Skip to main content

Topic: .Ogg Vorbis aotuv (Read 327744 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Kef
  • [*][*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #150

  • Selindos
  • [*]
  • Banned
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #151
Thank you Aoyumi great, your contribution to the development Vorbis priceless: P
I want you to ask.
Is it possible to deactivate (optional) Point-Stereo?

  • Aoyumi
  • [*][*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #152
Is it possible to deactivate (optional) Point-Stereo?

It's impossible now. I don't add the interface of that purpose.
  • Last Edit: 07 September, 2008, 03:19:04 AM by Aoyumi

  • lex_nasa
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #153

OK, oggenc2 compiles:

Generic: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...5.6-generic.zip

P3: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...oTuVb5.6-P3.zip

P4: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...oTuVb5.6-P4.zip

I'll not post these 'officially' at Rarewares until libvorbis 1.2.1 is officially released.


Great!!! Thanks a lot!

I can't get these encoders to work, I just get a failure in Foobar2000, tried the P3 and generic versions:

Source: "F:\Incoming\Talkingmakesnosense\Cloudcroft Mirror\01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.flac"
  An error occured while writing to file (The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1; please re-check parameters) : "C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\Talkingmakesnosense\Cloudcroft Mirror\01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.ogg"
Additional information:
Encoder stream format: 44100Hz / 2ch / 16bps
Command line: "C:\Program Files\foobar2000 new\oggenc2.exe" -q5 - "01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.ogg"
Working folder: C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\Talkingmakesnosense\Cloudcroft Mirror\

  Conversion failed: The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1; please re-check parameters
  • Last Edit: 10 September, 2008, 08:34:02 AM by lex_nasa

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #154
Do you not need to rename oggenc2.exe to oggenc.exe? Works fine here.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #155
Command line: "C:\Program Files\foobar2000 new\oggenc2.exe" -q5 - "01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.ogg"


probably, you need "-o" option 
parameters for fb2k custum setting (eg): --quality 5.00 --quiet - -o %d
<name>madoka</name>
<uri>http://codecs.ex-sounds.net/</uri>

  • lex_nasa
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #156
hurrah!  thanks, i'd kept the settings for venc.exe and had forgotten that i'd had to change them... all AOK

  • Nicos
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #157
Aoyumi

I was reading some posts about testing aoTuV 5.5 with Lame and some other codecs and few people mention that .ogg vorbis cannot be compared with its rival codecs anymore.

Whether i dont know if this is truth, what are the main progressions of the aoTuV beta5.6 Pre Release compare to the previous one? In what fields will u be focusing on more and what about the pre-echo problems mentioned by other people at q5? (I'm asking because im mostly using q5 for ripping CDs).

Thanks

  • lex_nasa
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #158
I was reading some posts about testing aoTuV 5.5 with Lame and some other codecs and few people mention that .ogg vorbis cannot be compared with its rival codecs anymore.

Because vorbis is better?

  • Nicos
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #159
No lex_nasa

What i read about it, is that vorbis cannot be as competitive as it used to be in the past. Many people believe that lame had done quality improvements that vorbis couldnt follow.

Thats why id like aoyumi's opinion (but not only, people who have an opinion about vorbis quality Vs lame or .mpc id like to know it) and what are the improvements that we will see of the new release of aoTuV beta5.6

Thanks

  • JasonQ
  • [*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #160
This comment might be about the advantages of MP3 for compatability.  The argument goes that since LAME is so good, why would one use Vorbis?  I have never seen the argument recently that LAME has been shown to be superior to Vorbis in a blind test between 128-192 kbps.

- Jason

  • Selindos
  • [*]
  • Banned
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #161
What do you want?
Vorbis develops one person!

That's if LAME helped in the development Vorbis 
P.S.
Besides Vorbis more interesting than mp3

  • LigH
  • [*][*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #162
All the psycho-acoustic lossy compression algorithms have disadvantages in different ranges. No lossy codec is perfect.

According to my own subjective tests with very low to medium bitrates, I found that the artefacts left by Ogg Vorbis in general "sound less annoying" to me than those in MP3s, but that was already years ago...

Thanks to a great tuning by aoTuV, quality level 0 was already quite satisfying for some "Do you recognise this?" kind of listening samples.

For my mobile audio device, I found quality level 3 in general satisfying, except for very few distinct songs with rather complex effects. As MP3s, I would possibly have used at least 160 kbps and VBR, a size rate of about 3/4 for Vorbis vs. MP3 with similar subjective quality.

"Archiving quality" is a different topic. I am curious about the high-quality potential of the codecs, the amount of quality loss even at some "transparency" quality range. Here I thought that MP3 is more limited than the modern competitors, but I couldn't proove this feeling.
http://forum.gleitz.info - das deutsche doom9/Gleitz-Forum

  • Aoyumi
  • [*][*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #163
I was reading some posts about testing aoTuV 5.5 with Lame and some other codecs and few people mention that .ogg vorbis cannot be compared with its rival codecs anymore.
I generally think that there is not the dominant difference between codec in a bit rate of q4(128kbps).

