Hy guys,
I feel terrible.
I feel that i am the one who started those ...crazy discussions. With only one or two replies (and one mistake )
I think we should wait for the next 128kbs test and let Ivan and Garf improve their work.
Also, we don't have to forget ONE thing: this test was performed on clasical music ONLY and with guruboolez's ears and equipament ONLY.
Yes, is surprising that Nero AAC is fighting to beat Lame and not Vorbis, but this is it. For now.
So, in conclusion, i think we should wait a few days for Sebastian's test and then start those contradictions again

It's precisely ONE thing you can immediately forget...
http://audiotests.free.fr/tests/200...results_gr5.png

Take a look on results before commenting them, please

did you read the write up?

/EDIT: oops, I guess I should read replies before posting mine, guru got there first.

Ok, maybe I'm dense, but barring that, my ability to interpret the sea of numbers presented in the graphs is telling me that iTunes is coming super close to LAME. Is that correct?

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.

Quite embarassing for a strong LAME supporter (like myself) and an an allergic to apples (like the very same myself).

Sergio

And I just did a FLAC>3.97b1 -V 2 --vbr new conversion on all my music for the new 5th Gen 60GB iPod. Might have to try out 160K VBR iTunes and get back space for photos and videos.

I hope you kept your FLACs, like I keep my WavPaks...

I agree. I think it is esp. good for devs to welcome listening tests by other people who volunteer to do quality-testing for you. I know Aoyumi follows these tests very closely and I believe it benefits his Vorbis development.

I just wanted to make a comment about iTunes/QT AAC. As guru pointed out in a previous reply, I am somewhat amazed at how its ABR-like nature can give such great quality. In fact, I've made the comment long ago about iTunes AAC on castanets compared with Vorbis at 128 kbps. iTunes/AAC barely moved in bitrate, yet produced much lower pre-echo than vanilla Vorbis with inflated bitrates. When I did those ABX tests last night, I noticed that the iTunes files had very minimal bitrate fluctuation, yet I was unable to ABX it against the original. Is this magic or something? The devs at Apple certainly are doing a great job, esp when they are giving their AAC encoder away for free.

I bet he listened to it several times himself and also let other people at Ahead listen. Just that those listening tests are not public...

Oh man, after all that EAC ripping to cue/single files, proper case for the titles, checking date and genre...yeah, the FLAC files are kept and doubly so. Once, on the primary/usage drive, secondly on an external drive and soon on DVD.

BTW, anybody looking for good DVD media to backup, check Micro Center (www.microcenter.com) for their in-house brand "WinData"....it's TY. Right now, they're $8.99 for a 50pk spindle. That's right, $8.99 for 50 Tayo Yuden 8x DVD+R.

This brings up a good question: Who's doing the development on the iTunes AAC encoder? Anybody that frequents this board, I wonder?

Oh, Nero claims much more than that. For a good laugh read: http://ww2.nero.com/nerodigital/enu/Nero_D...highlights.html

"CD quality stereo at 48 kb/s" "Transparent quality at 128 kb/s" "MP3 quality with 50 % of the space."

It's not surprising that customers are upset when they find out it's not true.

Both AAC and Vorbis use quantized MDCT with two different block sizes, followed by Huffman coding. I would be surprised if there was a substantial difference in coding efficiency between the two formats. What are the patented toys available to AAC? SBR? LTP? SSR? It'd be interesting to know how much improvement those actually make...

Yes. But he prefers to remain anonymous because of some scary Apple policies.

He? It's not one person, is it? If so, hat's off to him for a fine job.

And probably because he'd be bullied by hundreds on this board about when gapless playback is going to be supported by Apple.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=34075

It's one person (that I know of) that is member of this forum. But I suspect he's not alone working on the AAC encoder...



I bullied him already :B

He said he wouldn't mind including it in the encoder, but it doesn't depend only on him. It also depends on the QuickTime division, the iTunes division, the iPod division... For that reason, it'll probably only happen when a decision comes from above.

I can imagine that being the problem. I think it would be relatively easy to implement it in the encoder but harder (more complex) to implement it in the decoders in iTunes and iPod. It would be odd when the files made by iTunes support gapless but iTunes wouldn't be able to playback gapless. Or what if the iPod could play gapless but iTunes couldn't, or the other way around, or...or...

I believe Apple said they found gapless playback irrelevant. That's usually Applespeak for "We're going to introduce it very soon..."

Completely OT here, but are you sure these are not so-called "fake" TY? There has been a lengthy discussion about this at cdfreaks, you might want to check it out before trusting your data to these media.

Yes, I could.

vorbis GT2 vs. vorbis PCVS - 12 samples
extension of the AAC 128 kbs LT - part 2
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=10555&hl=

WMA9 vs WMA9PRO 12 samples test
extension of the AAC 128 kbps LT.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=10551&hl=

Personal multiformat listening test at ~130 kbps
based on classical (baroque) music only
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=14091&hl=

MP3 decoders test : MAD isn't so good! (for me...)
MAD vs LAME vs Winamp 5 vs foobar2000
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=17728&hl=

128 kb Multiformat listening test...
...based on classical music samples ONLY
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=16395&hl=

listening test at 160 kbps
pre-echo with aoTuV, GT3...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=22495&hl=

another lossless performance comparison
...but on classical music only
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=28441&hl=

lame 3.90.3 vs lame 3.96.1 at ~130 kbps
ABR and VBR
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=29422&hl=


MPC vs OGG VORBIS vs MP3 at 175 kbps
listening test on non-killer samples
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=23355&hl=

AAC: Ahead vs Apple (end 2004)
one year of progress
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=29924&hl=

lame 3.97 alpha 5 testing thread
tests & results
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=30547&hl=

Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
RC3 against post-final encoder
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=18359&hl=

Ahead AAC VBR vs Vorbis aoTuV beta 3
at ~130 kbps with classical music
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=29925&hl=

Short re-encoding blind listening test
wavpack - mp3 - mpc - aac - vorbis
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=32440&hl=

Ogg Vorbis and Nero AAC
microattacks & microdetails VBR 140 kbps
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=32080&hl=

1.01j encoder vs 1.15u
listening test inside
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=34911&hl=

80 kbps personal listening test (summer 2005)
AAC MP3 Ogg Vorbis WMA
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=35438&hl=

lame 3.98 alpha 2 testing thread
vbr new & athaa-sensitivity test at V5
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=37973&hl=

HE-AAC v.1 & v.2 comparison
Winamp vs Helix vs Nero Digital
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=36868&hl=

MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps
2nd checkup with classical music
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=36465&hl=








____
LAME ALPHA
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....81&#entry300681


DIRECT LINKS:


• alpha 5 -V4 - 20 samples and alpha 5 -V5 - 6 samples
• alpha 6 -V2 - 20 samples
• alpha 7 -V4 - 54 samples
• alpha 8 -V3 - 20 samples and alpha 8 -V2 - 20 samples


Lame test version - may 2005
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=300065

Lame test version (June 2005)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=304757



Winamp (Coding Tech & Dolby) AAC implementations are less interesting than Nero Digital. It has nothing to do with quality, but with progress. Nero Digital is updated more often. To give you a simple fact: Winamp still embbed Dolby AAC 1.0 for two years now! No update since...
And Coding Tech AAC encoder is still handicaped by a 15 KHz lowpass, making this encoder too easy to detect on ABCHR evaluation. You can test it if you want. But in my opinion, CT AAC encoder (Winamp, Helix) is more interesting for HE profile than LC one.

I'm testing Nero Digital because it's often updated. It's also interesting because Ivan is present on the forum; he could comment the test and propose some improved encoders. Exactly like LAME developers and Aoyumi. There were also a lot of changes during three years. The first encoders I've tested were really poor with classical (see my first tests); the lastest ones are much better. Too bad that the Nero Digital team has released an old generation encoder with a version number corresponding to a major release (aacenc32 v.4 and aac.dll v.3). The current new generation encoders shows interesting improvements compared to the one I've tested here:
- better handling of very tonal signal
- no ringing anymore on low volume part
- much less distortions with harpsichord.

And compared to my beloved old aacenc32 v3.xxx "fast", the new encoder has no bloated bitrate anymore with some kind of sample/music and is able to produce the same kind of high quality.


I'm currently sick with listening test. I must force myself to finish Sebastian's 18 samples. I can't make extensive listening test of any encoder now, including latests lame alpha or newest Nero encoder. I can only perform quick and small comparison. It's enough to appreciate some improvements of latest Nero Digital, but not enough to perform a complete and rigorous evaluation.

The highly interesting off-topic discussion was split here.

well my proposal for guru to create a small webpage with his tests and to maybe use ct in future comparisons was split too, i hope guru might still consider it

Fantastic job, guru. Don't you have some kind of HA award yet?


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

Whoa... a treasure trove of listening tests...

Guruboolez, if you'll be kind enough to indicate the date of each listening test you did, I'll gladly add them to the ever-expanding list of listening tests at this HA Wiki page.

Oh and PM me when you do that. So I know when to recheck this thread :-)

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...

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

pepoluan> I publish tests few hours or days after I finish them. Evereux's advice is fine

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!

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

Oh and please forgive the coloring. It's not yet finished. Still an "alpha version" page 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...

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/

...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.

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

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

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

My comment was about the last sentence. All contenders are indeed tied for Sebastian's tests, but not for mine

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

Uhh... stupid me... I just realized... it is a Listening Test... lossless tests surely do not belong here...

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 ...

Yes, but it has wider support than LA, encodes/decodes faster and has error correction.

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

Uh... URL please? I promise it will be put in the next revision...

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

EDIT:

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

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

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.

Very nice
Through the Test, iTunes AAC and Vorbis do good job :x
nXqd

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.

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.)

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.