Skip to main content

Topic: aoTuVbeta6.02 (Read 18347 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Hi, why aoTuVbeta6.02 Compiles are not available @ Rarewarez, could somebody so kind and made oggenc2 + dlls available to public, thankyou

  • alter4
  • [*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #1
Do you mean 6.03?

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #2
sure, 6.03
it's couple of days

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #3
sure, 6.03
it's couple of days


Okay I `ve made an attempt for optimized OggEnc2 build. Please for testing.

Code: [Select]
http://www.mediafire.com/?1pl3o7vqb3ljxe3

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #4
I replace the oggenc2.exe from rarewares with yours and the included dll's but I get the following message from Foobar2000 when I convert:

Source: "D:\Audio\Pennywise - Live @ The Key Club\Pennywise - 02 - Wouldn't it Be Nice.flac"
An error occurred while finalizing the encoding process (Object not found) : "D:\Pennywise - 02 - Wouldn't it Be Nice.ogg"
Conversion failed: Object not found

I use the same command line as I did with the rarewares 6.02 that worked and it is the following:
%s -q 3.5 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=17 --advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-15 -o %d

I use Windows XP SP3 on this laptop.
Regards
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2011, 03:46:29 PM by punkrockdude

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #5
I replace the oggenc2.exe from rarewares with yours and the included dll's but I get the following message from Foobar2000 when I convert:

Source: "D:\Audio\Pennywise - Live @ The Key Club\Pennywise - 02 - Wouldn't it Be Nice.flac"
An error occurred while finalizing the encoding process (Object not found) : "D:\Pennywise - 02 - Wouldn't it Be Nice.ogg"
Conversion failed: Object not found

I use the same command line as I did with the rarewares 6.02 that worked and it is the following:
%s -q 3.5 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=17 --advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-15 -o %d

I use Windows XP SP3 on this laptop.
Regards


Do you get an crash or error message during conversion?
I think it requires SSE 4.1 or higher to run as it was compiled as optimized build.
Try to copy msvcr100.dll and libmmd.dll to same directory.
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2011, 03:54:27 PM by Anakunda

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #6
Oh, I see. This Intel Centrino only has SSE2 I think. Regards.

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #7
Ah so, If I get some positive confirmation about proper conversion I can try to make a more generic build tomorrow.

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #8
I just tried it on my Intel Q9550 with Windows 7 x64 and it works. The processor was in 1.9GHz mode to save power and not in full 2.83GHz and it was about 50x times faster than realtime.

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #9
Just for the case I`ve made a more generic build that should run on any CPU:

Code: [Select]
http://www.mediafire.com/?81janz0arwccpva


Not Tested

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #10
The generic version worked on my Intel Centrino 1.75GHz and the speed was about 9x. Regards

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #11
By the way, thank you a lot for these builds! I really appreciate it. Regards.

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #12
Is it a lot of work to make a SSE2 version. I do not expect you to make one but just wonder if it is something you might be interested in making? Regards.

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #13
Is it a lot of work to make a SSE2 version. I do not expect you to make one but just wonder if it is something you might be interested in making? Regards.


Not so much work, if there'll be some interest for SSE2 I might do that level also.
Thanks for testing.

aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #14
Is it a lot of work to make a SSE2 version. I do not expect you to make one but just wonder if it is something you might be interested in making? Regards.


Not so much work, if there'll be some interest for SSE2 I might do that level also.
Thanks for testing.

No problem at all. You are the one to be thanked! Regards.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #15
In the meantime you can test my compile.
It doesn't have built-in FLAC reader and resampler but since you use oggenc2 as encoding backend for foobar2000 they are useless anyway.

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #16
Thanks for that. Tested SSE2 version on Athlon64 3000+ and got twice the encoding speed of VEnc without any anomalous bitrate/quality differences (tested on commentary DVD track at @100kbps). Speed of your OggEnc2 was about on-par with Musepack and right between Nero and CELT.