Quote
Whether i dont know if this is truth, what are the main progressions of the aoTuV beta5.6 Pre Release compare to the previous one? In what fields will u be focusing on more and what about the pre-echo problems mentioned by other people at q5? (I'm asking because im mostly using q5 for ripping CDs).
About beta5.6, I am aimed for small revisions in the low bit rate and unification with libvorbis1.2.1.  It does not have the difference with beta5.5 in q5(44.1kHz).

About the issue of pre-echo, will you show the sample which is interested in you??

  • Nicos
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #164
Aoyumi

To be honest about the pre-echo issue is something that many people, as i read in various articles, claim that vorbis suffers in bitrates above 128. Personally i cannot hear anything. I was just curious if this is true and if you have any plans working on it. Thats why i asked.

Thanks for your reply anyway and above all thanks for your interest to keep working and developing ogg vorbis codec.

Im supporting vorbis since 2002 and i never had thoughts of changing my music into a different format. I just want it to be always competitive as the other codecs hopping to see its support spreading even more.

Thanks

  • JasonQ
  • [*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #165
"To be honest about the pre-echo issue is something that many people, as i read in various articles, claim that vorbis suffers in bitrates above 128. Personally i cannot hear anything. I was just curious if this is true and if you have any plans working on it. Thats why i asked."

I remember hearing this years ago before I started encoding Vorbis files.  I have never detected any problem in the last few years that I have used this encoder.  The AOTUV Vorbis encoder has been a winner for a while now.  Outstanding in multiple blind tests in the 128-192 range on this site.  Users vouch for it consistently as a solution for even lower bit rates.  The only complaint I see is an unfortunate lack of hardware support.  This argument has merit.

The argument against AOTUV Vorbis is not that Lame is better than Vorbis, it is that LAME is as good or almost as good.

- Jason
  • Last Edit: 14 September, 2008, 02:05:45 AM by JasonQ

  • Nicos
  • [*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #166
"The argument against AOTUV Vorbis is not that Lame is better than Vorbis, it is that LAME is as good or almost as good".

- Jason


I guess you got a point. I would tend to agree with that sentence you wrote.

  • PatchWorKs
  • [*][*][*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #167
The argument against AOTUV Vorbis is not that Lame is better than Vorbis, it is that LAME is as good or almost as good.


Anyway LAME is not (royalties) free.
  • Last Edit: 16 September, 2008, 01:28:17 PM by PatchWorKs

.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #168
A cd encoded with vorbis -q3 with aotuv will yield ~112kbps. For a LAME mp3 to match this would require around 160-192kbps. There is no comparison. Some music may sound just as good with -q1 at ~80kbps as an 128-160kbps mp3.

The mp3 format is a dinosaur and had its day. The only other format that comes close and perhaps beats vorbis is he-aacv2, but that's only because they added the mp3pro tech to aac. Think aac patents plus about 10 more of them due to that.

Want some samples? I can post some up too.

  • Bjossi
  • [*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #169
Hey there, Aoyumi. I wanted to say that you are doing a fantastic job with your aoTuV ogg vorbis project. This is my preferred codec for music. I don't have the space for flacs so I archive my music with 500k oggs using aoTuV b5.5.

By the way, I was wondering if some of you command-liners could help me out with a problem. I create batch files to automatically encode wave files of an album with venc and then tag the resulting files with the Tag program that comes with the Flac package.

The problem lies in foreign characters. I got quite a bit of Icelandic music, so many filenames and titles will include Icelandic characters. These characters will go to hell during batch processing, the characters get replaced by something completely different.

Does anyone here know a way around this? Like a command-line switch or an argument that will enable batch processing to correctly recognize the foreign characters?

.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #170
Does anyone here know a way around this? Like a command-line switch or an argument that will enable batch processing to correctly recognize the foreign characters?


Which OS are you using? What encoding are the characters in?

If the characters are UTF8, Take a look at the --raw switch on vorbiscomment. That's what abcde uses. (Also, some unofficial versions of oggenc have a --utf8 flag; the next official version of oggenc will have the --utf8 flag too)

  • kjoonlee
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #171
I think he means command-line encoders on Windows can't handle something like this:

oggenc.exe "Se cyning meteþ þone biscop.wav"

AFAIK you can't fix this on Windows without adding code to handle characters outside your codepage.



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=48131

  • Bjossi
  • [*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #172
Thanks for the replies guys. It is a bummer how difficult it is to use unicode in Windows for batch processing. I guess the easiest workaround would be to drop all special characters and correct it once the batch file has finished its job.

Well, unless that script in the Flac thread can be used with venc.exe somehow.

.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #173
I think he means command-line encoders on Windows can't handle something like this:

oggenc.exe "Se cyning meteþ þone biscop.wav"

AFAIK you can't fix this on Windows without adding code to handle characters outside your codepage.


True. You do have to add code to handle UTF16.

The versions of oggenc available from RareWares have had something like that for a few years.

  • Bjossi
  • [*]
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv
Reply #174
Oggenc2 does its job well if I write the command-line text into cmd manually and execute, but if I use a batch file I face the same unicode problem as before; files with foreign characters cannot be located and tags with foreign characters get screwed up.

Ugh, what do Microsoft have against other languages than English?
  • Last Edit: 24 September, 2008, 12:27:26 PM by Bjossi