Skip to main content

Topic: Vorbis quality – wrong direction? (Read 43010 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • harashin
  • [*][*][*][*]
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #50
The Modest Tuning Beta2 won my own test.  Apparently it's superior to other Vorbis encoders on this kind of sample. (sharp attack, symbal)
Although aoTuV b1 is also thinkable as a good choice for its reasonable bitrate.
Folding@Home Hydrogenaudio.org Team ID# 32639
http://folding.stanford.edu/

  • music_man_mpc
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #51
Quote
However, it was not so good because the average bitrate of MTb2 is too high (around 160-170kbps).

Perhaps next time you could compare it to 1.01 -q5 as well?  Results would be interesting, IMO.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

  • QuantumKnot
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #52
It certainly is surprising that lossless coupling is doing so badly compared with uncoupled.  Theoretically, you'd expect they should be the same! 

  • harashin
  • [*][*][*][*]
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #53
Quote
It certainly is surprising that lossless coupling is doing so badly compared with uncoupled.  Theoretically, you'd expect they should be the same! 

Indeed, it's very odd. However, I was able to ABX between LC and UC with score at 15/20.  Also, they don't actually seem to be same.

lc_uc.png
Folding@Home Hydrogenaudio.org Team ID# 32639
http://folding.stanford.edu/

  • QuantumKnot
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #54
Quote
Quote
It certainly is surprising that lossless coupling is doing so badly compared with uncoupled.  Theoretically, you'd expect they should be the same! 

Indeed, it's very odd. However, I was able to ABX between LC and UC with score at 15/20.  Also, they don't actually seem to be same.

lc_uc.png

Monty made a good point in IRC that this is to be expected since compilers do random things to FP computations

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #55
[span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%']...One year later[/font][/span]

Just for curiosity, I've tried another comparison, using the same samples, in order to check vorbis's progress during three years, and especially during the last one.
I kept vorbis RC3 (march 2002), vorbis 1.01 (march 2003), and add the most advanced vorbis encoder: aoTuV beta 3. I'd like to check the amount of noise/coarseness audible with aoTuV compared to an old encoder which wasn't too affected by this problem.

results:



ABX log/scores are here.

There are still audible issues with aoTuV at this bitrate, but they are much lower than vorbis RC3. One exception: the last sample, which RC3 performed differently (and to my ears: better) on brass (micro-attacks sample).
Bravo to Aoyumi!
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 04:18:52 PM by guruboolez

  • DreamTactix291
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #56
Wow.  That is some nice improvement.

It looks like aoTuV is pushing Vorbis in the right direction instead of regressing it
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

  • Aoyumi
  • [*][*][*]
Vorbis quality – wrong direction?
Reply #57
Quote
There are still audible issues with aoTuV at this bitrate, but they are much lower than vorbis RC3. One exception: the last sample, which RC3 performed differently (and to my ears: better) on brass (micro-attacks sample).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=273435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The handling of a micro attack is one of the big subjects truly.

I know that QuantumKnot is performing the trial for solving this problem.
Probably, I am looking forward to it. 
  • Last Edit: 16 February, 2005, 09:09:59 AM by Aoyumi