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: My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :) (Read 47502 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #100
Quote
I've finally found the time for testing those oggencqk3x encoders.
But I don't think of these results are truly useful for you.
Tristan_QKTune_test
Castanets_QKTune_test

Thanks.

Actually they are quite useful in showing that this stereo hack isn't as effective as I had hoped but is causing other problems. 

Oh well, it's back to the drawing board. 

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #101
Quote
Hello,

I´ve merged Vorbis CVS and qkt32.tar.gz for a private linux-compile. I found a piece of "normal" music sounding strange. (However, vorbis 1.0.1 doesn´t seem better to me on this sample but I may have to check this again...)

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=188853

Maik

I had a listen to your spacedyevest sample.  With 1.0.1 and QKTune b3.2, there is a distinct HF hiss on the 'is' of 'This', though it seems stronger in 1.0.1.  The hiss is also present in MTb3 and aoTuV, though I can't determine from my mortal ears which has smaller hiss.

I think this is another great sample for tuning HF hiss.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #102
Quote
I think this is another great sample for tuning HF hiss.

Ah.. now I see: That´s what HF hiss sounds like...

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #103
Since Vorbis is one of the weakest modern codecs for the classical music genre, I've tried my hand at fixing some of the noise complaints, specifically with grainy or coarse noise that is heard on certain classical instruments such as the violin at q 4. 

My ears aren't that trained with classical music so it would be good to get some feedback from others.  This tuning may not fix the noise problems at all but I'd like to know whether I'm going in the right direction.

QKTune beta 3.5 CE (Classical Edition)

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=193377

Bitrates are somewhat inflated but I'll fix that later, should these tunings prove successful.

Thank you.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #104
Do you want this tested on non-classical music as well?
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #105
Quote
Do you want this tested on non-classical music as well?

Sure, though I doubt it will be any more better than the previous betas, other than inflated bitrates.  But I'm very interested to hear how it sounds on non-classical music too.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #106
I didn't have time for a real test. Nevertheless, it seems that -q4 produces excessive bitrate compared to other encoders at the same setting.

Here is a table of 160 different tracks of classical music.
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/vorbis/playlist160_IE.htm
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/vorbis/playlist160_MZ.htm

Q4: 157,9 kbps
Q3.5: 132,3 kbps
Q3.4: 126,5 kbps

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #107
Quote
I didn't have time for a real test. Nevertheless, it seems that -q4 produces excessive bitrate compared to other encoders at the same setting.

Here is a table of 160 different tracks of classical music.
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/vorbis/playlist160_IE.htm
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/vorbis/playlist160_MZ.htm

Q4: 157,9 kbps
Q3.5: 132,3 kbps
Q3.4: 126,5 kbps

Yes, the bitrate is very high which means I may have to remap the quality levels (q 4 => q 5).  At the moment, I'm curious about whether this tuning has any positive effect.  I'm tweaking the noise3 values for long blocks, which is usually the predominant blocksize in classical.  Plus, I am contemplating on introducing 'profiles' to Vorbis, much like in MPC, where the bitrate is generally allowed to wander quite freely, rather than be constrained to a nominal rate.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #108
I'll probably test vorbis CE at -q3,4. What challengers do you suggest?
- Vorbis CVS -q4 or -q4.3
- Vorbis uncoupled -q2.3
- Maybe Modest Tuning -q4

Is it OK ? Or do you prefer that a test including vorbis QK CE at -q4 first ?

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #109
Quote
Plus, I am contemplating on introducing 'profiles' to Vorbis, much like in MPC, where the bitrate is generally allowed to wander quite freely, rather than be constrained to a nominal rate.

Isn't that, uhm, how the current encoder already works? (Unless it's forced into CBR/ABR mode, which is never by default)

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #110
Quote
Quote
Plus, I am contemplating on introducing 'profiles' to Vorbis, much like in MPC, where the bitrate is generally allowed to wander quite freely, rather than be constrained to a nominal rate.

Isn't that, uhm, how the current encoder already works? (Unless it's forced into CBR/ABR mode, which is never by default)

Yes.  What I had in mind is instead of specifying a quality as having one nominal/average rate, actually specify a nominal range instead.

Like in MPC:

Code: [Select]
Profile Options (Quality Presets):
 --thumb        low quality/internet, (typ.  58... 86 kbps)
 --radio        medium (MP3) quality, (typ. 112...152 kbps)
 --standard     high quality (dflt),  (typ. 142...184 kbps)
 --xtreme       extreme high quality, (typ. 168...212 kbps)


So we can have sort of a standard profile for Vorbis with a typical nominal range.  I think it would dispel the perception that "Hey, I asked for nominal bitrate of 128 kbps and I got 160!!"....

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #111
Quote
I'll probably test vorbis CE at -q3,4. What challengers do you suggest?
- Vorbis CVS -q4 or -q4.3
- Vorbis uncoupled -q2.3
- Maybe Modest Tuning -q4

Is it OK ? Or do you prefer that a test including vorbis QK CE at -q4 first ?

Hmm....for the challengers, is it methodically correct to include QK CE at -q4 alongside QK CE at -q3.4?


My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #113
Quote
Hmm....for the challengers, is it methodically correct to include QK CE at -q4 alongside QK CE at -q3.4?

at ~158 kbps it's in a different class! Anything but a clear victory should be a huge surprise.

Quote
- Vorbis CVS -q4 or -q4.3

Roberto used -q 4.25 in the 128 extension test.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #114
Quote
Quote
Hmm....for the challengers, is it methodically correct to include QK CE at -q4 alongside QK CE at -q3.4?

at ~158 kbps it's in a different class! Anything but a clear victory should be a huge surprise.

True.  Rub that out then.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #115
I performed a small test this morning, after I woke up. I've only tested ~128 kbps bitrate (which mean -q3,4 with vorbis QK 3.5 Classical Edition). I've compared it to CVS encoder at -q4,3 and Nyaochi 1.01 "uncoupled" at -q2,3.
For this purpose, I used 10 samples, uploaded here (9 MB - flac):
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/vorbis/vorbis10samples.zip

I'm not completely happy with this test. At least, I fear that my feeling on the first samples are not really accurate (I don't recommand ABX tests just after awakening). Therefore, at the end of the 10 samples, I performed again the test on the first sample, and results were completely different. I also fear that the results of the second tests are approximate too, but I didn't tested it another time. The third sample is surely OK, because noise issue with the "gorecki.wav" sample is very easy to detect.
I discard the result of the first sample in overall notation.

RESULTS



CONCLUSION:
QK 3.5 is far from perfection. Noise is still audible with some samples, and distortions are introduced (cf. Gorecki, Rameau, Lassus, Penderecki, Guédron). Generally, distortions are something like an hollow sound, and electrical noise/signal. Hard to describe, but really disturbing, more than vorbis usual noise (cf. Gorecki sample). I also heard a tiny form of ringing with the La Spagna sample.
But there are significant improvements on noise. The good exemple is the Satie.wav sample: the recorded noise is not warmer or brighter anymore. I've also found QK 3.5 less noisy than the uncoupled encoder, with Lassus, Ysaye or Florentz (but I have to redo the test for this sample). This surprised me, because uncoupled encoder don't usually suffer from noise.


EDIT: ABC/HR logs (uninteresting) are here:
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/vorbis/vo...20CE%20results/

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #116
Many thanks to guruboolez and harashin. 

I think I know why there were some extra distortions introduced and I'll try to address them using these samples.  Fixing these noise problems in classical music can be quite a challenge.