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: Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test (Read 132946 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #75 –
why not using lame 3.88b3 at V5 (128kbits) as high anchor?

i think mp3 is the most used format and this also for the next years.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #76 –
I didn't see the list of samples posted, but if there are any quasi-non-music samples, e.g. contrived problem samples or tricky electronic/synth, I would drop them first. It's useful information for perfecting and testing compression techniques, but I would guess it's misleading for the purpose of general mainstream use. Also, I assume there is at least one choral type. I also vote in favor of over-representing classical music (relative to popularity), on the snobbish grounds it's richer, more demanding, more emotionally complex, and otherwise just plain good for you.

p.s. I second the use of lame mp3 128kps -v5 as high anchor, unless there's some fear that will not be high enough for an anchor.

Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
The interest in a 64 kbps test wasn't that high a few months ago so I hope things've changed a bit.

Last thing I would like to know before I can start the test is what samples to use. As mentioned earlier, I would like to use only 18 samples and not 20. This means that at least two samples used in the last test have to be removed - which ones? If more than two should be removed, what alternatives do you have in mind?

The contenders are:

Vorbis AoTuV 5 Beta
Nero HE-AAC
WMA Professional 10
iTunes LC-AAC @ 48 and @ 96 kbps for low and high anchor

WMA Pro is going to use CBR as used in the WMA vs. HE-AAC test Microsoft paid for.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #77 –
Sorry, the choice of contenders and anchors is over. 96 kbps iTunes should sound better than contenders at 64 kbps and therefore serves well as high anchor. MP3 at 128 kbps was already transparent. This is a good opportunity to also see how well iTunes performs at 96 kbps.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #78 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
The interest in a 64 kbps test wasn't that high a few months ago so I hope things've changed a bit.
Well, I don't mean to spoil your enthusiasm, which I honestly appreciate, but I pass by the HA listening test forum now and again, curious of anyone coining a public multiformat 96k test.

Judging by the wiki, the 96k-ish bitrate range has never been thoroughly tested, apart from Guruboolez' fantastic private effort, albeit almost two years ago.

128 kbps has proven to be as good as transparent to most people.  And imho, the difference between 64 and 48 kbps, the latter having been tested quite recently, cannot be expected to be spectacular, while near-to-transparent ranges such as 96 kbps are largely unexplored, and might therefore be far more interesting to test in the short term.

Just my 2 cents.

Edit: how about IgorC's recent personal multiformat 96k test?  To his ears, iTunes and Nero AAC, WMA10pro and Ogg Vorbis Aotuv at 96 kbps are on par with or even marginally outperform LAME -V5.  At over 30 kbps lower bitrate (i.e. 3/4), mind you.  If that's not worth double-checking

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #79 –
IMHO, the difference between 48 kbps and 64 kbps is significant. For me, the 48 kbps samples in the last test were not good enough to be enjoyable (including Nero), but at 64 kbps Nero HE-AAC and Vorbis start to be usable (= easy to detect, but generally not too annoying). I have no experience of WMA Pro at 64 kbps.

However, I don't have personal interest in these bitrates at the moment. The situation could be different if I had a small mobile gadget with HE-AAC or Vorbis support.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #80 –
@ Polar: if I recall correctly, Sebastian (or maybe someone else) did briefly mention doing a 80 or 96 kbps listening test after this one;  however I could be wrong & I'm afraid I can't look in any depth now (I'm at work & it's getting late in my time-zone, sorry!).
Vorbis -q3 works for me.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #81 –
Yes, the next tests will be 80 kbps multi-format which is going to feature both HE-AAC and LC-AAC along with some other popular codecs like Vorbis, WMA Professional 10 and maybe MP3, and MP3 @ 128 kbps.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #83 –
Basing on my personal 96k test http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=54967
I can conclude that many samples from previous public test are very well tuned by Nero devs  for their AAC encoder as they are HA members.  But when I continued to add more samples I saw the situation has changed.