If you want gory details I'll post later
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #17
This test was for multiple reasons: a) to expand my knowledge of DVD video extraction process (heard that CELT did better with 48KHz and figured stereo AC3 converted to WAV would work; b) to test CELT encoding speed in regards to the statement that it was a magnitude faster because of no psy-model and other reasons; c) just another general encoder speed test carried out on a not-so-modern machine. Seems CELT could benefit from optimizations. But anyhow, I ended up putting results here since the OggEnc2 compile (SSE2) above seemed dramatically faster than Venc.

This test focused on lossy encoders aiming for a VBR setting which would result in @100kbps since I figured a DVD commentary track was less complex and needed no 5.1->stereo conversion. I think 100kbps for this material is overkill since there is virtually no audible winner here. Lossless codecs were added to reflect the material was non-complex and easily compressed.
Code: [Select]
Encoder/Settings           File size    Bitrate*    Speed*     TimeThis  
_________________________  __________  __________  _______  ___________ 
Musepack 1.30 -q 4.99      65,978,894  98.8 kbps  23.99x  222.687 sec
AoTuv 6.03 -q 4            65,996,209  98.8 kbps  13.37x  399.593 sec
OggEnc 2.7 SSE2 -q 4      65,996,560  98.8 kbps  26.71x  200.781 sec
CELT 0.11.2 --bitrate 100  66,843,352  [97.8 kbps] [30.49x] 175.156 sec
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0 -q 0.4    67,192,851  [98.9 kbps] [20.86x] 256.093 sec
OggEnc 2.7 SSE2 -q 4.1    67,515,708  101.1 kbps  26.57x  201.078 sec
AoTuv 6.03 -q 4.1          67,516,144  101.1 kbps  13.31x  401.265 sec
LAME 3.99 alpha16 -V 5    68,150,160  102.1 kbps  14.10x  379.500 sec
Musepack 1.16 -q 4.99      68,544,320  102.7 kbps  24.03x  222.281 sec
Helix MP3 5.1 -V90        69,001,032  103.4 Kbps [104.99x]  50.875 sec
Musepack 1.30 -q 5        72,427,994  108.5 kbps  23.73x  225.171 sec
Helix MP3 5.1 -V100        72,959,688  109.3 Kbps [102.59x]  52.062 sec
Musepack 1.16 -q 5        75,120,664  112.5 kbps  23.77x  225.406 sec
WAVE (16bit 48KHz 2ch)  1,025,507,372  1536 kbps  - - - -  - - - - - -
FLAC 1.2.0 -5            312,449,472  468 kbps  [88.90x]  60.078 sec
Monkey's Audio -c2000**  312,394,832  468 kbps  [166.22x]  32.328 sec
WavPack 4.60              311,117,884  465 kbps  [95.57x]  55.890 sec
TAK 2.1.0 -p 2            281,036,191  421 kbps  122.28x  43.718 sec


*  values reported by encoder, brackets indicate user-calculated values
** old/deprecated version of codec used, don't ask
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #18
Those were interesting numbers.

I think 100kbps for this material is overkill since there is virtually no audible winner here.

Since it is DVD audio track then even 64-80 kbps will be more than enough (excluding MP3 perhaps)
  • Last Edit: 03 May, 2011, 03:05:31 PM by IgorC

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #19
A full set of beta6.03 compiles is now at Rarewares.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #20
john33- I noticed your P4 compile is much slower than lvqcl's compile, close to Venc . This was running an Athlon64. Seemed strange enough that I re-ran tests on both compiles to confirm.
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #21
I´ve experienced slow encoding speed too with rarewares compilation on my AMD cpu. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=726406

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #22
Great, it's the compiler. The Rarewares generic compile gets 10x speed, the SSE's get 12x. Meanwhile the lvqcl gets 26x
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #23
I have compared the speeds and lvqcl's oggenc is about 1.5x faster than every other compile.
If raw streams binary compared, each compile generated binary different output, maybe it's due to each compiler operates with different floating point precision.

  • john33
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
aoTuVbeta6.02
Reply #24
john33- I noticed your P4 compile is much slower than lvqcl's compile, close to Venc . This was running an Athlon64. Seemed strange enough that I re-ran tests on both compiles to confirm.

Hmmm, I'll check the compiler options I've used.
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/