Skip to main content

Topic: Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10 (Read 15327 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Bored by some recent discussion about the relevance of high settings with musepack encoder, I tried to prove to myself and to other people that:
- finding slight problems samples for mpc –quality 5 isn’t too difficult (even if it needed a lot of concentration to ABX problem)
- these small problems will disappear with a higher bitrate.

I suspect since a long time that mpc isn’t clear with cymbals. I have a lot of metal music encoded with –standard, and I often perceive some suspicious distortions with this instrument. Unfortunately, I haven’t the original for ABX test. I tested some long times ago on some cymbals sample I founded myself, but conclusions were clean for mpc.
Today, I decided to try again, more seriously, and therefore I searched for a good cymbal sample in my entire library. A name quickly came into my mind : Richard Wagner… I found some sharp cymbals in his famous hit, popularized by Francis Ford Coppola. I cut some seconds, and encode them with both 1.14 and 1.15r (I’m not convinced that 1.15r is better than 1.14, and I also suspected 1.14 to be stronger on most ‘regular’ samples than 1.15r). –xlevel encoding was always enabled, to avoid clipping distortion.

First, I ABXed –standard encodings. On the first cymbal attack, I was disappointed. Though I didn’t listen very carefully, I expected a more obvious difference. I jumped few seconds, and ABXed another part of the file (cymbals too) : from second 10.00 to 11.5. Results are here :

STANDARD
(first trial)
1.14 :  4.2 - 12/16
1.15r : 4.5 - 12/16
1.14 vs 1.15r : 9/16
(second trial)
1.14 :  4.2 - 13/16
1.15r : 4.5* - 12/16 (* mixed up original and encoded)
1.14 vs 1.15r : 2/7

Though I rated two times 1.14 at a higher level than 1.15r, I wasn’t able to distinguish them on a direct opposition. Most important thing : --standard profile is ABXable on this small part/high cymbal attack.

Let see if –extreme will correct the problem :

EXTREME
1.14 : 4.8 - 8/16
1.15r : 4.3 - 16/16
1.14 vs 1.15r : 13/16 (pval = 0.011)

I didn’t perform a second test at this setting. Result were obvious, confirmed by the good ABX score I had with 1.15r (16/16 !) and with direct opposition (13/16). 1.15r was significantly worse, due to an annoying whistle I heard with evidence. On the other side, 1.14 was near transparent. On my quick test, I couldn’t ABXed it. I was happy, and decided to perform a last test at –insane…
  • Last Edit: 07 August, 2003, 11:34:46 AM by guruboolez

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #1
INSANE
1.14 :  4.4 - 12/16 (pval = 0.038)
1.15r : 4.8 - 8/16
1.14 vs 1.15r : 18/32 (pval = 0.298)
1.15r seemed to be better with –insane, but I couldn’t proof it with direct opposition. I tried a second time.
(second trial)
1.14 :  4.7 – 14/20 (pval = 0.058)
1.15r : 4.7 – 15/20 (pval = 0.021)
1.14 vs 1.15r : 15/20 (pval = 0.021)
This time I was sure : 1.14 was more distorted than 1.15r. The total opposite of –extreme performances ?!
I decided to go with braindead, encode the file, but I accidentally forgot to change config file. I tested insane a third time :
(third trial)
1.14 :  4.6 – 13/16 (pval = 0.011)
1.15r : 4.8 – 10/16 (pval = 0.227)
1.14 vs 1.15r : 13/16 (pval = 0.011)
Again, 1.14 sound less natural and more distorted ; confirmed on ABX direct confrontation… Now, braindead.

BRAINDEAD
1.14 :  4.8 – 14/16 (pval = 0.002)
1.15r : 4.9 – 13/16 (pval = 0.011)
1.14 vs 1.15r : 16/29* (pval = 0.356)  * I expected better result after a bad beginning – it wasn’t the case…
I must say that I was shocked by these results. I tried to prove that higher bitrate are sufficient to correct artifacts, I now, I came to the conclusion that –quality 8 wasn’t transparent on a sample I chose by feeling !! I followed my investigations, sad for my favorite codec, but happy… happy to fight against a monster, and to progressively win the match.
  • Last Edit: 07 August, 2003, 11:30:10 AM by guruboolez

