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: Autumn 2006 Listening Test (Read 143060 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #175 –
tought call

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #176 –
Once again, on my part, I vote for CBR only.  You could add the LAME -v5 --vbr-new as a high anchor, if you want, since we already proved it's transparent to most users.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #177 –
that could be a good middle-road solution ... and also LAME CBR 128? I allways wondered how it compared.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #178 –
I'd say we test everything in VBR mode. If there should be demand for another midrange bitrate MP3 test, we could use CBR then. For FhG based, I think I will use MMJB or Nero.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #179 –
I already asked about Helix VBR settings. No one has answered yet. The encoder is nicely configurable, but without testing I can only try to guess what would be suitable.

Sebastian, have you asked for advice at https://helixcommunity.org/ ?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #180 –
I am strongly against a CBR-only test. if LAME shines most on VBR, and people concerned with quality (the ones that care about listening tests) use VBR, why test CBR? That would yield useless results.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #181 –
Quote from: rjamorim on
I am strongly against a CBR-only test. if LAME shines most on VBR, and people concerned with quality (the ones that care about listening tests) use VBR, why test CBR? That would yield useless results.

I have to agree with roberto. 

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #182 –
Funny, a few moments before you suggested we should use CBR.

Roberto, what's your opinion regarding FhG? Would you use MMJB / Nero because they offer VBR mode, or would you use WMP and CBR?
Since iTunes averages 135 kbps when set to encode to 128 kbps VBR, it has a similar bitrate to LAME.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #183 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Funny, a few moments before you suggested we should use CBR.

No, i did not, i said that if you didn't wanted option 1, i would do option 2 and not a mix. But i didn't wanted to mean not to mix vbr/cbr, but not to mix criteria for selecting. But doesn't means i'm right.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #184 –
Quote from: kwanbis on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on

Funny, a few moments before you suggested we should use CBR.

No, i did not, i said that if you didn't wanted option 1, i would do option 2 and not a mix. But i didn't wanted to mean not to mix vbr/cbr, but not to mix criteria for selecting. But doesn't means i'm right.


Quote from: kwanbis on
that could be a good middle-road solution ... and also LAME CBR 128? I allways wondered how it compared.


Anyways, forget about it - didn't want to offend you, sorry.

Does anyone know if the Helix encoder hosted on RW is the latest and greatest version?
 

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #185 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Roberto, what's your opinion regarding FhG? Would you use MMJB / Nero because they offer VBR mode, or would you use WMP and CBR?.


I didn't even know MMJB was still alive...

As far as popularity is concerned, I would go with WMP in a heartbeat. Nero must offer one of the hardest, most arcane ways to rip a CD to MP3, so I don't think people are flocking to it for their ripping needs (it actually took me quite some time to realize that Extras -> Save tracks meant "CD ripping")

Of course, the ideal would be doing a pre-test to see which one is better. But honestly, that's a waste of effort for an encoder that will probably lose anyway...

Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Does anyone know if the Helix encoder hosted on RW is the latest and greatest version?


Should be. You can always ask Karl... have you already mailed him about encoding hints?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #186 –
I really like the idea of 128 kbps+ vbr mp3.  Actually I'd prefer 160 kbps+ vbr MP3, but I think I'm the lone wolf on that one.

I always encode in MP3 (and will until there's another universal format) and strive for fast, convenient, well-tagged transparency on a normal recording at a reasonably low bitrate.  I think I'm a pretty normal Joe that way.  Anything to help along those lines in this test will get a lot of play on the net, IMHO.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #187 –
Quote from: rjamorim on
Nero must offer one of the hardest, most arcane ways to rip a CD to MP3, so I don't think people are flocking to it for their ripping needs (it actually took me quite some time to realize that Extras -> Save tracks meant "CD ripping")

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

EDIT: COLOR added.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #189 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Quote from: rjamorim on

You can always ask Karl... have you already mailed him about encoding hints?

Of course, a few days ago.

Oh, I didn't know that. Hopefully they have some idea what should be used. One option would be to trust the default and only adjust the basic VBR quality setting.


Any comments on the decoder clipping issue I mentioned? I don't know how audible the problem is and how much the encoders differ from each other, but sometimes the difference in a decoded wave file can be quite big. Some samples can be decoded without clipping and some show heavy clipping.

