Skip to main content

Topic: Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples (Read 138323 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • [JAZ]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #50
Quote
i know Garf, it really is.
but i remember someone saiying that the new encoder will be the best encoder 
by the way, great work.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342077"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The quote was for the SBR+PS profile, so that still has to be proven (to be correct or not).


Thanks to guruboolez from here too. These tests are always appreciated.
  • Last Edit: 15 November, 2005, 03:41:59 PM by [JAZ]

  • beto
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #51
Guru, outstanding as usual.

Many thanks for sharing it with us.

  • jaybeee
  • [*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #52
@guruboolez: many thanks, and massive respect 

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #53
Quote
Quote
i know Garf, it really is.
but i remember someone saiying that the new encoder will be the best encoder 
by the way, great work.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342077"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The quote was for the SBR+PS profile,
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342085"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't think I even claimed that.

  • vinnie97
  • [*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #54
I have a feeling Nero AAC would be the new contender at 64 kbps, which is perfect for flash players, if only one could purchase such a device.

  • [JAZ]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #55
Quote
I don't think I even claimed that.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342106"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Eurrrm.. yep. the "best encoder" part of "yulyo" post should read "comparable to 128kbps MP3".  I was too fast typing that.
  • Last Edit: 15 November, 2005, 05:37:05 PM by [JAZ]

  • skelly831
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #56
All hail the great Guruboolez!

Nicely done! Muchas Gracias!
we was young an' full of beans

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #57
Guru, how could you make such a big testing ALONE in such SHORT time? Aren't you affraid Interpol will suspect you for illegal cloning of yourself? 

Great work Guru! And very useful for both users and developers. Thanks!
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • smz
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #58
Really powerfull work, Guru! All my compliments to you!

Sergio
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperor | Sennheiser HD430)

  • kl33per
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #59
Again Guru, I am astounded.  How you find the time and motivation to perform such a massive undertaking is of constant amazement to myself.  Thanks so much.
www.sessions.com.au - Sessions Entertainment

  • Aoyumi
  • [*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #60
I was surprised by the too much huge test. The contents of a test are very interesting also for me.
Thank you, Guru. 
  • Last Edit: 16 November, 2005, 09:15:11 AM by Aoyumi

Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #61
Quote
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Preliminary notes[/span]
As low anchor, I looked for something really low and also usable in batch mode. I found a very old AAC encoder on ReallyRareWares called mbaacencoder version 0.3: it’s awfully slow, quality is terrific


I'm guessing that the last word there should be 'terrible'? Otherwise you'd seem to be unduly generous 
Wonderful test Guru, much appreciated.

  • Wedge
  • [*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #62
very impressive test. thanks alot!

  • krazy
  • [*][*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #63
Quote
Quote
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Preliminary notes[/span]
As low anchor, I looked for something really low and also usable in batch mode. I found a very old AAC encoder on ReallyRareWares called mbaacencoder version 0.3: it’s awfully slow, quality is terrific


I'm guessing that the last word there should be 'terrible'? Otherwise you'd seem to be unduly generous 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Heh, not to hijack this thread with semantics, but terrific is an [a href="http://www.answers.com/terrific]antonym of itself[/url]. 

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #64
Quote
2) Guruboolez already stated it was a major improvement over his previous test.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not exactly. Last year, the experimental "fast" mode was superior to [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29925&hl=]Vorbis[/url] and iTunes, on classical music. This year, it ends last. It's not what I call a major improvement. But to be complete, I must admit that what I tested last year was more a ~135...140 kbps preset, and the current one a 125...130 kbps. Results are not totally comparable. Nevertheless, there are some obvious regression, occuring with different kind of samples (like harpsichord, organ and other tonal signal). That's why I'm disappointing to see the new encoder not following some progress revealed last year (with classical at least). But it's much much better than 2003 encoders

  • QuantumKnot
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #65
Based on these comprehensive listening tests (as well as previous ones by guruboolez), I think its the right time to make aoTuV beta 4 the recommended Vorbis encoder, so I've made the necessary changes.

  • =trott=
  • [*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #66
Don't get me wrong, I fully believe guruboulez knows more about audio and has better ears than I will ever have. I also think the results from this test are very interesting, to say the least.
However, I have to side with Garf here: no matter who the person or what the equipment, no matter how well-presented the result, no matter how scientific the method, this is statistical data compiled by a single individual. Thus I am not fully convinced about the relevancy. As far as I understand, if you were to be sitting in guru's living room, wearing his headphones, playing back the music through his pc, the results would be statistically valid. (though by no means this means that I consider them invalid...)

Maybe Roberto or ff123 can clear this up for me?