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #2
QUALITY 9
1.14 :  no notation – 12/16 (pval = 0.038)
1.15r : no notation – 5/16 (pval = 0.962)
1.14 vs 1.15r : 6/16 (pval = 0.895) 
Best and conclusive ABX score for 1.14 – 1.15r was transparent. But I began ABX test with 1.15r, and 1.14 that came after may have suffered from this warm-up. So, if direct confrontation wasn’t conclusive, I have ABXed –quality 9 with 1.14 encoder, on a sample that didn’t sound very critical : very annoying for me…

QUALITY 10
1.14 :  4.8 – 10/16 (pval = 0.227)
1.15r : no notation – 8/16 (pval = 0.598)
1.14 vs 1.15r : no test
(second trial)
1.14 :  4.8* – 14/20 (pval = 0.058)  *confused
1.15r : 4.8 – 14/20 (pval = 0.058)
1.14 vs 1.15r : 2/6 (I quickly gave up)
Conclusive ABX results for both encoders. There is a small problem (for me, it’s distortion : can’t be more precise), even at high bitrate (330 kbps). And at this moment of the test, I didn’t had to be very attentive to hear this problem….



I’m forced to agree, now, with people claiming that high bitrate encodings aren’t really worth. And the trust I usually had for my whole --insane encodings just exploded on my face… Now, on the first suspicious sound I will hear, I probably will accuse mpc for this…
Nevertheless, I can’t explain my performance. Has the scorching heat a positive impact on my hearing abilities ? Is it because I listened very few music since five weeks ? Had my ears progress, and sensitive as never there were for mpc artifacts ? Maybe other people will confirm the slight degradation I heard (please, try on this small part !). At least, the strange phenomenon I heard against 1.15r encoder (the one 16/16 I obtained during the whole test).

Sample is now uploading…

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #3
Sorry for this flooding. Forum is broken...
I can't edit my post in order to make them more pleasant, without bugging the text...

Sample is here :

http://membres.lycos.fr/guruboolez/AUDIO/s...ries_short.flac

  • Dologan
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #4
No, can't ABX and man, I tried! Of course I am no golden-eared such as yourself, but for me no difference. I hope one does hear it, though.
Still, the conclusions of this will, however, seriously support the view that advocates: if -q 5 fails, going up won't help, so just stay at -q 5.

~Dologan
  • Last Edit: 07 August, 2003, 12:39:27 PM by dologan

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #5
Have you tried the specific part I suggest : 10.00 - 11.50 ? With an headphone ?
Anyway, thanks for testing.

  • music_man_mpc
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #6
This is indeed most distressing, but I am glad that you found this problem.  In the Post 128Kbit test ff123 said:

Quote
Several people have very good high frequency hearing, and can hear the lowpassing of MPC and AAC (both around 16 kHz). One person (gecko) seems to find this to be a significant defect.


Is it possible that this is what you are hearing and that raising the lowpass filter *might* help?  It might explain why there is little or no quarrelation between the different --quality settings tried.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #7
Quote
Is it possible that this is what you are hearing and that raising the lowpass filter *might* help?  It might explain why there is little or no quarrelation between the different --quality settings tried.

mpc lowpassing is near inexistant at high setting. It's not the problem.
Note that the original file doesn't reach 22 khz : recording is old (Bayreuth, 1967).

  • Dologan
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #8
Quote
Have you tried the specific part I suggest : 10.00 - 11.50 ? With an headphone ?
Anyway, thanks for testing.

Yeah. That very part and of course with headphones. The equipment is not high-end (just my laptop sound card and a pair of Sennheiser PX100s), but that's the best I've got right now.
  • Last Edit: 07 August, 2003, 12:59:54 PM by dologan

  • mithrandir
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #9
I don't think there is any need to be shocked since, again, MPC is lossy. Artifacts are theoretically (and often pragmatically) possible in any situation regardless of quality setting used. Remember also that SV7 creates a few relatively minor audible problems due to its design that you can't remove using bitrate alone. SV8 is supposed to address these problems (though no guarantees it will be problem-free itself), assuming an SV8-compliant mppenc is ever released.

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #10
Quote
I don't think there is any need to be shocked since, again, MPC is lossy. Artifacts are theoretically (and often pragmatically) possible in any situation regardless of quality setting used.

Yes, but don't forget the purpose of this test, explained at the beginning : I tried to prove that artifacts will be removed with bitrate inflation, and if standard isn't sufficient for that, insane will. Now, i'm bloody annoyed by the result :'(
I had a great faith in mpc format. I'm disappointed... and surprised to defeat --quality 10 (on one sample, but very common sound).

Fortunately, artifact is limited, and not shocking. And for most of my 10000 mpc encoding, I have the original, so I can rerip them if needed... in lossless

  • NumLOCK
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #11
It confirms a bit what I've been thinking:

- every time you switch for a higher setting, more margin is added to the psymodel's parameters.
- this means, even at highest settings the actual quality margin (inside the output file) is always chosen by the psymodel.  So if the psymodel badly fails at a certain place, and you step up the quality profile, there's little reason (from encoder's point of view) to allocate more bits there.

The only way to remove artifacts for sure, would be to force, for example, an additionnal bit in each of the smallest time units.  Downside:  while helping artifacts, this would waste lotal quality margin (inside the output file) is always chosen by the psymodel.  So if the psymodel badly fails at a certain place, and you step up the quality profile, there's little reason (from encoder's point of view) to allocate more bits there.

The only way to remove artifacts for sure, would be to force, for example, an additionnal bit in each of the smallest time units.  Downside:  while helping artifacts, this would waste lots of bits..
Try Leeloo Chat at http://leeloo.webhop.net

  • Gecko
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #12
Nice one! I may have missed it, but does the artifact get better with increasing bitrates? I should consider downgrading from my current quality 5.5 to pure quality 5. To hell with 0.5 quality points of warm fuzzy feeling!

  • Dologan
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #13
@Guruboolez: Have you tried using a Wavpack/Optimfrog lossy file at a healthy bitrate (448 or 512 kbps)? Maybe it will do the trick for you without having to cope with the filesizes of lossless. Is a Wavpack/Optimfrog lossy transparent to your ears at this bitrate?

  • Dologan
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #14
Well, judging from his marks, apparently version 1.14 improves from standard to extreme and stalls more or less there at 4.8. Version 1.15j appears better at the beginning, but reaches its maximum at insane, also 4.8.
This is obviously not enough data to be able to reach a fair conclusion, but if one may be made, it would be that it makes sense to go up to extreme, but not further, unless you suffer from some byte-wasting compulsion that could be classified as "insanity" or "braindeath".

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #15
I listen to classical music only. Lossless encoding are a bit superior to 40 % (~600 kbps). Therefore, lossy encodings at 450 kbps don't appear to me as a pertinent choice.
I didn't try dualstream or wavepack lossy. Except a very slight level of noise, I don't expect any distorsion with this kind of encoder.

And don't put too much attention on notation : 4.6, 4.8... it doesn't mean anything else that I heard a small difference (and I'm not always sure, before ABX test).

  • indybrett
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #16
Stand by for the flood of "that's why I use lossless" posts 
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

  • Pio2001
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #17
mppenc 1.14 --quality 10 --xlevel
Seconds 8.2 to 8.9
ABX 2/5

Failed.

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #18
Did you ABXed this part with --quality 10 first ? I suggest to warm up your ears with --quality 5, or even --quality 4.

I tried to ABX the same file some minutes ago, directly at --insane. After a dozen total failure, I began to hear the distorsions again.

  • Pio2001
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #19
I tried quality 4 first, but could not ABX at quality 10 then. I'll try the part you suggested later (10-11 s)

  • phong
  • [*][*][*][*]
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #20
Hmm, this one's beyond my ability...

Just for kicks, I started digging in my collection to see if I could find any samples that make trouble for mpc --standard...  OK, so I started with something easier; finding a track that makes trouble for lame --alt-preset standard.    Found one in the first 10 seconds of the first track I tried!
Aphex Twin - Bucephalus Bouncing Ball (Come to Daddy EP).

Very easy.  ABXed 10/10 during a rainstorm (no joke!)  Tried --alt-preset insane, still 10/10 (rainstorm was over, but still had a pretty noisy computer).  Tried oggenc -q6 (gt3b1) - tougher, but definately still noticeable.  I willing to accept that this track is a bit of a pathalogical case though.  :-)

Mpc...  Well, I'm still working on that.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

  • TrNSZ
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #21
[deleted]
  • Last Edit: 27 August, 2015, 05:00:42 PM by TrNSZ

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #22
Quote
ABX of 10-11.5 was trivial even at Q10 - 13/14.  But, I believe these samples are still special cases, and bringing them up will do nothing but help make improvements.

Glad to see a positive report. How do you describe the problem ? I can't be more precise than 'distortion'.
Why would this sample be a special case ? I remind that I didn't heard something wrong before I started ABX tests : I choose this sample because I suspected MPC to have problem with instruments like cymbals. Maybe had I luck, and catch for a first trial a very good sample. But can't we suppose that most of sharp and powerful cymbals attacks are under menace ? However, I must admit that the presence of strings in the background is maybe playing a role in this artifact ; that's maybe why previous cymbals aren't affected so much (or at all), although they sound quite the same. Cymbals, alone, are maybe well reproduced by mpc...

What do you think about it ?

  • Pio2001
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #23
The Smashing Pumpkin's sample of Xerophase was also chosen quite randomly, and you also found harpsichord to have problems most of the time. It seems that these samples are not pathological but stand for a common behaviour of MPC.

The difference with MP3 is the nature and strenght of the artifacts. They are more subtle in nature, in last resort, I reduced the Smashing pumpkin "helicopter" artifact as a very quiet treble noise. That's how I could ABX it best. MP3 artifacts seems stronger to me, and different : pre-echo, drop outs...
Also, MP3 artifacts seem to occur only on pathological samples, while MPC artifacts seem to affect a wide variety of treble sounds.

Quote
Now, on the first suspicious sound I will hear, I probably will accuse mpc for this

That's what I'm constantly doing, but most of the times, I must admit that it's the original that sounds like an MPC artifact, and the compressed file sounds exactly the same. I tried parts of Kovenant, Arcana, MacTatus, that seems to have nasty MPC artifacts, but no, the originals sound like this. Astral Projection sounds exactly the same, exept that the effect is amplified after MPC encoding.
I really have to try to ABX in order to distinguish between real and fake MPC artifacts.
That doesn't turn MPC artifact unimportant for me. Even if this kind of sound can be found in original recordings, I don't like the sound of it.
  • Last Edit: 08 August, 2003, 07:04:50 AM by Pio2001

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Problem with --standard, up to --quality 10
Reply #24
Quote
Quote
Now, on the first suspicious sound I will hear, I probably will accuse mpc for this

That's what I'm constantly doing, but most of the times, I must admit that it's the original that sounds like an MPC artifact, and the compressed file sounds exactly the same. I tried parts of Kovenant, Arcana, MacTatus, that seems to have nasty MPC artifacts, but no, the originals sound like this. Astral Projection sounds exactly the same, exept that the effect is amplified after MPC encoding.
I really have to try to ABX in order to distinguish between real and fake MPC artifacts.
That doesn't turn MPC artifact unimportant for me. Even if this kind of sound can be found in original recordings, I don't like the sound of it.

The first months I decided to switch from lame to mpc, I had very bad feelings : heavy distortions on most recording. I was litteraly crazy about potential artifacts of this unknow format - absolutely no trust on its quality on classical music... I ABXed many of the parts that sounded really odd to me, ut all were negative, even with --standard profile (I encoded -and 'heard' distortions- with insane !). I was so paranoïac at this period that I 'felt' artifacts and compressed sound... on original CD !
After so many ABX failure, I went to the conclusion that placebo effect was really strong, and that I was victim of a great audiophile paranoïa. After these tests, I decided to put no more attention on potential distortions. I know that original CD, or even instruments (baroque instruments are very and naturally distorted - harpsichord sound is based on distortion), are the only responsible of what I heard. Sometimes, I tried to ABX little part that really annoyed me, but with no succes (but maybe due to unwillingness).

Problem : the trust I hardly developped with time is now broken with this test. Of course, I had to find some others samples, ABXable up to --insane or higher profile...

Nevertheless, you're right : mpc artifacts are really subtle.