In order to add some datas for the frequently asked question: “what vorbis encoder should I use”, I've decided to run a listening test, comparing four different version of vorbis at 160...165 kbps:- CVS (oggenc 2.3)- GT3b2 tuning (associated to 1.01 reference code)- aoTuV beta 2- aoTuV beta 2+ QK tuning
According to these statistics, -q 5.00 and -q5.50 are ~160 kbps for general music (full CD encodings). On short and problematic sample, higher bitrate are something common and expected.
Can I have a show of hands on whether we should retire GT3b2?
Someone should test the archive. They are maybe corrupted.I can't upload them on HA sever now
Note that aoTuV is slightly inferior to GT3b2 on average, if we remove the sample named "Die schalcht": GT3b2 is loosing two points on a problem which have nothing to do with pre-echo.Before removing GT3b2, take a look to the average notation of "pure pre-echo" file (i.e. file with very strong and sharp attacks): - c44- castanets- castanets2- cataclysmes- clapping- creakingI don't have notes in mind, but IIRC it's something like 2.3 / 5 for aoTuV and 3.6 for GT3b2.aoTuV+QK is maybe the best vorbis compromise of the moment: it's the sharpest encoder, and with a lot of correction of hiss, noise, etc...
Yeah, it all comes down to a compromise but do you think that pre-echo is a more 'forgiveable' problem for a lossy perceptual coder than hiss and noise?
Do the answer please though you are silly question.Can any one explain what pre-echo is?
My hypothesis, however, is that aoTuV -q6 will be better than GT3 -q5.99.
Aotuv anyday. The CVS/GT3 <Q6 noise issue for the high bitrate is bad and can be audiable in normal listening. Q6 or higher differences between GT3 & AoTuv will probably only exist in abx situations - I may be wrong though.
Thanks for replies About aoTuV+QK regression (compared to aoTuV): I wonder how often and in what precise conditions it happens.I graphically compared a solo violin piece encoded with aoTuV and aoTuV+QK. Why violin? Violin is a tonal instrument. QuantumKnot code shouldn't therefore modify the file. A graphical comparison confirms that, and it *shows* that *objective* difference is sub-existant:• whole file: http://membres.lycos.fr/guruboolez/AUDIO/v..._difference.png• 10 seconds zoom: http://membres.lycos.fr/guruboolez/AUDIO/v...rence_10sec.pngFilesize is exactly the same (2kb only difference). Few samples are modified. It's really nothing, and can't modifiy the noise performances of aoTuV code. Good thing For comparison, here's a difference between aoTuV+QK and GT3b2:http://membres.lycos.fr/guruboolez/AUDIO/v...GT3_aoTuVQK.png(P.S. all encodings were done at the same setting: -q 5,00)(P.S.2 Before someone complain about TOS infringing, I've also tried to ABX the files: no difference between aoTuV/aoTuVQK and obvious difference in favor of aoTuV compared to GT3b2).