I think it's logical to include only new and randomly choiced samples. The forum members will provide them without any delay.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #84 –
Quote from: IgorC on
Basing on my personal 96k test http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=54967
I can conclude that many samples from previous public test are very well tuned by Nero devs  for their AAC encoder as they are HA members.  But when I continued to add more samples I saw the situation has changed.


I don't see how you can conclude this from your results. I think you saw the other encoders improve while Nero stayed at the same constant average?

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #86 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
The interest in a 64 kbps test wasn't that high a few months ago so I hope things've changed a bit.

Last thing I would like to know before I can start the test is what samples to use. As mentioned earlier, I would like to use only 18 samples and not 20. This means that at least two samples used in the last test have to be removed - which ones? If more than two should be removed, what alternatives do you have in mind?

I'd like to exclude sample10 bibilolo and 13 aquatisme and change the length of sample 1 (43sec). The rest are fine to me.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #87 –
menno told me that they are working on a new encoder and will probably release an unofficial version optimized for 64 kbps within the next days / weeks. I am going to wait until the beginning of the next month with the test and if the encoder is not out, I will use the currently available version. This doesn't mean that the samples discussion has to stop, so please give me feedback.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #88 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
menno told me that they are working on a new encoder and will probably release an unofficial version optimized for 64 kbps within the next days / weeks. I am going to wait until the beginning of the next month with the test and if the encoder is not out, I will use the currently available version. This doesn't mean that the samples discussion has to stop, so please give me feedback.


This intermediate version will be exactly the same as our next complete release for 64kbps. We will just disable other bitrates because it's simply not possible to do all tunings in the next 2 weeks. But for 64kbps we will not change the tuning anymore after putting up the binary for this test.
We did a lot of work on the new encoder the last few months, that require us to redo or check the tuning of all current psychoacoustic parameters.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #89 –
Quote from: menno on
Quote from: IgorC on

Basing on my personal 96k test http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=54967
I can conclude that many samples from previous public test are very well tuned by Nero devs  for their AAC encoder as they are HA members.  But when I continued to add more samples I saw the situation has changed.


I don't see how you can conclude this from your results. I think you saw the other encoders improve while Nero stayed at the same constant average?

The average perfomance of Nero on samples from previous tests is better than Itunes in my test but it's far from that  for another part of my test. Here is excel table http://rapidshare.com/files/34474605/96kbps.xls.html

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #90 –
Quote from: IgorC on
Quote from: menno on

Quote from: IgorC on

Basing on my personal 96k test http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=54967
I can conclude that many samples from previous public test are very well tuned by Nero devs  for their AAC encoder as they are HA members.  But when I continued to add more samples I saw the situation has changed.


I don't see how you can conclude this from your results. I think you saw the other encoders improve while Nero stayed at the same constant average?

The average perfomance of Nero on samples from previous tests is better than Itunes in my test but it's far from that  for another part of my test. Here is excel table http://rapidshare.com/files/34474605/96kbps.xls.html


But the Nero results are pretty much constant and stable. You can pick almost any set of 15 samples from your test and Nero will have something like 4.4/4.3 on average. If you want to draw conclusions from this maybe they should go about iTunes and not about Nero.

For us it's no problem if other samples get selected for the test

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #91 –
Quote from: haregoo on
I'd like to exclude sample10 bibilolo and 13 aquatisme and change the length of sample 1 (43sec).


IMHO those samples are interesting because they seem to be hard to encode. Why removing them?

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #92 –
Quote from: Gabriel on
Quote from: haregoo on

I'd like to exclude sample10 bibilolo and 13 aquatisme and change the length of sample 1 (43sec).

IMHO those samples are interesting because they seem to be hard to encode. Why removing them?

Simply because it's not fun to listen that pattern of sound (at least for me).

I agree those 2 samples and sample like eig are good to measure some performance of lossy. But I think there are too much sampels from unusual music in recent test.

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #95 –
...lol!
davidnaylor.org

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #96 –
LOL rjamorim!!!!!!     

Multiformat 64 kbps Listening Test

Reply #98 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Some people are true idiots.


I am sure he will make an ABX test between FLAC & APE very soon. 
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech