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: Is -q 7 enough for metal? (Read 21680 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #25 –
I'm astounded at the quality I get with -q 4,5 & 6.  There are some diffrences but for me it's amazing at how much is getting "thrown away" and it all still sounds like music.

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #26 –
I listen to a lot of metal and ogg handles it very well imo. It totally whips MP3's ass at sub 192 bitrates. q2 has a very respectable sound quality, better than that of V6 MP3s. I find it nontrivial to ABX it at home with my good headphones (AKG K100s)., but it you can hear a slight loss in crispness of guitars (drums tend to do fine though). At q3 it becomes a real challenge to ABX even complex songs, you need good headphones and good ears and be able to listen very well. At q4 ogg becomes transparent for me. I encode to q4.5 (although q2 would be fine on your portable player if you dont plan on using expensive headphones). (In case some of you people think I'm crazy for using q4.5 oggs I have everything ripped to FLAC with EAC anyway).

Bottom line, for portable use q3 or even q2 if your ears aren't perfect (I'm 17 so mine are ) is fine for metal.

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: D555 on
I'm astounded at the quality I get with -q 4,5 & 6.  There are some diffrences but for me it's amazing at how much is getting "thrown away" and it all still sounds like music.


If you really really want to be astonished, use WavPack in hybrid mode with, say, a bitrate of 384kbps.  The WavPack documentation presents that bitrate as being enough to be transparent on most material.

Now, look at the size of the 384kbps file and look at the size of the correction file.  Amazing that the correction file is BIGGER than the 384kbps file while the 384kbps file is for all intends transparent.

(sorry for being way OT)

p.s.: don't explain to me why this is so... I get it.  I was just adding to what D555 said.

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #29 –
As said a few times recently WavPack on DAP can realistically be achived by a Rockbox supported device only presently, Vorbis is supported for example by quite a few Samsung players.
WavPack 5.6.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.80 -V 100

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: DARcode on
As said a few times recently WavPack on DAP can realistically be achived by a Rockbox supported device only presently, Vorbis is supported for example by quite a few Samsung players.
Samsung and Cowon and ... many others. Including some car head units. There's a page in Xiph's wiki listing all devices supporting Vorbis, but I can't seem to recall. kjoonlee might remember.

And as small WavPack can be, even at -q 7 Vorbis is still smaller.

Unless you go to -q 10

<Totally OT>Anyone ever try to listen how -q 10 sounds like? And compare it to lossy WavPack?</Totally OT>

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
<Totally OT>Anyone ever try to listen how -q 10 sounds like? And compare it to lossy WavPack?</Totally OT>


q10, like q5 sounds transparent.

Ontopic:

As the wiki page on recommended settings for vorbis says:

Quote
For best results, start at -q 2 and ABX your way up.
and
Quote
Most users agree -q 5 achieves transparency, if the source is the original or lossless.

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #32 –
@ranunculoid: Yes, I am aware of that page. I was one of the maintainers

Hmm, maybe I didn't word it right. What I mean is:

MP3 even at CBR 320 (the highest ever possible) with LAME (regarded as the best encoder) still suffer on some problems, e.g. pre-echo, trumpet, etc.

What about Vorbis -q 10? Granted, the bitrate is at this point waaay above WavPack lossy, but is there any audible degradation that's unhandleable by Vorbis?

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #33 –
-q7 seems like overkill, especially if your ears are 40 years old.

I'm 29, the doctor says my ears are perfect for this age, and I can't ABX -q3. I use -q5 cause of paranoia.

That being said, -q7 seems even more like an overkill now.


Edit:
Oops, holy bump. Didn't realize how old the last reply to this thread was

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
@ranunculoid: Yes, I am aware of that page. I was one of the maintainers

Hmm, maybe I didn't word it right. What I mean is:

MP3 even at CBR 320 (the highest ever possible) with LAME (regarded as the best encoder) still suffer on some problems, e.g. pre-echo, trumpet, etc.

What about Vorbis -q 10? Granted, the bitrate is at this point waaay above WavPack lossy, but is there any audible degradation that's unhandleable by Vorbis?



Wavpack bitrate can go higher - right until lossless compression is reached. I've seen maybe 3 posts where vorbis was abxable at Q10 and nil where wavpack was abxable at 500k and over..

Interestingly in a short test I ran; mp3, mpc, aac, vorbis produced nasty artifacts with post processing like vocal cuts at 128k and even above. Some switches like j/s help sometimes. Wavpack was clean from the start even at the 'modest' 256k using strict or switching joint stereo. Dualstream was also clean. At normal bitrate the transform coder is capable for transparent playback, but handicapped in certain editing , transcoding tasks. Hybrids might not be transparent at lower bitrates, but are cleaner from the ground up - in a technical quality sense.
 

Is -q 7 enough for metal?

Reply #35 –
I can confirm shadowkings statements about wavPack lossy.
wavPack lossy is the first choice to me qualitywise for a lossy codec.
Best quality/filesize ratio is in the 300-400 kbps range with excellent quality, and when going 400-550 kbps this makes sure extremely high quality for the worst samples for wavPack lossy.
And wavPack lossy has still potential for improvement (using VBR and taking care of situations where added mid frequency noise isn't masked by other signal).

For mobile DAPs however it may be more appropriate to consider a a codec like mp3, aac, vorbis, mpc.
There are practical considerations to be considered and which are different to every person (codec availability on the player, battery life, disc space, other considerations).

The OP has planned to use vorbis, and that's a good choice IMO. -q7 may be overkill to many people (to me -q5 is transparent too), but obviously he can afford the increased disc space and he gets a (little) bit of increased safety against bad encodings.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17