Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs (Read 32685 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #25 –
Wow, what on earth is this killer sample? I can ABX it with 100% accuracy even at Apple AAC 320k CVBR (!!!!!!!!!??!?!?). I almost can't believe it. What about this file is so difficult that it trips up even the highest of quality lossy encoding?

Ok, seems like the Apple encoder specifically gets tripped up by it for some reason. Opus manages the sample fine at even 192k VBR.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #26 –
Quote from: jdimsa on
Wow, what on earth is this killer sample? I can ABX it with 100% accuracy even at Apple AAC 320k CVBR (!!!!!!!!!??!?!?). I almost can't believe it. What about this file is so difficult that it trips up even the highest of quality lossy encoding?

I think its the loud HF noise in the beginning. The drum causes the noise to modulate up and down.
Down the the spectrum it becomes audiable as distortion, ringing, noise etc.
I would be surprised if its from a properly mastered album etc.  A lower lowpass or static noiseshaping
to push the noise up helps.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #27 –
Quote from: shadowking on
I think its the loud HF noise in the beginning. The drum causes the noise to modulate up and down.
Down the the spectrum it becomes audiable as distortion, ringing, noise etc.
I would be surprised if its from a properly mastered album etc.  A lower lowpass or static noiseshaping
to push the noise up helps.

I do wonder why Opus handles the file fine compared to CoreAudio encoder. I'm almost tempted to re-encode my mobile library from AAC to Opus due to this killer sample, just due to the implication of libopus' ability to handle edge cases better than CoreAudio can. But maybe I'm just being paranoid and overreacting.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #28 –
Quote from: shadowking on
Quote from: synclagz on
I see. That is imortant for me to know. Hard to make a difference even on abx.
Thanks a lot.

You can use static noise shaping value like -s0.5 (-b450hhs0.5)
This will shift noise to the higher freq.  In this sample the default setting cause the noise to go
down the spectrum where it has a more audiable or static character.
If encoding time isn't an issue, try  -b450hhx4s0.5

Thanks for the advice. ;) I'll play with different settings and this -s0.5 also.
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #29 –
Quote from: jdimsa on
Quote from: shadowking on
I think its the loud HF noise in the beginning. The drum causes the noise to modulate up and down.
Down the the spectrum it becomes audiable as distortion, ringing, noise etc.
I would be surprised if its from a properly mastered album etc.  A lower lowpass or static noiseshaping
to push the noise up helps.

I do wonder why Opus handles the file fine compared to CoreAudio encoder. I'm almost tempted to re-encode my mobile library from AAC to Opus due to this killer sample, just due to the implication of libopus' ability to handle edge cases better than CoreAudio can. But maybe I'm just being paranoid and overreacting.

If you have natural music or a bit of electronic your fine. If you have lots of this style, with
HF 'pfffftssss' , high pitch tones, etc  You may need to experiment to find a non-annoying setting.
I guess at 320k transparency is expected or at worst case a not-annoying level.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #30 –
Quote from: includemeout on
Quote from: shadowking on
Tried MPC --radio 92kbps , sounds identical or close.
Would you say this is more down to it being a sub-band codec?

Would it also mean -quality 5 and up as being probably safe choices (to your ears at least)?


It may have something with subband. Its immune to pre echo
and some other issues of mp3 /aac.

I tried quality 5 with headphones. It seems transparent.
Yes, Quality 5 is the work horse of mpc, that or Quality 6 gives
a small size - much smaller than 256 or 320k. in mp3 case its -b320k to
get an OK quality (-b256 is bad).  VS mpc --standard 119 k  !!!

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Markuza97 on

Off-topic: This is not the first time I am impressed with MPC. It really makes me wonder why this format is not more widely supported.

Me too. In the past I posted 'I would take Quality 5 or 6 mpc over 256 ~ 320k mp3 / aac'
it did not go down well, But that was my gut instinct. This sample further confirms it for me.

