HydrogenAudio

Lossy Audio Compression => Ogg Vorbis => Ogg Vorbis - General => Topic started by: Be Positive on 2006-12-26 10:32:24

Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Be Positive on 2006-12-26 10:32:24
Hi,

I just started transcoding my FLAC albums (I'll save them) to Ogg. I first tested q 5, q 6 and then q 4 and I can't tell any difference between them.

But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent? I know it's very subjective, but I wanted to ask you if it's also transparent to you or if you hear any artifacts?

Greets

Edit: I use AoTuV beta 5
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: ImAlive on 2006-12-26 10:53:52
Yes, especially with aoTuV b5, it is transparent to me. I guess even lower q might be transparent (I just barely ABXed q1 right without good headphones and just one sampe), but then again...  I know what you are talking about. We need to get out of this 7 year old mindset that 128k BLADE mp3s sound crappy (they didn't, to me, back then (computer speakers) - but now they do =)). Modern encoders really rock, and it is not 'god given' that 128k=crap.

I am ripping my old CDs right now, and for most pop samplers and electronica q4 should be absolutely sufficient. For my more 'valuable' and metal CDs I use q5 however... not that it would make much of a (audible) difference, if any at all, but here I want a little greater 'safety margin'.

In terms of frequency, I've still (bleh, I'm 22  ) got a rather good hearing (~19kHz), and that is just the lowpass at q4 - wonderful.

BTW: with the new b5, I can see (by no way hear) low-level noise in the spectrum at about 20kHz (with 1kHz bandwidth) when using q5 that did not appear when encoding to q5 with aoTuV r1. What is the cause of this?
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Firon on 2006-12-26 11:03:06
-q2 is transparent to me in casual listening. Maybe I could ABX it, but it sure sounds great to me either way.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Mercurio on 2006-12-26 12:13:52
-q3 was too hard for me to abx, so I didn't try to test -q4 ^^ at all.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Hanky on 2006-12-26 12:23:42
I use Ogg Vorbis aoTuV -q 3.5 (estimated 120 kbps) to encode my music for portable listening on my Cowon iAudio G3. I did not notice any annoying artefact till now, quality is amazingly good for such a bitrate.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Be Positive on 2006-12-26 12:38:34
BTW: with the new b5, I can see (by no way hear) low-level noise in the spectrum at about 20kHz (with 1kHz bandwidth) when using q5 that did not appear when encoding to q5 with aoTuV r1. What is the cause of this?


That makes me worry a bit.. Is the r1 a stable final release? Should I better use this version than the beta 5?
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Pio2001 on 2006-12-26 13:06:31
At q4, I can ABX some rare tracks. I failed all tracks proposed in multiformat ABC/HR tests.
At q5, I can ABX 3 killer samples.
At q6, I can ABX 1 killer sample.
At q7, everything is transparent to my ears.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: ImAlive on 2006-12-26 13:07:40
That makes me worry a bit.. Is the r1 a stable final release? Should I better use this version than the beta 5?
r1 is a stable release (rebranded b4.51), yes. b5 is IIRC mainly tuned for lower bitrate improvement. However, as I stated, bandlimited, low-level noise at 20 kHz cannot be heard, so don't worry - I'll rather have this AND the newest tunings. I just wondered why this was there (noise shaping? new algorithm?), as this only seems to appear with q5 and not with q4.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: jorsol on 2006-12-26 14:46:02
When I start using vorbis, in 2002 (v1.0), I encode my files using -q2, because it sound fine to me... then I swith to -q4 because I ABX -q2 and found that is hard but posible that I hear artifact and because the listening test showing that vorbis at 128kbps is just great... but I swith mostly because the placebo effect that if I hardly hear artifacts at -q2, then -q4 will be the perfect balance.

I made a test to abx 128kbps and found that to my ears is almost imposible to tell the diference. All of this using old encoders (maybe aotuv b2), and with AoTuV Beta 5 this will be just the best choice for a nice balance.