  • dimzon
  • [*][*][*]
  • Banned
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #67
Quote
Quote
Thanx!
guruboolez, how about low-bitrate comparision (64kbps and below)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341964"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not very happy with the quality of current encoders at this bitrate. Not really suitable for my personal use. Curiosity would therefore be my only motivation for such exercise.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341976"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whe need to know which HE-AAC implementation (Nero6, Nero7, WinAmp, CT Reference) is better for DVD-Rip!

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #68
Quote
Whe need to know which HE-AAC implementation (Nero6, Nero7, WinAmp, CT Reference) is better for DVD-Rip!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342534"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It shouldn't be too hard to test it for most people. Nero Digital is AFAIK the only choice for multichannel encoding with HE Profile - no tests are needed here.
For stereo, it seems from the very little comparisons I done that Ivan worked conscientiously on High Efficiency profile. The biggest annoyance audible with previous encoder is now gone. Now, I can't tell you which one (between Nero and Coding Tech. encoders) is better. I'm not very interested to test them - HE encodings are still irritating to my ears.
  • Last Edit: 17 November, 2005, 07:27:50 AM by guruboolez

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #69
Quote
One interesting thing I noticed is that the high anchor (Lame V2 vbrnew) did much better with this expanded classical set than in your previous test of high bitrates
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps, 2nd checkup with classical music
where on those 18 classical samples it received a score of 3.6, here it gets 4.61. Actually, in that test you used 3.97alpha11 but I think there was no change to 3.97beta1.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342050"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's indeed a good point. I was much more attentive and severe during my high bitrate listening test (otherwise most encoders would be ranked eaqually transparent). As I said it in the first post, I didn't insisit in this test to find subtle differences. That's why there are several 5.0 notes.

There wasn't also any anchor in the HQ test to temper the notation (but I tried to not be too harsh). It's maybe a good occasion to recall that anchors shouldn't be optional and replaced by regular contender

No need to say that 4.61 is much more representative of the real quality of LAME -V2 --vbr new in the ITU notation scale than 3.6.
  • Last Edit: 17 November, 2005, 07:43:23 AM by guruboolez

  • dimzon
  • [*][*][*]
  • Banned
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #70
Quote
Now, I can't tell you which one (between Nero and Coding Tech. encoders) is better. I'm not very interested to test them - HE encodings are still irritating to my ears.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342537"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanx a lot! So it's possible to use free CT Encoder from WinAmp for stereo without quality tradeoff!

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #71
Quote
Thanx a lot! So it's possible to use free CT Encoder from WinAmp for stereo without quality tradeoff!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342552"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know. CT encoder could be better or could be worse: what I tested is by far too limited to draw any conclusion. If you're interested by quality with HE-AAC, I strongly suggest you to perform your own tests (and sharing results if possible ).

  • dimzon
  • [*][*][*]
  • Banned
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #72
Quote
Nero Digital is AFAIK the only choice for multichannel encoding with HE Profile - no tests are needed here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342537"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

enc_aacplus.dll from WinAmp5.1 can encode 5.1 HE-AAC (up to 128kbps  )

  • Halcyon
  • [*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #73
Thank you Guru, you never seize to amaze.

Can I pick you brain or technique here? Feel free to skip these, if they are too cumbersome or too personal

Do you play an acoustical unamplified instrument? If so, which?

Do you sing or have you been taugh singing as a trained skill?

Have you trained your pitch listening skills consciously (relative or absolute)?

Which one is your leading ear (more accurate in tonality estimation)? Do you use both ears throughout all the tests or sometimes just one ear?

Have you consciously trained by listening to test sample sets (known errors in perceptual coding)? Or just listened to a lot of lossy encoder output?

At which volume levels you usually listen to (soft, medium, loud)? Or do you vary volume throughout the test?

Have you ever listened to any of the encoders via loudspeakers (not for tonality issues or small artifacts, but for soundstaging issues)?

At what time of the day do you you usually test?

How long tests can you do before you have to stop or find that you can't make out the differences anymore (number of repeats or duration roughly in minutes)?

Do you use a lot of quick back-and-forth A<->B switching or do you just listen to sample A in full, then sample B in full and then decide?

What are the top 3 most important things for yourself when you do a listening test?

I'd really appreciate if you have time to answer any of these questions.

Thanks again for the taking the time to not only to do the test, but go through the ordeal of preparing and publishing the results!

best regards,
halcyon

PS I just smile at the thought of what kind of accuracy you'd reach if you had a proper pair of electrostatic headphones at your use (very low distortion, very good tonality), a powerful noiseless/distortion-free amp and a good sound card.
  • Last Edit: 17 November, 2005, 12:43:43 PM by Halcyon

  • yandexx
  • [*][*][*]
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples
Reply #74
Guru, thanks a lot for your test! We really appreciate your work! (and you know  )

Halcyon, these questions are like for real interview with guruboolez
I'd like to hear answers too
stimulating the audio nerve directly