Yes support and lack of interest is frustrating. People figure newer codec = better etc. MPC is seen as old , dead or whatever.
Also at low bitrate less than 96k its no good. But I could care less for that personally. You can have magnificent audio
170k streaming or local. We are not pinned to 128k as there is enough bandwidth today. But for business its all about
32, 64k etc or how far down they can push it.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #32 –
Quote from: synclagz on
Quote from: shadowking on
Quote from: synclagz on
I see. That is imortant for me to know. Hard to make a difference even on abx.
Thanks a lot.

You can use static noise shaping value like -s0.5 (-b450hhs0.5)
This will shift noise to the higher freq.  In this sample the default setting cause the noise to go
down the spectrum where it has a more audiable or static character.
If encoding time isn't an issue, try  -b450hhx4s0.5

Thanks for the advice. ;) I'll play with different settings and this -s0.5 also.

I managed to get 400k to an acceptable level using -hhx5s0.5 .  I got 6/8 and 7/8
for 384 and 400.  With hhx4s0.5  -  450 was 8/8 though very subtle. I think the x5 helps
quite a bit .

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #33 –
I'll try x5 to see if I can hear any differences.

As for MPC, I think that today with foobar for Android/Windows + Linux (wine) we don't have compatibility issues. For cars someone could connect through BT or even old aux in should do fine. :)

Small request:
Is someone willing to test FhG (winamp) AAC at 320 CBR?
In recent Listening tests, Guruboolez found out that FhG aac is more robust against problem samples (if I remember correctly) so it would be interesting to see if FhG can do something about this sample (when Apple AAC can't)
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #34 –
I also tried a stronger shift -s0.75 and its more difficult to abx. I stopped at
1/4  for -b400hhx5s0.75  . With s0.5, I managed several  5/5 's

for -b450hhx5s0.75 i got 5/8

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #35 –
fhg

--cbr 320
Fail. I keep getting 7/10

--cbr 256

Quote
foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.6
2021-07-15 15:02:40

File A: master.wav
SHA1: 86786351d337f5065444a841bf07f1b2319869c1
File B: cbr256.m4a
SHA1: 9f2b56f5b6241f0a4c78344a21fe88940b990895

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

15:02:40 : Test started.
15:02:49 : 01/01
15:02:58 : 02/02
15:03:05 : 03/03
15:03:14 : 04/04
15:03:19 : 05/05
15:03:25 : 06/06
15:03:27 : 07/07
15:03:30 : 08/08
15:03:32 : 09/09
15:03:41 : 10/10
15:03:41 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 10/10
p-value: 0.001 (0.1%)

 -- signature --
48b50559f6f0d7692f2a92f6339c92e0d0f267e7

--vbr 6

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.6
2021-07-15 14:48:22

File A: master.wav
SHA1: 86786351d337f5065444a841bf07f1b2319869c1
File B: vbr.m4a
SHA1: 5770475576a1270cbcab7341034cc5af567f8669

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

14:48:22 : Test started.
14:48:27 : 01/01
14:48:29 : 02/02
14:48:40 : 03/03
14:48:43 : 04/04
14:48:45 : 05/05
14:48:47 : 06/06
14:48:50 : 07/07
14:48:53 : 08/08
14:48:55 : 09/09
14:48:58 : 10/10
14:48:58 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 10/10
p-value: 0.001 (0.1%)

 -- signature -- 
6f985f8eef8549cd6960567b9f4b4547fdce9408

gold plated toslink fan

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #36 –
@Markuza97
Excellent! Thanks.
FhG @320k should be very good.
Definitely more robust against problem samples. :)
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #37 –
Quote from: shadowking on
Quote from: includemeout on
Quote from: shadowking on
Tried MPC --radio 92kbps , sounds identical or close.
Would you say this is more down to it being a sub-band codec?

Would it also mean -quality 5 and up as being probably safe choices (to your ears at least)?


It may have something with subband. Its immune to pre echo
and some other issues of mp3 /aac.

I tried quality 5 with headphones. It seems transparent.
Yes, Quality 5 is the work horse of mpc, that or Quality 6 gives
a small size - much smaller than 256 or 320k. in mp3 case its -b320k to
get an OK quality (-b256 is bad).  VS mpc --standard 119 k  !!!
As usual, thank you so much for your invaluable, countless testing, SK.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #38 –
Quote from: synclagz on
As for MPC, I think that today with foobar for Android/Windows + Linux (wine) we don't have compatibility issues. For cars someone could connect through BT or even old aux in should do fine. :)
Hear, hear!

