Have there been any tests to determine what settings one should use with Ogg to achieve CD transparency?

Unfortunately, I can't seem to do a keyword search for "Ogg" in the forums. Must be at least 4 characters.

Brett

'CD transparency' is pretty much impossible for anything. I haven't noticed any big problems at -q6, which is what I use now, so perhaps I'll try -q5 later on to see if it's also ok for me.



I also find this annoying...could an admin fix this perhaps?

--
GCP

I agree.

It's strange... an audio forum where you can't search for terms like AAC, OGG, MP3, MPC, EAC...

Not that this problem could not or should not be taken care of. But OGG is the container format Vorbis is the actual codec. So if every one now has this distinction right then the 4 char search limit should not be a problem for this. Even I forget this from time to time. Monty helped remind me the other day. And I often wonder why the forums here are named for the container format and not the codec.

I guess a better way to word it would be:

What setting would I use to achive relatively the same quality as --alt-preset standard?

That would give me a good baseline, and I could work up from there. I trust others ears more than mine.

Brett

My estimate would be -q5 then

--
GCP

Here is what Monty had to say about the issue:

OK, since only about half of the mail we get is about the name 'Ogg Vorbis', it's clearly time to karma-whore a popular subject and open this can of worms one more time.
Our "The Name Sucks!"/"The name Rulez!" mail ratio is about 50/50. Some of you have threatened to kill us if we change the name, some of you have threatened to kill us if we don't. So you're gonna hear what I think about it. I'm not going to waste the opportunity my minor fame gives me for a healthy round of peer-mockery.

<tongue-in-cheek>
<neeneer-neener>
I Like The Name. I Wrote the Software. The Name Stays.
</neener-neener>

But there's more to this story than 'nyah nyah'. The 'rename Ogg!' forces have provided me with some of my favorite mail ever. I recall fondly the guy who went on, in great detail, why 'Ogg Vorbis' sucks, and that I must adopt 'a cutting edge, truly kick-ass name like "FreeMP3"!!!!!'

As for 'Ogg Vorbis', I hadn't really meant the 'Vorbis' part to get tacked on. The name of the format is Ogg. Just Ogg. Vorbis happens to be the first codec. Had 'Vorbis' been perhaps one more syllable (like, say 'Sorensen'), we wouldn't have this problem. People would just call it 'Ogg' like God (that's me) intended. Of course, particularly obsessive people *do* occasionally say 'QuickTime Sorensen', but they don't get invited to parties much, and when invited, they are shunned. 'Course they're usually just arguing with the punch bowl so shunning is easy.

I don't want my users to be shunned at parties, so I'm gonna help you out here. Just call it 'Ogg'. Ogg is a good, simple, very satisfying word.

It makes a good noun, a better verb and can even be used effectively in a curse. It is a real word and contains no numbers. It has only two unique characters, making it simpler than mp3. It is only one syllable, making it shorter to say than mp3. If you still can't handle it, try reboot-reinstall.
</tongue-in-cheek>

Monty
xiph.org

--
GCP

I'm fine with the name. Actually, I king of like it.

Besides, even if everyone referred to it as Vorbis, that doesn't help me seach for AAC, MP3, etc, on this board.

Brett

I wonder if the minimum four character search limitation is a shortcoming of vBulletin?

Ok, so (not surprising) I'm a little confused here.

"Ogg" is the container format, "Vorbis" is the codec.

Ok.

However, let's say another Ogg codec comes down the pike. "Ogg Tarkin", for example. Will this different format also have the .ogg extension and be referred to as "Ogg", per Monty's wishes, even though it does something different?

And what about this "Ogg Flac" business I've heard about?... Just call it "Ogg" and slap .ogg at the end, even though it's a different beast?

Hmm...

Anyway, just saying "Ogg" is agreeable to me.

BTW, -q5.5 seems damn "transparent" to me.

Thanks Monty... that was quite funny. Hopefully your tongue didn't poke a hole in your cheek.

