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: How good is the new NCTU-LAME? (Read 4832 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #2 –
Quote
Also, the decoder jointly considers the high frequency reconstruction can greatly improve the original mp3 quality. The NCTU decoder can decodes the mp3 bit stream with a quality near to the best AAC bit streams encoded through Quick Time.

That sounds like SBR...

The codec does implement it. I'd like to know whether they're better off than PlusV.
ruxvilti'a

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #3 –
These guys are obviously breaking the LGPL (Lame's license), by not posting sources with their binaries.

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #4 –
This looks interesting. There will have to be some tests done to prove that it's better quality than lame is at right now.

The fact that a Prof. and 3 Dr.'s are working on it gives more hope.

I hope that there are more releases and more improvements to this!

dj_digital

Edit: I just tried the encoder and it looks like it's based on lame 3.88. My first encode went at 1.68x max.(compared to 3.56x in lame 3.90.3 on same song). So far, I think that lame 3.90.3 has the edge but I haven't experimented with the command options yet. First beta too so it has room to grow....(hopefully)

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #5 –
Quote
This looks interesting. There will have to be some tests done to prove that it's better quality than lame is at right now.

The fact that a Prof. and 3 Dr.'s are working on it gives more hope.

I hope that there are more releases and more improvements to this!

dj_digital

Edit: I just tried the encoder and it looks like it's based on lame 3.88. My first encode went at 1.68x max.(compared to 3.56x in lame 3.90.3 on same song). So far, I think that lame 3.90.3 has the edge but I haven't experimented with the command options yet. First beta too so it has room to grow....(hopefully)

Well.. even if they could improve many areas of psychoacoustics, it's still far away from the max-tweaked setup.
I'm not expecting NCTU professors and doctors to tweak it to the max, rather just introduce some proof of a concept psychoacoustic which might or might not be better. It's a long way to perform better in practise than 3.90.3 --alt-presets...

If they couldn't even top FAAC 1.20.1 with their NCTU-FAAC (shouldn't really be the hardest job), I'm not expecting much from their Lame version either.
Juha Laaksonheimo

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #6 –
Quote
I'm not expecting NCTU professors and doctors to tweak it to the max, rather just introduce some proof of a concept psychoacoustic which might or might not be better.

hehehe, i know what you mean..

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Quote
I'm not expecting NCTU professors and doctors to tweak it to the max, rather just introduce some proof of a concept psychoacoustic which might or might not be better.

hehehe, i know what you mean.. 

Well.. I tested it a bit. I'd almost say (the proprietary high freq encoding excluded) the biggest difference comes from their recommended --noshort, which increases spectral resolution in many cases. It's not exactly so bad even though their recommended setting doesn't use short blocks at all.
Juha Laaksonheimo

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #8 –
If you use this --noshort, it will still retain full mp3 compatibility right? Don't know much about the tech of mp3 so could you clear this up for me?

Thanks,

dj_digital

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #9 –
--noshort is still mp3 compatible
 

How good is the new NCTU-LAME?

Reply #10 –
Quote
That sounds like SBR...The codec does implement it. I'd like to know whether they're better off than PlusV.

The SBR needs the side information encoder to enhance the quality. The HFR is free from the constraint. The technology try to reconstruct the high frequency contents to have the better quality without the help of the encoder information. It tries to enhance the usual audio files. 

Quote
If you use this --noshort, it will still retain full mp3 compatibility right?

There are constraints from the hybrid filterbank, the long window is not that efficient. The objective of an encoder is the high quality. The tools used is not so important. Compatibility is the only issue.

Quote
If they couldn't even top FAAC 1.20.1 with their NCTU-FAAC (shouldn't really be the hardest job), I'm not expecting much from their Lame version either.

Whether or not the FAAC is better than the NCTU-FAAC is not related to the quality of Lame. The tools of Lame is much more restricted. We need to find the constrained optimum solution.

Quote
Well.. even if they could improve many areas of psychoacoustics, it's still far away from the max-tweaked setup.

We hope it is so easy too. It will let us loss the interstes of challenges too.