No to mention for -quality 5 and above - for in-car listening - transcoding into MP3, thanks also to the insignificant amount of time taken in the process these days - it definitely a plausible proposition as well.

Popularity or no popularity, I guess there just ain't many reasons, as it used to be the case 15 yrs ago, for "feeling guilty" for sticking to MPC (if that's your cuppa) - even more so after smartphones came up, given that many recent killer samples, as this one, haven't been making too much of a dent even in its "standard" setting - two frickin’ decades later, FCS!!

Edit:
Musepack may have fallen from grace, but it's still to be proven (for +160Kbps) to be out of shape.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #39 –
Quote from: jdimsa on
Quote from: shadowking on
I think its the loud HF noise in the beginning. The drum causes the noise to modulate up and down.
Down the the spectrum it becomes audiable as distortion, ringing, noise etc.
I would be surprised if its from a properly mastered album etc.  A lower lowpass or static noiseshaping
to push the noise up helps.

I do wonder why Opus handles the file fine compared to CoreAudio encoder. I'm almost tempted to re-encode my mobile library from AAC to Opus due to this killer sample, just due to the implication of libopus' ability to handle edge cases better than CoreAudio can. But maybe I'm just being paranoid and overreacting.

Much better handling of HF & hard transients?. This is not the only sample that CoreAudio struggles with, It seems to hate the synth sounds that my Dark Ambient collection uses. V0 Lame with old-vbr is transparent but AAC as a whole fails at 320kbps, Yet MPC wins at a half the bit rate?.

It weird how hostile some here get when Musepack's strengths are pointed out despite the fact there like 12 examples alone in this forum where Q5 pretty much transparent. Both Opus/MPC are the only ones so far that have proved to be robust on killer samples.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #40 –
Quote from: ani_Jackal3 on
It weird how hostile some here get when Musepack's strengths are pointed out despite the fact there like 12 examples alone in this forum where Q5 pretty much transparent. Both Opus/MPC are the only ones so far that have proved to be robust on killer samples.
Can't you at least post results of abx tests and samples so that you can back up your claim?

Besides, there are samples which Musepack struggles with at Quality 5.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/musepack-vs-other-codecs.23601/post-791881

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #41 –
Quote from: OLPP on
Quote from: ani_Jackal3 on
It weird how hostile some here get when Musepack's strengths are pointed out despite the fact there like 12 examples alone in this forum where Q5 pretty much transparent. Both Opus/MPC are the only ones so far that have proved to be robust on killer samples.
Can't you at least post results of abx tests and samples so that you can back up your claim?

Besides, there are samples which Musepack struggles with at Quality 5.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/musepack-vs-other-codecs.23601/post-791881

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/musepack-vs-other-codecs.23601/#post-849256

Just did that with Q5 MPC both were transparent, There all electronic samples and some old MP3 aimed ones. It just backs up that Pure MDCT codecs can't cope without something breaking and need a encoder patch.





Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #42 –
Quote from: OLPP on
Quote from: ani_Jackal3 on
It weird how hostile some here get when Musepack's strengths are pointed out despite the fact there like 12 examples alone in this forum where Q5 pretty much transparent. Both Opus/MPC are the only ones so far that have proved to be robust on killer samples.
Besides, there are samples which Musepack struggles with at Quality 5.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/musepack-vs-other-codecs.23601/post-791881
We've all been well aware of those. So far nobody said there weren't; at least not in this thread.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #43 –
That guy is using a lot of DSPs in his test. Is it fair to use DSP effects while doing ABX test?
I mean, I just grabbed a random song, encoded using LAME V2. It sounds great, fully transparent.
Then I activated built-in Equalizer DSP to reduce lower and increase higher frequecies. LAME obviously has lowpass
and lossless will obviously win. Very easy to cheat the ABX.
gold plated toslink fan