I assume that "vorbis" functions in a similar way to "Lame" - one might discuss the relative quality of lame mp3's compared to FhG mp3's, or Psytel vs. Liquifier in the aac world. Because as far as I know, the relatively freer codecs for aac and mp3 run with different algorithms than do the FhG versions. At present, there is no competition within the ogg format; not surprising given that it is fully open-source. So there's no need to compare vorbis oggs to "Tarkin" oggs or whatever else.

I was wondering why the website for the format is vorbis.com and not ogg.com, but then I discovered that Olson's Greenhouse Gardens has set up their "The Bedding Plant Guide" at http://www.ogg.com. Peace,

Tim

No, it can be controlled. If it's changed to 3, the search index must be rebuild and the database size will increase considerably.
Gotta ask Dibrom if it can be done...

Well, this is what happens with video formats and codecs. Microsoft's AVI file format, for example, often contains video compressed with Intel Indeo, DivX, or a host of other codecs (or even uncompressed video). But they're all named *.avi and they're all just calls "AVIs."

Of course maybe audio formats/codecs aren't the same; just thought I'd bring up the comparison though.

Indeo is not Intel's anymore. It's Ligos'

http://www.ligos.com/index.phtml?pi=14&n1=...ndeo&Subsector=

Thanks for the update...so hard to keep track of all these things. =]

On a related note, do you have any idea what the Indeo audio codec is? Is it some other known format, or did they invent yet another psychoacoustic audio compression scheme?

You're welcome.



I have never seen specifications on the format floating around but, from what I've heard (not accurate information), Intel built it from old compression schemes like Acelp.net (Sipro Lab), but improved support at higher bitrates and psychoacoustics.

There are no papers regarding Indeo either at Intel's site or Logos'

Regards;

Roberto.

I can understand Monty's desire for people to just call it OGG for the time being. But damn this is going to be confusing in the future as well as now. Since OGG is the container and need not even contain any xiph derived streams where is the logic in calling Vorbis OGG? Likewise in the future it will be possible to have Tarkin and Vorbis outside of OGG. Possibly in AVI. Quicktime? When you talk about the format aka file type, yeah ok it's OGG. But when you talk about codecs or actual compressors it is Vorbis. Just like the terms DivX and AVI are not synonimous. A divx is not an avi and an avi is not a divx. At least that is the only way I can keep my sanity. It's like someone asking you what you are reading and you say a magazine. Well duh! But what is inside it? Is it a geek boy fan mag or a playboy? Interior decorating perhaps?

I'm using MPC -xtreme at the moment. I'd have no problem switching back to OGG, under the condition that it provides me with the same ultra high quality as MPC -xtreme does at roughly the same (or lower) bitrate.

Can anyone confirm officially if this is possible? I'm not in a hurry , if it's not possible (or can't be confirmed yet), I'm still happy with MPC I'm just interested.

CU

Dominic

Edit: BTW, Monty's "hard word" is hilarious, I'd say "Post of the month"

I'm not official - but I can tell you the answer: at the bitrates you want, more people can hear problems with Ogg than can hear problems with MPC. Several of the problems they can hear are easily fixed, but some are down to the basic nature of the Vorbis format, and won't be fixed before version 2.

In general, if you're really really sensitive to preecho, then you'll always be able to find clips where Vorbis has problems, but MPC doesn't. These won't be fixed until the mythical version 2, when all mistakes will be rectified, and Ogg will end war and spread love throughout the land.

Thank you, Jon, that takes care of the issue, then.

I'm not actually that sensitive to pre-echo, but that also largely is due to my bad equipment. I'm using MPC -xtreme because I want to make sure that I get good quality output on just about any equipment I might come across in the next few years

Oh well, I'll have to live without the clever tagging system and the other cool features until version 2, then...

CU

Dominic

Happy waiting

It is very easy to answer what quality setting should be used for transparrency: None at all, use a lossless format.

