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: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder (Read 312432 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #100 –
I have a complete set of 1.03 encoding now for my 91 CD collection:

Code: [Select]
ENCODER   PRESET            |   BITRATE    |                 STEREO
                            |   FULL SET   |    MONO       LOW BITRATE    HIGH BITRATE
                            |   (91 CD)    |   (3 CD)         (4 CD)        (3 CD) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAC CUEtools       -8      |  580.2 kbps  |   467.7 kbps   264.0 kbps   1028.7 kbps
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 1  |   61.1 kbps  |    61.7 kbps    38.3 kbps     72.0 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 2  |   80.6 kbps  |    85.7 kbps    54.3 kbps     96.0 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 3  |   99.3 kbps  |   100.7 kbps    62.8 kbps    115.0 kbps 
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 4  |  110.5 kbps  |   110.0 kbps    67.5 kbps    126.7 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 5  |  131.2 kbps  |   123.7 kbps    77.3 kbps    145.3 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 6  |  143.4 kbps  |   130.7 kbps    82.5 kbps    157.3 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 7  |  159.8 kbps  |   143.3 kbps    89.5 kbps    174.0 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 8  |  176.3 kbps  |   153.3 kbps    97.3 kbps    193.7 kbps
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 9  |  189.5 kbps  |   163.0 kbps   102.5 kbps    207.7 kbps

Here are a comparison at mode 2 between 1.03, ea74e998 GCC from NetRanger (2020.05.12) and ea74e998 GCC resampled at 32 KHz:
Code: [Select]
ENCODER   PRESET            |   BITRATE    |                 STEREO
                            |   FULL SET   |    MONO       LOW BITRATE    HIGH BITRATE
                            |   (91 CD)    |   (3 CD)         (4 CD)        (3 CD) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
exhale 1.0.3 x64    mode 2  |   80.6 kbps  |    85.7 kbps    54.3 kbps     96.0 kbps
exhale ea74e998 GCC mode 2  |   78.3 kbps  |    65.0 kbps    51.0 kbps    101.7 kbps 
exhale ea74e998 GCC m2@32KHz|   79.0 kbps  |    66.7 kbps    48.8 kbps     97.7 kbps


I didn't encounter any blue screen since last time. RAM is apparently OK.
Many mode 2 at 32 KHz are still "corrupted". As I'm not alone to have this problem I haven't investigate further.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #101 –
I don't know if it helps...

1_ I take a file (CDimage) => encoded with exhale at 32 KHz ==> corrupted

2_ I take the same file  => segmented in 30sec short files & then encoded at 32 KHz ==> all segments are fine

3_ I take the lossless segments => encoded with exhale@32KHz and merged into one file with fb2K ==> it's fine

It's curious: the resulting output should be the same for step 1 and step 3 but the first is corrupted and the second is OK.
I also can't catch any 30 seconds samples which will be corrupted with exhale at 32 KHz...

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #102 –
I've prepared a test package for 'Sample01'. If everything is ok  and no complaints received then tomorrow (or next day ) we will have a complete bundle for 12-15 samples and new topic for this test.  So let me know if it works for eveyrbody.

Testing conditions:
Version - exhale v1.0.3-ea74e998 (Netranger's build)
Bitrate - CVBR mode 2 (~80 kbps)

Files:
Original 44.1 kHz
exhale 80 kbps 44.1 kHz
exhale 80 kbps 32 kHz 
There was no need to set gains nor offsets as exhale doesn't shift nor change loudness of files (as of last foobar 1.5.4, nice work, kode54).


Chain used for exhale 80 kbps 32 kHz:
Original WAV 44.1 kHz, 16 bits  ->
-> Resampler SoX VHQ, 32 kHz, 32 bits WAV  99% passband which is the highest and still recommended value ->
-> decoded to 44.1 kHz, 16 bits to have the same sampling rate and bid depth as Original and exhale_80kbps_44.1kHz files.

SAMPLE01 contains:
  • ABCHR Java application
  • ABCHR Windows application
  • Documentation for both applications "ABCHR Java" and  "ABCHR" for Windows
  • Predecoded files for Sample01

The package was done to run a test on Sample01 without any additional steps (decoding, copy etc). Listeners can choose which application to use (ABCHR Java or ABCHR Win) or any other.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #103 –
Thanks very much, Igor! Sorry, I had a very busy day and was able to only check the .m4a files. I noticed that my own Win64 executable produces very slightly different MPEG-4 files than the ones you provided (based on NetRanger's builds), which I guess is due to the use of gcc vs. Visual Studio). That difference doesn't seem to be problematic, though, but I'll check the remaining samples the same way, just to be on the safe side.

