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: AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion (Read 86417 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #175 –
Quote
I tested 272 samples which are a mixture of completely different music styles. I have 132.5kbps average for Nero, which is actually lower than for Compaact1.2b2 VBR5 which was 1 kbps higher average.
It depends on the music style pretty much.

If Nero and Compaact were so close, maybe the fatboy sample where Compaact reached 270 kbps should be reconsidered? :B
Happiness - The agreeable sensation of contemplating the misery of others.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #176 –
Hold a sec...

BigYellow   143   123   130   124   111


ok..> I encoded BigYellow...

Original:  4320784

MP4:  419946  - RATIO 10.288 - BIT RATE - 137.1 Kbit/s
Audio Track Only: 413488 - RATIO 10.4495 - BIT RATE - 135.02 Kbit/s

(Audio track only is the actual encoder bit rate measured in bit allocation, you could get it by extracting track)

So I think claim 143 + 5-6 kb/s is little bit out of bounds

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #177 –
Indeed, partially my fault. foobar randomized the input, and I forgot to sort it properly.

These are the bitrates foobar reports for the sample suite, encoded with the AAC plugin v. 2.6.2.0, high quality, -internet, LC:



The average is still 141kbps.

The final proof:

All 12 wav files summed: 52.895.248 bytes  divided by
All 12 aac files summed: 5.264.357 bytes  equals 10,0478

Final bitrate = 1411 (CD bitrate) / 10,0478 = 140,428

So there you have it.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #178 –
Quote
Quote
Compaact 1.2 beta 3 has been out for almost a week I believe. Alexander informed me of it. Perhpas he forgot to updatre his beta thread with that link. I think it has various optimizations, so you might want to get a copy instead of using beta 2 for testing.

Do you really think he didn't send me an e-mail already about beta 3?

Edit: Erm? That post is directed at JohnV?


So, anyone willing to take a look at my batch script to convert it to bash-friendly?

rjamorim,

Yes that reply was directed at JohnV replying to his post mentioning beta 2 of Compaact 1.2... Sorry if you missed that.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #179 –
Quote from: rjamorim,Feb 17 2004, 09:05 AM
Quote from: Garf,Feb 17 2004, 08:37 AM

@tigre: Thank-you very much. I'll replace Scars with it, since that seems to be another sample listeners don't like much. Also, I didn't have any funk/soul sample 

nooooo! i liked scars! and i liked it even more once i found out it was from Chrono Cross

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #180 –
Nero on Internet :: Medium (High quality) is fair, over 500 full audio tracks (2G encoded mp4) it came out 2.5% above 128Kbps.

Compaact comression is running right now, in about 7 hours it will be completed and I will post the results all together.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #181 –
Quote
Quote
Compaact 1.2 beta 3 has been out for almost a week I believe. Alexander informed me of it. Perhpas he forgot to updatre his beta thread with that link. I think it has various optimizations, so you might want to get a copy instead of using beta 2 for testing.

Do you really think he didn't send me an e-mail already about beta 3?

Edit: Erm? That post is directed at JohnV?


So, anyone willing to take a look at my batch script to convert it to bash-friendly?

well, here's a quick translation, I haven't tested it

Simply copy this into a blank file with LF for newlines, and set it to be +x

Code: [Select]
#!/bin/sh

# !!!UNTESTED!!!

# Reference decoding
flac -d -o ../Sample01/BigYellow.wav ../Sample01/BigYellow.flac

# Samples decoding
faad -o ../Sample01/BigYellow_1.wav ../Sample01/BigYellow_1.mp4
faad -o ../Sample01/BigYellow_2.wav ../Sample01/BigYellow_2.mp4
faad -o ../Sample01/BigYellow_3.wav ../Sample01/BigYellow_3.mp4
faad -o ../Sample01/BigYellow_4.wav ../Sample01/BigYellow_4.mp4
faad -o ../Sample01/BigYellow_5.wav ../Sample01/BigYellow_5.mp4

# Cleanup
rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow.flac
rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow_1.mp4
rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow_2.mp4
rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow_3.mp4
rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow_4.mp4
rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow_5.mp4

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #182 –
What faac setting did you use? Default seems to give considerably less than 128 on average sample.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #183 –
Quote
What faac setting did you use? Default seems to give considerably less than 128 on average sample.

-q 115. The average bitrate ended at +-132kbps

I didn't use TNS, since it is disabled by default and not recommeneded at the Audiocoding Wiki page.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #184 –
Mammouth encoding task is over, 3 days worth - lets just say central heating was not required

Here are the raw figures for final file sizes:

500 lossless Ape files converted to Mp3 @128Kbps came to 1,980,037,004 bytes


FAAC (1.23.5) Quality 125    2,074,364,607 bytes                 5% over
FAAC (1.23.5) Quality 100    1,881,780,853 bytes      5% under

Quality 115 should be spot on



Nero Internet::Medium  high quality    2,029,931,171 bytes            2.5% over



Compaact q5    1,922,327,404 bytes      3% under

Guessing q6 would be 15% over (would have liked to try q6 compression, but we ran out of time).

Best of luck Roberto!

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #185 –
These bitrates sound fair
Happiness - The agreeable sensation of contemplating the misery of others.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #186 –
Thank-you very much for your help, Spoon

The test will start any minute now.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #187 –
Quote
Quote
What faac setting did you use? Default seems to give considerably less than 128 on average sample.