In synthesis, -q4 for me sound just perfect. I posibly can ABX it and hear some diferences but... if I only listen music in my computer then I hardly can said that there is a diference.

In plain English.... yes is transparent to me.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2006-12-26 17:25:59
Tip from experience: Don't worry about transparency. Worry about music quality. Especially since you have the FLACs.

I encode, and transcode (aaaaah! the horror! oh humanity!) my music collection to -q 1 using aoTuV b5... and I never regret it. Except for classical music. guruboolez scared me enough to do them at -q 3.

Annnd if you see the music in my PDA... you may scream outright: None is higher than -q 0. Most (i.e. nearly all) is -q -0.5, and some even made it to -q -0.75  ... and these with aoTuV R1 (too lazy to re-transcode using aoTuV b5 )
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Junon on 2006-12-26 18:07:42
I recently encoded my complete CD collection to FLAC 1.1.3 beta 2 and aoTuV beta 5 at -q 2. I've been making a few ABX tests shortly after the beta 5's release, and I must admit that I already had a troublesome time ABXing many -q 0 samples, causing this bitrate to have become the one I use for my flash-based portable player. At -q 1 I entirely failed distinguishing the Vorbis files from the FLAC ones; since I tested only a few samples I moved one more quality step up to make sure that the whole audio collection sounds transparent to me. Hence I can't even see any need to use the -q 4 setting you asked for. Of course I'm talking about my own hearing here, you don't have to agree with my statement that -q 2 would be transparent. With this subjective claim I'm risking being snubbed due to TOS #8 anyway, because I neither have the ABX logs anymore nor do I have the nerve to do a test at the moment.

Quote
But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent?


Well, we're talking about a modern codec here, therefore you shouldn't compare its bitrates to the ones that are usually used to reach transparency with the good old MP3 format. If we kept encoding to the same bitrates as we always did there wouldn't be any reason to use anything besides LAME, since it features the best possible compatibility and even many modern codecs' features, like VBR encoding and gapless playback.

Edit: Small addendum.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: senab on 2006-12-27 17:04:47
I don't encode to a certain level, it depends on the CD or source really. The highest i'll go is-q 6 for the fact of the lossless stereo coupling. The lowest i'll go is -q 4. I'm not saying I can ABX below -q 4, it's just I use these files on a lot of different systems (car, 5.1 amp, iPod, etc) and like the safety margin of having at least ~128kbps tracks. Even so, i'm probably being overkill.

Small Edit...
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: dariju on 2006-12-27 18:27:19
For me it is still hard to encode something lower than q6, even when I'm aware that q2 in most cases is audibly the same...
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Primius on 2006-12-28 01:31:27
Did you read about loseless stereo coupling at q6 or why do you choose that quality?
To me, reliable quality means 1 quality value above the setting needed for transparency.
(transparency based on a few test samples)
I hope you never run low on space with this setting.
Not to be able to choose q3 because my portable player only has 512MB
is painfull
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: beto on 2006-12-28 12:16:33
-q2 is transparent to me in casual listening (home stereo, portable and computer).
When I listen to music I don't try to find flaws all the time like some paranoid freak.  IMO on casual listening you don't need to.
I may even go lower to -q1 or -q0 in the future.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: MedO on 2006-12-28 14:09:05
I encode at -q6, because the second sample I ever encoded with Vorbis happened to be one of the rather rare Vorbis problem samples where the trouble is very audible. The problem went away at -q6 (i.e. probably with lossless stereo coupling), so I chose -q6 as my standard encoding level. Plus, my audio collection grows slower than my disk space, so I'm not worried about the size.