As we know, this possible decoder clipping may or may not be something that users experience outside a listening test depending on if they use a decoder that can prevent from clipping or if they use MP3Gain for that.

Naturally, the gain adjustment that is applied with ABC/HR after decoding to 16-bit integer does not prevent from decoder clipping.

I made some experiments with the Garbage's "Bleed Like Me" track that I encoded with iTunes VBR 128. I converted the file with and without fb2k's clipping protection to wave and wave gained the resulting files to have the same overall volume. I cannot ABX test the files just now, but this is how the files show up in a wave editor:



I'll try to ABX these and some other test tracks during the weekend and perhaps post samples and start another thread for discussion.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #190 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: rjamorim on
Nero must offer one of the hardest, most arcane ways to rip a CD to MP3, so I don't think people are flocking to it for their ripping needs (it actually took me quite some time to realize that Extras -> Save tracks meant "CD ripping")
I wouldn't be so sure about that.


I didn't say I was sure. I said I think. There's a difference in there, if you care to look.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #192 –
Quote from: rjamorim on
I didn't say I was sure. I said I think. There's a difference in there, if you care to look.

If I care to look?

I highlighted it.

Your opinion holds great weight though in this case I felt your projection deserved to be challenged as I have seen Nero used for things for which there are better options.

@Alex B:  Thank you.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #193 –
Quote from: greynol on
Your opinion holds great weight though in this case I felt your projection deserved to be challenged as I have seen Nero used for things for which there are better options.


Pretty much all features in Nero have better options elsewhere. But people tend to keep using Nero because of status quo and ease of use. Audio ripping and encoding, in particular, is an area where Nero is neither easy nor it enjoys a great status. So there.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #194 –
Quote
Just quickly tested the mp3surround encoder in stereo mode and it turned out, that it offers even better quality than 3.4.0.0 FhG ACM encoder - it requires more careful listening to ABX/distinguish a pop song @128k from the original.


While I respect Egor and think he is a valuable participant at HA, my ears have to disagree on htis one.

Listening to Breaking Benjamin's Phobia CD (tracks 1-4) today, encdoded at 192 kbps with the Fhg Surround Sound encoder and Fhg 3.4 from WMP 11 - I found 3.4 much better. Some of the cymbals while listening to the surround sound encoder made me cringe. Maybe this only applies to grunge/metal however. His test was based on a pop song.

If anyone else has the Phobia CD, check my hearing. Maybe I am imagining it. I do not think so however.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #195 –
Sent two e-mails to Karl and Ken and no reply yet. I think I will use the Helix encoder with something like -V65 -X2. Do you guys have any recommendations?

Problem is that I am running out of time since I have to leave Germany and drive to Romania on September 2nd. I will be there for three weeks and have no idea if my dad manages to get a notebook from the company he's working for.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #196 –
Quote from: kwanbis on
Quote from: rjamorim on

I am strongly against a CBR-only test. if LAME shines most on VBR, and people concerned with quality (the ones that care about listening tests) use VBR, why test CBR? That would yield useless results.

I have to agree with roberto. 


I agree with you too but i'm think that's interesting make an test with cbr to prove (in flesh and blood) that vbr is better than cbr, and how much it's really is.The results will shock ANYBODY that stick use cbr instead of vbr.  And use some problematics samples will be some interesting... 
Sorry for my bad english.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #197 –
Quote from: Diow on
I agree with you too but i'm think that's interesting make an test with cbr to prove (in flesh and blood) that vbr is better than cbr, and how much it's really is.The results will shock ANYBODY that stick use cbr instead of vbr.  And use some problematics samples will be some interesting... 
Same here;  We have proved that VBR is good; now we must prove that CBR is bad, and we'll be able to deduce that VBR is better than CBR.  Perhaps including one Lame -V5 --vbr-new and one LAME -b 128, just to see how people react about them both (in double-blind)
I think it's important also to have matching bitrates.  It's been a long time since we've had a CBR test...

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #198 –
I think I already stated what encoders are going to be used. Adding a new LAME setting won't work because there are enough contenders. One (if not the main) goal of this test was to see how traditional encoders like LAME perform against fast encoders such as Helix, Gogo and FastEnc.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #199 –
@ Sebastian:

This thread has some command lines that seemed to work:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....531&st=169#

...if I can get the link right...

Edit: Of course you have to adjust the -V value to match the opted bit rate.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen