Skip to main content

Topic: aoTuV beta 4.5 released (Read 45776 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • fpi
  • [*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #25
Quote
Quote
Quote
Any vorbis can encode at 20-25? (at 44 and stereo)

For the moment, it is impossible.


I know this is not reccomended, but with oggdropXPd (and I think also with other programs) is possible to go down to 12 Kbps @ 44.1 KHz stereo using ABR with:
Min. Bitrate = 0
Nom. Bitrate = 12
Max. Bitrate = 0

I think Min. Bitrate and Max. Bitrate = 0 means there is no limit, thus give a higer quality than CBR @ 12 Kbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340024"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry, I just found that ABR @ 12 Kbps with oggdropXPd is automatically resampled to 8 KHz, while ABR @ 32 Kbps is resampled to 24 KHz.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #26
Quote
Lets wait a bit, maybe Aoyumi will give some explanations about this version and what we should expect from it. If it is OK, it would be wonderful if john33 compiles an OggDropXPd with this thingy inside. Is it possible, John ? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339766"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generic, P3 and P4 compiles of oggdropXPd now at Rarewares.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • kurtnoise
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #27
Thanks John...

Could you update also libvorbis.dll with this new Aoyumi stuff ?

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #28
Quote
Thanks John...

Could you update also libvorbis.dll with this new Aoyumi stuff ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340074"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Surely, but do people want the full range of compiles, or is this considered somewhat experimental at this stage?
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • moozooh
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #29
I didn't test it thoroughly, but it seems to me that the most important point was to increase the effectiveness of encoder by making same samples sound the same at lower bitrate. For example, I cannot distinguish one sample @ -q2 from another, but the one created with b4.5 is smaller. That's all I can say for now.
I really think that we must gather and do a couple of short tests just to show that b4.5 is better than 1.1, and then make it the recommended version. Aoyumi's work deserves it.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

  • jorsol
  • [*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #30
Quote
Quote
I can´t really hear the diference, is hard to say that is a big improvment, ok I only made one test (at -q 0), so I can´t really say that is not effective and I don´t have a "extreme hear" so it just only my opinion.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339954"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which file was bigger? aoTuV b4 or aoTuV 4.5? May be this improvment affects size while keeping quality same?
By the way, did you use one of the famous 'hard samples' or any randomly chosen 'easy sample'?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340016"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, the file created by 4.5 is smaller by a few kbytes, probably this is the improvment, same quality in smaller size... and not is not one of the famous hard samples, is a sample that I choose and probably an easy one...

Anyway great job Aoyumi, all Vorbis fans apreciate your hard work, I imagine that if wasn´t for you, we are still using the 1.0.1 version (or probablily 1.0.2  ) I think that the Xiph boys are busy in other things... like Theora...
  • Last Edit: 06 November, 2005, 04:12:18 PM by jorsol
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #31
Tried it on two samples - harpsicord and Prodigy "You'll Be Under My Wheels" (both of  them require high bitrates with b4 q6. 1st one q6 average is 237 and second q6 average bitrate is 300!)

I tested them on -q -2, q 0, -q 1. b4 vs b4.5. I can't say I found out any difference. May be, JUST MAY BE, b 4.5 preserves high frequencies better but I can't be sure.
Also I tested each version against original file on -q 0 and -q 1. And it was slightly more difficult to ABX between b4.5 and original than b4 and original due mentioned possible better high freq preservation.

P. S. Harpsicord sample is not the sample others use. It is just from my collection.
  • Last Edit: 06 November, 2005, 05:05:25 PM by de Mon
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • MedO
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #32
Quote
And it was slightly more difficult to ABX between b4.5 and original than b4 and original due mentioned possible better high freq preservation.


I tried to ABX b4 to original and b4.5 to original in a pop sample at -q0, and I think it was harder with b4.5 when concentrating on the distortions in the main voice only. However, it was still easy when listening for a different artifact (close-to-noise parts of the sound being replaced by real noise... don't know if that makes any sense to you, I just don't know the right terminology) that is present in both.