When testing normal rock/pop samples, -q2 is usually transparent to me.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: DARcode on 2006-12-28 15:31:23
I switched to HE-AAC for DAP/mobile listening, but -q2 was transparent to me.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: vinnie97 on 2006-12-28 18:43:08
-q1 is transparent enough to me.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Caroliano on 2006-12-28 21:01:50
Look at the results of the Public Multiformat Listening test at 128kbps (http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm) made by HA members. For many people, in many samples, vorbis was transparent. The low-anchor is probabily what you was expecting for a codec in 128kbps. I was the Anon26.

My experiences with older versions of AoTuV vorbis:

In -q4 I can barely hear the diference in some samples when comparing with the original. That, or -q6, is my choice for transparent encoding, depending of how much space I want to spare. When I want very high quality in less space, I use -q2, where I can hear some artfacts in many samples, but nothing anoying, especialy when not comparing with the original.

For simply listenable quality, I go with AACv1/v2 at 64~32kbps.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: HE-Dave on 2006-12-29 00:22:23
It's good enough for me usually... when I'm just listening to music... not audio quality.  It'll be fine for you.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: hushypushy on 2006-12-29 07:28:05
I ABX'd tons of songs, and found that for the most part, Q2 is transparent, but there were a couple Q3 songs (very rare). I use Q4 because I know it's overkill and there's no way I could ever tell the difference
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: TimSee on 2007-01-04 04:37:08
I ABX'd -q1, -q2 and -q4.  I basically concluded that for a portable flash player, -q1 is the best bang for the buck. 

So...I use Squeezebox and FLAC for my home stereo and Vorbis -q1 for muisc on the go.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: goldenratiophi on 2007-01-04 23:31:51
I have just decided today to delete the q5's from my ipod and encode to q4 today.  I could abx q1 and q2.  q3 was HARD for me to ABX, but I eventually found Radiohead's "Subterranean Homesick Alien" easy to ABX because of a nosie normalization artifact.  q4 doesn't use noise normalization though.  I tried to ABX q4 once and gave up because I knew I couldn't do it with my equipment.

But yeah, 128 MP3 and 128 Vorbis aren't comparible; Vorbis is newer and more advanced/complicated.  If YOU can't hear the difference, then don't waste the space.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Emon on 2007-01-14 06:20:58
At q4, I can ABX some rare tracks. I failed all tracks proposed in multiformat ABC/HR tests.
At q5, I can ABX 3 killer samples.
At q6, I can ABX 1 killer sample.
At q7, everything is transparent to my ears.

That's about how it is for me. Even when I can tell the difference, it's usually small. At Q7 I doubt it is physically possible for a human to hear the difference. Maybe in some rare cases. For casual listening, Q4 is good enough.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: michael.conner on 2007-02-08 03:53:07
Hi,

I just started transcoding my FLAC albums (I'll save them) to Ogg. I first tested q 5, q 6 and then q 4 and I can't tell any difference between them.

But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent? I know it's very subjective, but I wanted to ask you if it's also transparent to you or if you hear any artifacts?

Greets

Edit: I use AoTuV beta 5


I used to use Lame -V 2 --vbr-new.  Am perfectly happy with q4 AoTuV.  I still shake my head and marvel at how good tracks with an average bitrate of 125k or so sound.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: TimSee on 2007-02-08 04:18:02
I'm -q1 all the way.  I use FLAC for my home stereo setup (Sonos) and Vorbis -q1 for my flash based DAP...allows me to carry around ~35% more tracks vs -q4 with no discernible difference (to me).

My recommendation -- setup some listening tests and see how low you can go!!
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Martin H on 2007-02-08 13:15:08
I use aoTuV-b5/Lancer encoded Vorbis track files at it's default compression level(-q3, which averages at about 112KB) for PC playback(and FLAC images for archiving), since in ABX tests then i personally find -q3 to be perfectly transparent to me. I didn't try to go lower though, as even though i maybe could get away with using a lower setting, then i thought that it would be wise to have a little safety margin for possible problem samples. Before changing to Vorbis, then i used LAME at it's -V5 setting and so by using Vorbis instead of MP3, then i am able to save a little extra space on my lossy collection, since Vorbis -q3 uses about the same average bitrate as LAME -V6 does
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: rudefyet on 2007-02-08 19:24:25
With aotuvb4 to b5, -q4 makes my music is transparent to me about 80-90% of the time.

