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: Tos 8 then 2. (Read 3887 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tos 8 then 2.

Hello.

For what its worth, i have used this highly "experimental" line lately:
-V 0 -m s --allshort -k -X m -q 0 (--short -X n). (3.96.1)
(mainly new metal releasses) with classical i have shanged to 3.90.3
and --alt-preset extreme and --short -X n
In my opinion simply the best vbr line i have heard,
nor do i heard any problems with it.
So if it exist any problem samples around with -V 0, plz. direct me to them.

Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #1 –
Quote
In my opinion simply the best vbr line i have heard,


n68, you should have been around long enough to know that such statements are not allowed on this board without further proof in form of ABX results. I'd suggest ABXing it aggainst plain -V 0.

dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #2 –
Hello.

Sure thing dev0, correct me if am wrong, you are telling me
that the terms of service are forcing me to document my personal opinion.
I find that pretty hard to swallow.


Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #3 –
This community and research on perceptual audio encoding just doesn't work if it is based on "warm and fuzzy feelings".

Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #4 –
Quote
Sure thing dev0, correct me if am wrong, you are telling me
that the terms of service are forcing me to document my personal opinion.
I find that pretty hard to swallow.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=244785"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're free to leave (and if you continue acting this way, you'll be forced to).
Quote
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

What's so hard to understand?
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #5 –
Please tell me you're just trolling with that command line... I'd ask "do you even READ HA?", but 700 posts makes that a moot point.

-m s is stupid because you're turning off joint stereo. I'm sick of explaining joint stereo to people, so just search the boards for it.

--allshort is stupid because you're disabling long blocks for easy passages, wasting bits.

-k is stupid because unless you can prove that you can ABX *any* lowpass, one is necessary in order to more effectively use bits.

-X m is stupid because IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. The -X argument takes two single-digit numbers separated by a comma. This is the one that makes me certain you're trolling, I remember seeing it elsewhere on HA in another one of these "I like my stupid command line and none of your 'scientific proof' is going to change it" threads.

-q 0 is stupid because it doesn't raise audio quality, just spends more time on lossless compression of the data stream. You are spending about 5 times as long on your encode for NO QUALITY GAIN as compared to -h (-q 2).

In short, you are stupid for using that command line. Why can't people just settle for the extensively tested presets?

Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #6 –
This reminds me of one of n68's previous "great" quotes: 
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=12597

Quote
"If human hearing.. stopps at *22050*.. the life would have been
almost unbearable.. think about all you are missing.."
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
 

Tos 8 then 2.

Reply #7 –
yup..

Such nice people here.. just as a reminder of #2.
ahh no use.. tried that.. done that..
what a shame.. some ppl. here are so thick.. that they can`t see
that they breaking the terms of service themselves.

i don`t claim to be any kind of professional..
but this board do.. and professional it certainly is not..
whatever standing you may have in this community.. don`t missuse it..
several members do just that.. and with the boards administrators
blessing. even if youre reading a totaly undocumented wildly false statement..
you are as much as your fellow member.. abliged to answer in a civilized manner..
or don`t answer at all...