MedO

  • ErikS
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #33
Quote
I tried to ABX b4 to original and b4.5 to original in a pop sample at -q0, and I think it was harder with b4.5 when concentrating on the distortions in the main voice only.
MedO
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340117"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just a quick question here: after comparing b4 to the original and b4.5 to the original but not b4 to b4.5, is it really correct to draw any conclusions about the quality improvements from b4 to b4.5? I would call the method above a sighted test, and would only use that when the differences are very obvious... Were there obvious differences in your files between b4 and b4.5?

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #34
Quote
Quote
I tried to ABX b4 to original and b4.5 to original in a pop sample at -q0, and I think it was harder with b4.5 when concentrating on the distortions in the main voice only.
MedO
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340117"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just a quick question here: after comparing b4 to the original and b4.5 to the original but not b4 to b4.5, is it really correct to draw any conclusions about the quality improvements from b4 to b4.5? I would call the method above a sighted test, and would only use that when the differences are very obvious... Were there obvious differences in your files between b4 and b4.5?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340121"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In my test the difference was subtle. I think if we want reliable test, a listener first has to find such -q meaning (with potentially weaker encoder version) at which ABXing becomes VERY DIFFICULT. Then use the new version and encode a file which is about the same size as 1st encoding. If there are any improvements - the second encoding will not be possible to ABX. The main difficulty is an ABXer has to find a proper -q meaning for each sample. The second difficulty are improvements which affect quality at lowest bitrates  and ABXing from the original becomes very easy. So maybe we should use 'very easy samples'?
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • ErikS
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #35
Quote
[...] So maybe we should use 'very easy samples'?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340127"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The obvious thing to do is a blind test between two encoded files, A=v4.0 and B=v4.5, which have comparable filesizes. It doesn't matter what kind of samples you use. If you can hear a difference between the two versions, then go ahead and rate which one you find more pleasing...

  • rt87
  • [*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #36
Quote
Lets wait a bit, maybe Aoyumi will give some explanations about this version and what we should expect from it. If it is OK, it would be wonderful if john33 compiles an OggDropXPd with this thingy inside. Is it possible, John ? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339766"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And John please compile oggenc2.6 and ogg vorbis dlls using aoTuV b4.5 as well.
Sorry for my English.

  • bubka
  • [*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #37
wow, this is amazing at q0, makes me with i had an vorbis portable, i am stuck with using q25 wma...
Chaintech AV-710

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #38
Quote
The obvious thing to do is a blind test between two encoded files, A=v4.0 and B=v4.5, which have comparable filesizes. It doesn't matter what kind of samples you use. If you can hear a difference between the two versions, then go ahead and rate which one you find more pleasing...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340152"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


As I said before the difference between b4 and b4.5 is very small and I can't decide which one is better at such a low bitrate . 
I hope others would.
  • Last Edit: 07 November, 2005, 08:38:44 AM by de Mon
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • Leo 69
  • [*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #39
Quote
Quote
Lets wait a bit, maybe Aoyumi will give some explanations about this version and what we should expect from it. If it is OK, it would be wonderful if john33 compiles an OggDropXPd with this thingy inside. Is it possible, John ? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339766"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generic, P3 and P4 compiles of oggdropXPd now at Rarewares.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340039"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Сool ! Thanks mate!

BTW Aoyumi, are you going to make tunings for high bitrate in the future versions ? Thanks for your great work.

Cheers
  • Last Edit: 07 November, 2005, 09:43:34 AM by Leo 69

  • moozooh
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #40
Quote
As I said before the difference between b4 and b4.5 is very small and I can't decide which one is better at such a low bitrate . 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340223"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the question is which one makes the file smaller.
Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 

  • kurtnoise
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #41
Quote
Surely, but do people want the full range of compiles, or is this considered somewhat experimental at this stage?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340083"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

well...just libvorbis.dll is enough for testing I think. Not the full range of compiles.


I asked this because I'm not able to compile myself this library (only vorbisenc/vorbisfile/vorbis in fact w/o optimizations).

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #42
Quote
Quote
As I said before the difference between b4 and b4.5 is very small and I can't decide which one is better at such a low bitrate . 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340223"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the question is which one makes the file smaller.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340343"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


With my samples sizes are almost identical.
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • PatchWorKs
  • [*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #43
Uhm, waiting for a new Lancer !


  • suur13
  • [*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #44
Quote
Download libogg-1.1.2.tar.gz and vorbis-tools-1.1.1.tar.gz from http://www.xiph.org/downloads/
Download libvorbis-aotuv_b4.5.tar.gz.tgz from http://www.geocities.jp/aoyoume/aotuv/
Unpack everything.
cd libogg-1.1.2
./configure
make
make install
cd ../aotuv-b4.5_20051105
chmod +x configure
chmod +x install-sh
./configure
make
make install
cd ../vorbis-tools-1.1.1
./configure
make
Run oggenc/oggenc


And when you are using oggenc from vorbis-tools 1.1.1, how does this use aotuv4.5 ?

aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #45
Quote
And when you are using oggenc from vorbis-tools 1.1.1, how does this use aotuv4.5 ?

Because oggenc uses the libvorbisenc/libvorbisfile libraries to do the encoding. So as long as you replace this library you should get the new encoding functionality.

You can also test it without installing and breaking packages:

Code: [Select]
cd aotuv-b4.5_20051105/
./configure
make
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./lib/.libs/

oggenc will now temporarily link against the new libraries and will encode with aotuv:
Code: [Select]
$>ldd /usr/bin/oggenc
    libvorbisenc.so.2 => ./lib/.libs/libvorbisenc.so.2 (0xb7eea000)
    libvorbis.so.0 => ./lib/.libs/libvorbis.so.0 (0xb7ec0000)
    libOggFLAC.so.1 => /usr/lib/libOggFLAC.so.1 (0xb7ea1000)
    libFLAC.so.6 => /usr/lib/libFLAC.so.6 (0xb7e6d000)
    libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xb7e4c000)
    libogg.so.0 => /usr/lib/libogg.so.0 (0xb7e47000)
    libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb7d1a000)
    /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7feb000)

  • xmixahlx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #46
Quote
Because oggenc uses the libvorbisenc/libvorbisfile libraries to do the encoding. So as long as you replace this library you should get the new encoding functionality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340504"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yeah  it's pretty handy for packaging

from RareWares/Debian:
Code: [Select]
$ ldd /usr/bin/oggenc-aotuv
       linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
       libvorbisenc.so.2 => /usr/lib/libvorbis-aotuv/libvorbisenc.so.2 (0xb7ead000)
       libvorbis.so.0 => /usr/lib/libvorbis-aotuv/libvorbis.so.0 (0xb7e83000)
       libOggFLAC.so.1 => /usr/lib/libOggFLAC.so.1 (0xb7e59000)
       libFLAC.so.6 => /usr/lib/libFLAC.so.6 (0xb7e1c000)
       libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7df7000)
       libogg.so.0 => /usr/lib/libogg.so.0 (0xb7df1000)
       libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7cb9000)
       /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7fad000)

btw, aotuv 4.5 is at RW/Debian now


later

  • alter4
  • [*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #47
I think aotuv beta 4.5 is safe to use.
my logic: new Aoyumi releaze is BETA 4.5, not new TEST version.

  • Mekatype
  • [*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #48
So, b4.5 is supposed to perform better  than  b4 @ q3 and below, but what about @ q3 and better?

  • HotshotGG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuV beta 4.5 released
Reply #49
Quote
So, b4.5 is supposed to perform better than b4 @ q3 and below, but what about @ q3 and better?


Sounds fine to me  .  4 and 5 were transparent to me long before all of the tweaking with the psychoacoustics. The only major thing that really needed to corrected was some of the noise normalization issues, which are still being addressed and have been fixed.  How much better can you make it possible? Aoyumi has been at it for a while now and has done a great job.
budding I.T professional