I haven't tested older versions, but i remember lots of bad noises in -q4 w/ libvorbis 1.0 back when I first really got my own computer.

I've abxed quite a few tracks, and most the time aotuv is transparent to me, only a few choice tracks have not been. Comparing it to LAME and iTunes AAC, it always gave me a larger quantity of transparent results, so I prefer it.

Since my iPod is now broken, I'll be looking into a new player that either runs rockbox, or supports Vorbis natively.

I stick with -q4 for size reasons. -q5 would probably make everything I have transparent, but then again I can't drag myself to go lower then 128kbps either to save more space. It's an OCD thing.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: gameplaya15143 on 2007-02-09 00:31:01
BTW: with the new b5, I can see (by no way hear) low-level noise in the spectrum at about 20kHz (with 1kHz bandwidth) when using q5 that did not appear when encoding to q5 with aoTuV r1. What is the cause of this?

Are you referring to the occasional 'stuff' above the lowpass frequency (as seen with a spectrum analyzer like analfreq)?  That has been happening with all versions I have tested.  Drop the lowpass to 10khz or something and see if you can hear it  (try using wavgain before encoding and see what happens  )

Is q4 transparent for me?  In general yes, but I don't feel like wasting that much space when q0 with the lowpass boosted makes me plenty happy.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Bourne on 2007-02-10 03:03:37
I did a pratical listening test to figure the superiority of OGG over MP3.

Depeche Mode - Policy of Truth (Violator, 1990)
Kraftwerk - Homecomputer (Minimum-Maximum CD2, 2004)

These two songs have quite a good dose of well mastered bass, and loads of cymbals and subtleties.

Each song had a version:

WAV
OGG Q2
OGG Q1
OGG Q0
LAME V6
LAME V7

With LAME, you can easily pick up that V7 is unusable, coz it drops straight to 32kHz in that setting. V6 would be pretty transparent if not for the bass that is less present and less dense than the WAV.

With OGG, the funny thing is that all are seem transparent and similar to WAV, I kept encoded all the way down to Q -1.0 to see if it became anything like LAME V6. And no... not even the Q -1.0 setting was anything like V6, but with much superior quality. Although the Q -1.0 I found the cymbals a bit "fuzzy" compared to WAV. But it was quite transparent at Q1, Q0.

Of course, these are my personal testing, for what I could catch up. I ended up with the files:

Policy of Truth WAV - 50MB
Policy of Truth V6 -    4.4 MB
Policy of Truth Q0 -    2.3 MB

Homecomputer WAV - 61MB
Homecomputer V6    - 5.7 MB
Homecomputer Q0    - 3.0 MB
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: shadowking on 2007-02-10 04:36:28
With OGG artifacts are just a bit different than mp3 - coarse fat sound, noise, stereo image irregularities. I can pick it up at 64-80k even outside abx. I doesn't sound half bad for the bitrate and aotuv version are much improved, but I would not want to listen to it at home on music that I like.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: ChesterB on 2007-02-10 05:45:46
Offtopic

Nice avatar shadowking
Paradise Lost are great.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: shadowking on 2007-02-10 08:21:55
Hehe.. Thanks , I want a PL tatoo !
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Nikaki on 2007-03-07 09:59:05
I "ABX"ed with Winamp a while back. I created samples and put them in the Winamp playlist in random order, so I don't know if this counts as "ABX".

Result: I was always able to ABX -q1, barely able -q2 and -q3 was transparent to me 100% of the time.

At -q2, the only samples I was able to ABX were all of the psy trance samples (the beat sounded flat) and AC/DC's bell in the into of "Hell's Bells".

I encode at -q5 because of plain paranoia


Edit:
Paradise Lost rules  Draconian Times is still one of my favorite albums, even if I bought it right after it got released.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: HbG on 2007-03-07 12:20:54
I can ABX q2, but i'm fine with q1 for portable listening. At home i got my .flac files.
As for 128kbps, remember that it scores very high on listening tests even with LAME MP3. IMHO the idea that more than 128kbps is somehow required for decent quality is horribly outdated.

Anyway, this thread needs a poll. It'd be useful to see what -q levels are most common these days.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-03-07 15:52:03
Anyway, this thread needs a poll. It'd be useful to see what -q levels are most common these days.
I agree. I suggest multiple questions:
- What -q level you use at home (with option: No Vorbis @ home)
- What -q level you use on the road (with option: Never on the road)
- What -q level *in your experience* is transparent enough for at least 90% of your music collection (with option: Never test this objectively)

The -q level should range from -2 to 6 (10 options only, IIRC. Besides, I don't believe -q 6 is not transparent enough for 90% of the musics in the universe)

Any other suggestion? If no, then someone should start the poll.

Edit: Mistyped '6' as '7'. Corrected.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: rockcake on 2007-03-08 02:07:42
The -q level should range from -2 to 6 (10 options only, IIRC. Besides, I don't believe -q 6 is not transparent enough for 90% of the musics in the universe)

Any other suggestion?

Or perhaps the first & last options should be "less than -q-1" and "more than -q5" or something like that.

The results of the poll (if it gets done) would be interesting, but as has been said many times before, one's own needs/priorities/perceptions are more important for these things than everyone else's; after all, I'm the one listening to my music, not everyone else.

Edit: forgot to say that I use -q2 for my CDs and -q3 for friends' CDs (ahem! - purely for evaluation purposes only!  Of course I delete the files after I've 'evaluated' the music, your honour!  Each and every time!  )
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-03-08 08:39:49
Of course I delete the files after I've 'evaluated' the music, your honour!  Each and every time!  )
*cough* I usually *cough* forgot *cough* to delete the files...

Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: dyneq on 2007-03-08 13:04:44
Anyway, this thread needs a poll. It'd be useful to see what -q levels are most common these days.
I agree. I suggest multiple questions:
- What -q level you use at home (with option: No Vorbis @ home)
- What -q level you use on the road (with option: Never on the road)
- What -q level *in your experience* is transparent enough for at least 90% of your music collection (with option: Never test this objectively)

The -q level should range from -2 to 6 (10 options only, IIRC. Besides, I don't believe -q 6 is not transparent enough for 90% of the musics in the universe)

Any other suggestion? If no, then someone should start the poll.

Edit: Mistyped '6' as '7'. Corrected.


I have a suggestion, but I'm not sure how to implement it in the poll:  try to ascertain whether people got their opinions/findings via ABX or not.  Maybe, "I came to my conclusions based on..."?
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: DreamTactix291 on 2007-03-08 21:53:16
I haven't been able to ABX anything encoded with aoTuV b5 that's in my music collection at -q4, but I use -q5 as an added bit of security (plenty of room on my DAP).  Used to use -q6 but realised I'm just wasting space.

Vorbis has come a long way quality wise thanks to aoyumi.  I'm sure there are problem samples out there, but for the majority of music -q4 is impressive (and I'd wager the same for a lot of stuff at -q2 and -q3 though I haven't really tried ABXing much at those -q levels).
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Raptus on 2007-03-20 19:56:14
Quote
Ogg -q4 transparent to you?

Not always. I managed to ABX a few non-killer samples at q5 so I use q6 for my collection.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-03-20 21:29:07
In finality, I guess the acceptability of -q4 depends on (in no particular order):

- Quality of speakers
- Quality of listeners
- Ambient noise
- Expectancy of listener
- Nature of encoded waveform (i.e. problem samples/killer tracks)

So a listening test is the only way to determine if -q4 (or any value) is transparent for a particular person, with a particular setup, in a particular situation.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Zarggg on 2007-03-22 01:51:46
I used to use -q6 before switching to MPC for a while. Now that I've back on Vorbis, I'm using -q5.