-q 115. The average bitrate ended at +-132kbps

I didn't use TNS, since it is disabled by default and not recommeneded at the Audiocoding Wiki page.

Thanx, I didn't even know it's so high.
Edit: I mean I didnt know the requred quality setting is so high.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #189 –
I'm coming a bit late.
~250 discs are currently stored on my HDD in lossless format. Classical music only. I've loaded them with foobar2000, randomized the playlist, and converted them with VBR streaming (aacenc32 2620 HIGH). I've stoped after 40 hours of processing.
1495 files were converted. Musical length: 105 hours of music.

Code: [Select]
• 1495 files

• TOTAL DURATION (fb2k 0.77c) : 4d 9:24:44 <=> 105 hours 24 min 44 sec <=> 379484 seconds

• Total size (without tags) : 6,14 Go (6 602 644 072 octets) [Go=GB; octets=bytes] <=> 52 821 152 576 bits


• average bitrate = 52 821 152 576 / 379484 / 1024 = 135,929 kbps [136 kbps]
or 
• average bitrate = 52 821 152 576 / 379484 / 1000 = 139,192 kbps [139 kbps]




< 100 kbps   =    7 tracks*         52min 38sec
100-109 kbps =    0 track
110-119 kbps =   35 tracks       2h 44min 37sec
120-129 kbps =  237 tracks      12h 44min 54sec
130-139 kbps =  643 tracks   1d 19h 22min 34sec
140-149 kbps =  487 tracks   1d 14h 52min 53sec
150-159 kbps =   79 tracks       6h 36min 40sec
> 160 kbps   =    7 tracks          14min 23sec



* On 7 tracks, 6 are mono (or close to be mono) and the last one is a Nirvana joke, with a short musical surprise occuring afer 8 minutes of complete silence.


=> Bitrate is superior to 128 kbps with classical music. But the deviation isn't too high.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #190 –
Quote
I've loaded them with foobar2000, randomized the playlist, and converted them with VBR streaming (aacenc32 2620 HIGH).

I'm using the Internet VBR profile in the test... :/

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #191 –
Stux, you should guard these "rm -f" with a condition so that the users don't lose their samples. Something like:
Code: [Select]
[ -e ../Sample01/BigYellow.wav ] && rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow.flac

Would be safer, Roberto will appreciate 

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #192 –
Quote
Stux, you should guard these "rm -f" with a condition so that the users don't lose their samples. Something like:
Code: [Select]
[ -e ../Sample01/BigYellow.wav ] && rm -f ../Sample01/BigYellow.flac

Would be safer, Roberto will appreciate 

Actually, I would just get rid of the rm's

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #193 –
Quote
Quote
I've loaded them with foobar2000, randomized the playlist, and converted them with VBR streaming (aacenc32 2620 HIGH).

I'm using the Internet VBR profile in the test... :/

oups... typo error.

I used VBR internet too (streaming would be clearly > 150 kbps).
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #194 –
Quote
oups... typo error.

I used VBR internet too (streaming would be clearly > 150 kbps).

Ah, OK.

Thank-you very much for testing bitrates.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #196 –
Sample 7 is next up. 
Most of the samples have been transparent to me.
Some very few, have been almost transparent. But since the 128 multiformat test, where everything but mp3 and ogg were transparent, I didn't expect to actually hear diferences.
Using onboard sound and walkman headphones at the job, but hey, it's the only way I can test... 

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #197 –
Is this a bad time to mention my PuntAAC codec (which says it encodes at 128kbit but in fact runs losslessly while using 5000kbit) and my normalisation rule

Code: [Select]
S = F / A


where:

S = Final rating
F = Rating given by listening tests
A = Normalized bitrate quotient = b / B (where b = track bitrate and B = 128)

example
If a track with the chosen quality setting (aimed at 128kbit, obviously) turns out to sound 'transparent' (5 out of 5) to everyone, but has a bitrate of 700, then without my normalisation rule it would've won with the perfect score, while with my rule, the final score would be:

S = 5 / (700/128) = 0.9

which sounds fairer to me...

yes, yes, I know that the quality settings are chosen such that the SAMPLE SET averages near the intended bitrate, but:

- It still doesnt paint an absolutely fair picture to encoders that consistently end up slightly below the target bitrate
- It doesn't mean that nothing can be learned from the INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE statistics, especially if a sample is more representative of the type of sound you usually encode.

*ducks chairs thrown by absolutists*

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #198 –
Here I come to bitch again.

So far, I got samples from 6 (six) different listeners. And most of them didn't submit complete result sets.

Obviously, that's not enough to generate statistically valid results. Specially considering I didn't screen the results yet for ranked references.

So, I'd like to know, from the ones that tried to participate, the reason of such low response:

-Having problems with ABC/HR Java?
-The samples are too transparent?
-Getting tired of so many tests in a row?
-Another reason?

I don't plan to extend this test. If I don't get enough results by sunday night, I'll probably upload whatever results I got, and give up.

Regards;

Roberto.

PS: No troll feeding, please ^^

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #199 –
Here: I'm doing 1 or 2 samples a day. When I'm finished I'll submit the results.  Besides this, I should save my results more often - I've lost results when I've been almost finished with a test 2 times already, because my PC crashed (not related to ABC/HR)
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello