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.

Poll

What sounds better to you?

LAME APS (--alt-preset standard)
[ 46 ] (69.7%)
Official Vorbis at quality 5
[ 20 ] (30.3%)

Total Members Voted: 134

Topic: [USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5 (Read 6062 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Please, just simple answers, I don't want to start a flame war of any kind. Just choose option in the poll and make a comment if you want to.

Edit 1: LAME version is tuned 3.90.3 and Vorbis is official 1.0.1.
Edit 2: I didn't voted in the poll, because I don't have enough good ears/equipment to judge, I want to see opinions of the majority of HA users.

Edit 3: Do not take anything else in consideration exept sound quality when voting! Thanks.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #1 –
I choose the MP3 option because of compatibility with my portable and stereo equipment.  Hard pressed to notice quality differences between the two options, but I don't have a technically trained ear.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #2 –
Quote
I don't want to start a flame war of any kind.

never mind, this war will not kill nor breaking the rules,           
no boms, no weapons, just words and disagreements, that's all

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #3 –
To Mods/devs: Why does it say to me "You have already voted in this poll", and I did not? I just clicked view results (null vote)?

Edit: Or null vote counts as a vote?

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #4 –
Quote
To Mods/devs: Why does it say to me "You have already voted in this poll", and I did not? I just clicked view results (null vote)?

Edit: Or null vote counts as a vote?

Yes, of course you can't vote after viewing the results.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #5 –
Heh, there should be a vote for "Don't know", but since there isn't, I cast a null vote. I can't ABX LAME -aps but on problem samples and I don't think I can ABX Vorbis @ -q5 on normal samples either, but I haven't really tried. I do, however, think that LAME -aps should be better than the official Vorbis encoder, since it encodes at about a 40 kbps higher bitrate and has received considerably more tuning.

EDIT: What about those who definitely CAN'T ABX either of them? A "None" would be in order, too.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #6 –
simple answers like this, there are not

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #7 –
But why did you choose 1.0.1 and not GT3b1?
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #8 –
Dunno, never tested.

Gut feeling: LAME 3.90.3 APS (but I won't vote on that)

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #9 –
Quote
But why did you choose 1.0.1 and not GT3b1?

Because I think that GT3b1 is of better quality at -q5 than LAME APS, but with official 1.0.1 I don't know and I wanted to see opinions of the people here.

And because I like official milestones more (not just vorbis, but of other software too) without reason, I just do. So, if the official vorbis @ -q5 can be considered transparent I would use that (I think it's great quality/size ratio).

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #10 –
Please test before voting... not just assume that one should be better. Just because aps averages higher (192-224 roughly) doesn't mean it should sound better... it has other limitations (psymodel, etc). MP3 fatboy still has the 'clack-clack' problem at aps ~260 while -q5 at ~230 avoids this.

Of course YMMV depending on normal and problem samples tested... I prefer vorbis 101 but can understand if people test aps to be better.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #11 –
Putting compatibility, encoding speed ect aside Vorbis at q5 is the better sounding to me.

Listened with a range of CD's encoded with EAC, and to be honest I picked Vorbis as better on 3 out of 5 tracks on the other 2 really couldn't split the difference.

I listened with at Terratec 64/48 soundcard through Arcam / B&W hifi, and on my IRiver IHP120.

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quote
To Mods/devs: Why does it say to me "You have already voted in this poll", and I did not? I just clicked view results (null vote)?

Edit: Or null vote counts as a vote?

Yes, of course you can't vote after viewing the results.

But guests can see the results; anyone can see them when they are not logged in...

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #13 –
Quote
MP3 fatboy still has the 'clack-clack' problem at aps ~260

This is the first time I have heard of this in two years of following threads on this board. Fatboy was a problem sample in the beginning, but I believe that Dibrom tuned APS to the point where Fatboy was no longer a problem.

If I'm wrong about this, can someone please provide a link to a post or article that describes this "clack-clack" problem?
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #14 –
Quote
Fatboy was a problem sample in the beginning, but I believe that Dibrom tuned APS to the point where Fatboy was no longer a problem.

Sorry, I wrote the wrong description, QT AAC at 128 goes clack, 3.95 has an audible pit-pat, 3.90.3 was different but not that much better...  hard to describe in words but the artifact just sounds unusual (16/16).

[USELESS] LAME APS vs official Vorbis -q 5

Reply #15 –
I can see 66 votes and no ABX result to support any of them !
It means that the Term Of Service number 8 (link at the top of any page) has been violated 66 times.

Let's reacall it :

Any statement about sound quality must be supported by the author responsible for such statements by a double blind listening test demonstrating that he can hear a difference, together with a test sample. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, subtracting two files and so on are definetely not considered as valid evidences of sound quality

Hydrogenaudio is supposed to be an objectively minded community that relies on double-blind testing and relevant methods of comparison in discussion about sound quality. The usual "audiophile" speak of non-audio related terms which are completely subjective and open to redefinition on a whim, are useless for any sort of progression in discussion.

This rule is the very core of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it.
You can read how to easily perform double blind listening tests here

You are free to open another thread on the same topic, but any opinion will have to be backed up with blind test results, otherwise, they are worthless. Most people imagine to hear some differences between lossless and lossy audio files, while there are not. This is not meant to insult them, this is normal, this is the way human hearing works. It has been shown many times, even with professional people. That's why it has been decided to discuss only differences shown in blind test, in which the ear can't be fooled.