I didn't have time to check the ABC-HR setup. Can anyone else confirm that it works for them?

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #104 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
I noticed that my own Win64 executable produces very slightly different MPEG-4 files than the ones you provided (based on NetRanger's builds), which I guess is due to the use of gcc vs. Visual Studio). That difference doesn't seem to be problematic, though, but I'll check the remaining samples the same way, just to be on the safe side.
Agree.  I will proceed with NetRanger's build then.

Thank You.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #105 –
Hello,

Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Can anyone else confirm that it works for them?
Tested it and seems Ok, albeit I've never used ABC/HR before, only informal ABX with foobar2000.
I'm definitively getting old, unable to hear a single difference between all versions of Sample01.

    AiZ

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #106 –
@AiZ

Don't worry, it's easy.  ABC/HR is  pretty the same thing as ABX.

The main difference is that You will have two columns in ABC/HR:
1."exhale 80 kbps 44.1 kHz" vs "Original"
2."exhale 80 kbps 32 kHz"  vs "Original" 

I have also included this link in readme.txt. It explains how to perform ABC/HR test
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204073842/http://ff123.net/64test/practice.html



Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #107 –
Quote from: AiZ on
I'm definitively getting old, unable to hear a single difference between all versions of Sample01.
Sample01 isn't difficult for exhale, this explains why You don't hear much.

There will be a bunch of difficult  samples where artifacts will pop up easily.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #108 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on

I didn't have time to check the ABC-HR setup. Can anyone else confirm that it works for them?

Tested with ABC-HR for Windows (not JAVA) : no issue.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #109 –
Hello,

As far as I know,
Due to many tests.
LC-AAC (QAAC) is good on high bitrates(192kbps↑)
Opus is good at low to mid bitrates(192kbps↓)
HE-AACv2(NERO AAC) is good at extremely low bitrates (48kbps↓)

And due to the information on the internet,
xHE-AAC is look like better then HE-AACv2 on very low bitrates.
http://i.imgur.com/AKAu07I.png

which look like is not the range that exhale-Encoder aims.

So could anyone tell me what bitrante rangs would this encoder is most superior than other best encoders in 2020?

Or it is just an alternative?

Is it good enough for us to convert all music into this codec for the replacement on opus and LC-aac?
 (After searching , doesn't see any comparison yet.)

Thanks a lot !

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #110 –
Quote
So could anyone tell me what bitrante rangs would this encoder is most superior than other best encoders in 2020?
Or it is just an alternative?
Is it good enough for us to convert all music into this codec for the replacement on opus and LC-aac?
Hi, exhale is just a few months old, and there are no comparisons to other encoders so far (except for Igor's personal tests which he reported earlier in this thread). Before converting your entire music collection, I suggest you wait until more people here have checked the audio quality. But feel free to try it out on a few albums, e.g. at CVBR mode 2, to get your own impression and report any issues you come across.

Quote
And due to the information on the internet, xHE-AAC is look like better then HE-AACv2 on very low bitrates.
http://i.imgur.com/AKAu07I.png
which look like is not the range that exhale-Encoder aims.
xHE-AAC is better that HE-AAC v2 across a quite large bit-rate range, but yes, mostly so at very low rates. Regarding the second part of your sentence, I addressed that in a previous post of mine in this thread, see here.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #112 –
Quote from: samidare1234 on
Due to many tests.
Where?
Provide a link for such tests.

Quote from: samidare1234 on
LC-AAC (QAAC) is good on high bitrates(192kbps↑)
Opus is good at low to mid bitrates(192kbps↓)
I suggest you to do your own test and You will see  those are  just a fancy comments and, so called, anecdotal evidences. Otherwise  an internet is such a serious thing, right?  When You kindly ask such posters to provide tests or some  information  they get angry or simply don't provide anything.
Any test with bitrate higher than ~96-128 kbps shoud be taken with a big grain of salt and a lot of precaution.
The big majority of people have trouble already at  those rates, 96-128 kbps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #113 –
Quote from: IgorC on

Where?
Provide a link for such tests.


Thanks for the information.  :)

On a different note...Different to Audio Codec, Those Image Codec doesn't rely on the human test.
They use many of SNR resault for control the quality on how many differencial to the original one.
On the develoment for a new codec/encoder they almost have a clear aim
(Example: Same quality half size to jpg or some what)
But look like that the audio codec is quite different.

Well, OK, I should correct to "due many test I read for years And my experence"
These is my total resault .
I read many many test and article in many languages of the comparision for the personal interest.
Some of them analyze from the spectrum. Some are the personal test resaults.
And One of parts is like the information from the publick sound test.

For higher bitrates, As least I can take the difference much easily in Limited environment.
For example, the WASAPI/ASIO mode (*Bit-Exact) on a not too bad audio system with good SNR and Dynamic Ranges.

And the age is a big facter.(Some children can sound 20Khz) Those ABXtest I think is on there normal environment.
And Some of the people lose there Hearing acuity due to the loud sound in there lives (Example: go to movie, Play loud music on earphone)

So I agree for most of the time about 128~192 is already a cut off point for good enough
Public use or say normally use especially for streaming.
Lower than that is a trade-off.

For the above reasons,
 I think that all sound tests are not a decisive evidence.
They can only be a reference.

But We know that HE-AACv2 is one of best at low rate.
Opus is one of best modern codec at wide-range bitrates. (That Youtube and most streaming shift to)

In mid-high bitrate, Opus has the SRC problem which many of my cd is on 44.1khz.(Movie or some what is at 48Khz so no problem)
I can here the artifact on them So I leave the LC-AAC better than opus on my comment.

Anyway, I will Give A try on xHE-AAC. ;D  Thanks!

(Sorry for my English)

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #114 –
Thanks very much for preparing the public test, Igor! While it's running, I took another look at CVBR mode 1 (~64 kbit/s stereo) and now allow it to be coded with 32 kHz sampling rate (Git 41751381). CVBR mode 2 and 3 shouldn't have changed.

@samidare1234
Quote
On a different note...Different to Audio Codec, Those Image Codec doesn't rely on the human test.
Actually, they do. I know because my daytime job currently involves the standardization of a new video codec, VVC.

Quote
They use many of SNR resault for control the quality on how many differencial to the original one.
On the develoment for a new codec/encoder they almost have a clear aim
(Example: Same quality half size to jpg or some what)
But look like that the audio codec is quite different.
That's because things like SNR don't tell you much any more in the audio coding world. See also the following comment.

Quote
I read many many test and article in many languages of the comparision for the personal interest.
Some of them analyze from the spectrum.
This kind of analysis might have worked in the 1990s with codecs like MP3. It hasn't worked for the last 20 years, which is why we don't do this on this forum. Nowadays, the only analysis that works reasonably well with lossy audio codecs is double-blind subjective evaluation with many human listeners, which is why we do this regularly on this forum.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
 

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #117 –
excellent quality.
But consider  vbr and cbr options in the future to force a low bitrate.
It is excellent for music, but I like also speech options and not always 64 kbps.
I know to now the focus is music and the encoder is still new.
Also when we will have USAC decoder on VLC, lav filters or Foobar (even of mobile, now is only with a component in PC)?

Still I'd like an encoder that rarely goes more than 63 kbps.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #118 –
Right now the mobile devices are the ones that don't have problems, Android and iOS have the decoder from at least 2 years.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #119 –
Quote from: celona on
v.1.0.3-41751381:

exhaleMac-v.1.0.3-41751381_x64.zip
You may be well intentioned, but please do not use a pseudo URL to which you are not entitled. You give the impression that this file is hosted by Rarewares which it is not.

Edit: removed "www.rarewares.org/files/aac/" from link description

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #120 –
Sorry, I was a fool, I copied and pasted your text and then I only added Mac instead of App without removing the path.

I just wanted to integrate your message in the same style, I sent you a PM with the file that I compiled on my Mac because otherwise I would have been excluded from the tests.

In the end I didn't finish anything because I miss the other programs, but at least I was able to try the encoder.

v.1.0.3-41751381:
exhaleMac-v.1.0.3-41751381_x64.zip

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #121 –
No problem, thanks for the explanation. Once the encoder is finalised, I'm sure we would be happy to host a Mac compile at Rarewares if you would like us to do so.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #122 –
For example I can't use VBR 79 kbps or vbr 121 kbps.

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #123 –
the VBR is not a panacea

Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder

Reply #124 –
Quote from: fabiorug on
But consider  vbr and cbr options in the future to force a low bitrate.

Quote from: fabiorug on
It is excellent for music, but I like also speech options and not always 64 kbps.

Quote from: fabiorug on
Still I'd like an encoder that rarely goes more than 63 kbps.

Quote from: m14u on
the VBR is not a panacea
When I was a teen I wanted to go out with Claudia Schiffer. But... she seemed not to be interested in.  :-[

I’m also very excited like You about this new encoder, guys, but  it’s also a  good time to put myself on someone's shoes and see that there  is an open test which would help somewhat to a development. Then, maybe,  if there is a possibility  I would kindly ask for some feature .