an exact copy. That is a known fact and presented in different Audiophile magazines. The problem is the hardware, the CD-ROm player. It can't play the cd and read it with the right timing. The song might sound the same but it can be played at the wrong speed. Small differences that most people can't here and demands high quality stereo equipment to here.

Garf:

Did I ever say that my test was relevant or professionally performed? I did the test a long time ago and I only remember some details. I remember what I thought about the quality comparing to ordinary MP3 using the lame encoder.

I must ask you this: Do you have an urge to be some kind of master and expert? Your answer was written in a way the sounded patronizing and not very friendly.

Please read what I wrote: Jitter is _not_ an issue here. It is only relevant
for playback, not the actual ripping itself. Your original statement was totally
wrong.



If a test was a long time ago, and done in a totally flawed way, what is the point in restating it's results?

--
GCP

If you cannot accept that people will attack your arguments and show you wrong, you should not post here.

--
GCP

I don't see why you have to dis my old test the way you're doing. It all started when I posted it in a swedish forum just stating my own experience. What is wrong with that? I never said it would give the same result for others. The forum I originally posted in was no expert forum like this so what is the big deal? I posted it here to explain what I meant with it. Is that so hard to understand?

This is totally wrong. A good ripping program can make an absolutely perfect rip. And think further, if a cd-rom can't read so perfect then how the hell the data cd's are working when only an error in a byte can make the program not to work?

Edit by Garf: sorry, I acidentally messed up your post by clicking the edit instead of quote button

Because the people you are talking to do not understand that what you are telling them is completely unreliable, it is ok to do so?

Sorry, not in my book.

--
GCP

...as long as it's done DIGITALLY.

muppfarmor: You should look up on information regarding the software Exact Audio Copy and/or CDex with cdParanoia read routines.

The procedure you are describing as troublesome is actually doing an analog ripping, which is heavily unrecommended. You are actually getting the Cd-rom drive's DAC to read the audio, pass it as analog audio to the soundcard, and then the soundcard does the ADC again, which is NOT needed, NOT recommended, and introduces a heavy loss of quality.

BUT, using EAC (or CDex with cdParanoia mode, I believe, but I mostly use EAC) you are reading the audio digitally, using the digital data output of the Cd-rom, using the C2 error checking when available, and so on and so forth. Dig up some docs on this, or some threads in this same board. You will find out that if you approach it this way, CD Audio IS just 1's and 0's... (like everything digital, it's either right or wrong).

And I heavily advise you to dig up also a newer LAME version, and retry that test you did, trying to "not know" which audio sample you are listening to when comparing quality and judging which one you prefer... (ABX here is the preferred setup!)

And then, take a look at Ogg Vorbis 1.0, MPC, AAC, or any of the lossless encoders...

Welcome!

Data CD =/= Audio CD

A data CD has much more error-correcting data stored (and so actually has
less capacity than an Audio CD).

--
GCP

I can take it when people are arguing with me on a matter. But you can still do it in a friendly way. You don't have to do it in a patronizing way. I can except when I'm wrong and if I'm right I don't go on like I'm the king.

Muppfarmor: The point is, that Garf has had a lot of these discussions and he might be a tad tired of them. So he's a bit touchy when it comes to explaining the same things again and again to different people. Bear with him

Basically the only generally respected tests on this board are double-blind ABX-tests. Live with it. The rest of them usually suffers from the "placebo"-effect. We've had a lot of those tests from newcomers

It was just an example (maybe wrong) to show that an audio cd is still digital. So there is no quality loss:D

The ECC data on data sectors on CDs are only there for correction for errors caused due scratches. Each redbook sector has a header that contains a sector ID. The CDROM tries to make a guess where the sector should be located and reads a part of the track. If it finds the sector ID, it starts reading from there.

(This is my current knowledge of how CDROMs work, correct me if I'm wrong.)

YinYang:

Okay that explained why he sounded they way he did

I also want the members here to undertsand that I didn't post my test here as an valid test. I only explained my earlier entry at idg.se.

Garf:
It might not be right, but is it wrong? I didn't post my entry at idg.se telling them it was a valid blind test. I only stated my experiences. People know they can't trust what other people wright and they can think for theselves.