Transparrency really depends on these three factors:

1. Reproduction of sound in your listening room:
- How good is your hi-fi system, speakers, etc?
- How balanced is the accoustics of your room?
- Are you using an optimal listening position?
- Does anything in the room play along, i.e. some thing on a shelf vibrating.

2. Your hearing:
- How old are you, hearing gets worse by age?
- Do you play your music way too loud too often / attend rock concerts / work in a very noisy workplace?
- Do you have any defects?
- Ear vax?

3. Your perception of sound:
- Your mood? (things sound differently when you are in a bad/good mood).
- Have you trained your hearing? That is listening intensely to music and concentrating on different instruments/layers of the music. This is hard work, but the result is permanent...

So depending on your answers, transparrency for you might be anywere from 80 kbps to lossless.

As for myself, 320 kbps mp3 CBR, Frauenhofer is not transparrent on my good days. 256 kbps Ogg (RC2) is.

As for my audiophile friend, 320 kpbs mp3 sounds awful. 350 kbps Ogg (RC2) is acceptable (but not transparrent).


It is however possible to find out which setting will give transparrency to you: A blind test (you will need a friend to help you, as it is vital you do not know the quality setting while hearing the number).
Encode a wave (approx 30-60 secs) with different quality settings. Play back the different files in a to you unknown order (same volume, same listening position). Deside which sound best...

That is really it. But it may be different for you tomorrow.
So I recommend choosing a bitrate somewhat higher than your current tolerance. That way you don't have to speculate whether or not you have chosen a bitrate too low. Also the price of harddisks is very low.

I am encoding my stuff with an average bitrate of 320...

-q5 still has problems where LAME --alt-preset standard and MPC --standard don't, see this thread.

I'd say, -q6 should be mostly ok.

I'll rephrase the question:

What setting would produce percieved (not technical) transparency for most (not the .1% audiophile) people?

It seems that -q5 or -q6 work for most people.

I do not think that things are that simple.

People are very different. They will argue that some value between 128 and 256k is just fine. Some will say that mp3 sound awful. Some will say that the errors made while recording are much greater than the errors made while encoding to mp3 etc. There are more than 0.1% audiophile people and there are more than 0.1% audiophobic people too.

The ogg format has some advantages over mp3. Many of the people not using mp3 might just use ogg.

However, the most important factor is your current threshold of transparrency. Perform a blind test and find out. If it falls withing 5,0 an 6,0 as is the general opinion, you have your answer.

If it is way higher, encode at your threshold.

You can probably use bit rate peeling in the future to downgrade your files for trading.

New question:

What setting do most people on this board use?

That seems pretty simple.

It would seem that most use -q5.

I actually use -q 4.99, even (right now) for cd's that I don't have access to. I can easily ABX some samples at this level, but I haven't experienced any annoying artifacts. That is, unless I directly compare with the original track, nothing ever stands out to tip me off that I'm listening to compresssed audio. Will I, in the future, re-encode some of the cd's that I have access to? Perhaps. Probably. But I don't want to get hung up on always having the best possible compression or audio.

Just like the some four letter word starting with "F" I guess.
It's time to be new and cool and say "What the Ogg! Ogg you, mother-ogger!"

Now, now...


No reason to go and get all oggy

Isn't that the point of this whole board?

yeah, basically, you mo-ogg.
And my hearing and/or the quality of my sound system will probably continue to improve, etc...

Yeah, that kind of is the whole point of the board. But also listening to music is the point.

I don't notice artifacts at all at -q 4.99, so I'm happy with that. I might notice them on some specific clips if I'm listening specifically for artifacts, but I generally just listen to the music. If no-one notices it's compressed I'm happy. So far I don't have any friends who have said "ack this sounds like utter crap" or anything, or any that have been able to notice. I like the ogg format for other reasons than just it's vorbis encoding quality. I'm interested in using it for other stuff too.