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #44 –
Quote from: OLPP on
Besides, there are samples which Musepack struggles with at Quality 5.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/musepack-vs-other-codecs.23601/post-791881
Nice link, but we needn't even leave HA's subforums in order to illustrate that:
We've been talking about those all the time - as recently as two years ago - and with people who'd apparently worked closely with the developers, such as @Kristo.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=117174.0

I think the bottom line regarding comments towards MPC here, is that given its mileage (and the aeons that have passed since it was last updated) how its standard setting (or something slightly above/below that but still sticking to fairly average bit rates) still manages to fare quite well when it comes to several killer samples - but not in detriment to this or that "competing" format.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Markuza97 on
That guy is using a lot of DSPs in his test.
Sorry, but for clarity's sake, you mean the person in the link provided by OLPP, right?
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #46 –
Quote from: includemeout on
Quote from: Markuza97 on
That guy is using a lot of DSPs in his test.
Sorry, but for clarity's sake, you mean the person in the link provided by OLPP, right?

Yes. I don't care what anyone says. That test is invalid.
That guy is literally comparing two entirely different files.
gold plated toslink fan

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #47 –
Quote from: Markuza97 on
That guy is using a lot of DSPs in his test.

Quote from: Markuza97 on
That guy is literally comparing two entirely different files.

I am going to assume that 'that guy' in the first quote and the second quote are two different people. I am 'that guy' of the first quote. I use the nickname 'UKPI' in audiosciencereview.

Among those DSP modules, Equalizer and IIR filters are used to match my headphones closer to the Harman target. Nothing more, nothing less. Scale is volume control. Meier crossfeed is crossfeed. The rest is self-explanatory. The difference of frequency responses between different headphones would usually be much larger than the difference of frequency response caused by the DSPs I used. If my test is invalid because of DSP usage, that would mean that only a handful of headphones can be used to test lossy codecs.


Quote from: ani_Jackal3 on
Just did that with Q5 MPC both were transparent, There all electronic samples and some old MP3 aimed ones. It just backs up that Pure MDCT codecs can't cope without something breaking and need a encoder patch.
So, you were the 'that guy' of Markuza97's second quote? Okay then.
The result of the second test just proves that different people have different sensitivities to different coding artifacts. Like I said in the link, there are only speculations without a test involving multiple listeners with multiple samples. Also, why did you compare 41_30sec.wv to velvet.mpc?


Quote from: includemeout on
I think the bottom line regarding comments towards MPC here, is that given its mileage (and the aeons that have passed since it was last updated) how its standard setting (or something slightly above/below that but still sticking to fairly average bit rates) still manages to fare quite well when it comes to several killer samples - but not in detriment to this or that "competing" format.
I do agree with that. I was just tired of posts praising Musepack as "the" superior codec without sufficient evidence.

By the way, sorry for derailing this thread. That sample certainly is interesting.

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #48 –
I am talking about you OLPP-UKPI.
You were using files from "different" sources for ABXing.

I dunno how to explain this properly.........
I will just repeat what I posted above.

Let's take MP3 for example.
Original lossless file doesn't have lots of useful stuff above 16 kHz.
LAME will see this and it will decide to cut it to save space.
Let's add lossless and MP3 file to foobar.
It sounds dull. We can use DSP to enhance higher frequencies. Lossless will sound great because it preserves whole frequency range.
MP3 will sound terrible because it doesn't actually have any higher frequencies to enhance.
If you applied DSP effects to lossless file and then converted to MP3 situation would be different.

I am not saying that MPC is God sent format that nobody can ABX. I am just saying that if you want to do fair test, do not use any DSP effects while playing.
gold plated toslink fan

Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs

Reply #49 –
Maybe a little easier way to understand.

You have 1920x1080 PNG image (FLAC). Size is huge. You decided to convert it to JPG (MP3/MPC).
After conversion they will look identical (transparent).
Now you decided to upscale the image to 7680x4320 (DSP).
JPG will look a lot worse because you increased the compression artifacts.
But if you first upscaled the PNG image to 7680x4320 and then converted to JPG it will look identical.
gold plated toslink fan