But I'm still not sure if that's transparent.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Silversight on 2007-03-22 08:38:41
With most music, -q4 is transparent to me, but for the safety margin I use -q5 for home listening. On my laptop, where space is quite limited, -q3 sounds good enough for me (for comedy CDs, -q0.5 is sufficient).

pepoluan's (I think) tip to un-train one's artifact listening is really good.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: zima on 2007-03-22 11:32:27
Absolutelly transparent.

Disclaimer: Totally against TOS #8...didn't do much ABXing except occasionally for HA listening test. And I want it that way...I feel no need to train myself in capturing flaws of lossy audio compression.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Kef on 2007-03-22 12:31:10
Yeah it's transparent to me. I could easily abx q0 & q1, I had problems with q2 but I could still abx it. I was unable to abx q3 so I took the safe route and I use q4 for all my music. I tested with AoTuV b5 on my favorite tracks.

I'm sure I can find songs / problem samples where I can abx q4 as well but I don't see the point of it. q4 is simply good enough for me.

/Kef
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-03-22 16:58:33
With most music, -q4 is transparent to me, but for the safety margin I use -q5 for home listening. On my laptop, where space is quite limited, -q3 sounds good enough for me (for comedy CDs, -q0.5 is sufficient).

pepoluan's (I think) tip to un-train one's artifact listening is really good.
Yup, that's me:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=425910 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=45644&view=findpost&p=425910)

If one don't unlearn after ABX, his/her ear-brain auditory system will be very sensitive to artifacts, even to the point of hearing artifacts that are *actually* in the original recording. Like I did when I didn't unlearn after some intense ABX session.

If you are not (yet) fluent in unlearning your auditory system, here's a shortcut:

With a DAP, go out to a rather noisy environment (e.g. a park where there's a lot of children playing, preferably near a rather busy road so there's low-frequency rumbling of traffic), and listen to any non-transparent audio track. Lie back, enjoy your time in the shades (keep away from heatstroke, heh), and relax. Enjoy the music. The key: relax. You're unwinding your auditory system.

Then you can start unlearning after you've unwound your auditory system.

Trust me: For personal use and enjoyment, ABX-ing is totally useless. You'll never be able to enjoy your songs again, always worrying that it is non-transparently encoded.

Which is why, in the poll, I did listening tests but not ABX test, to determine what -q I shall use. Just simple test to hear if the song become less enjoyable.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: penvzila on 2007-04-25 03:23:42
For my mp3 player & headphones, -q2 is sufficiently transparent.

I've been using this encoder:

http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/ (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/)

under wine in linux, because it seems the default oggenc doesn't support multiple cores, and I like the speed.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: naylor83 on 2007-04-26 22:41:03
For my mp3 player & headphones, -q2 is sufficiently transparent.

I've been using this encoder:

http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/ (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/)

under wine in linux, because it seems the default oggenc doesn't support multiple cores, and I like the speed.


Yeah those lancer builds sure are zippy.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: micmac on 2007-05-15 08:57:26
Yeah it's transparent to me. I could easily abx q0 & q1, I had problems with q2 but I could still abx it. I was unable to abx q3 so I took the safe route and I use q4 for all my music.
/Kef


Hello!

Same here. Yesterday I spent 1,5 hours trying to ABX ~10-15 samples of
music I like, all of it classical, pop, rock or metal, using foobar2000's ABX
utility. I made samples from flacs and encoded them with -q -2, -1, ..., 6
using libvorbis with the aotuv r1 patch.

Everytime I was able to tell the difference I dropped the rest of the samples
of the same quality. -q -2 to -q 0 were not too difficult, -q 1 and especially -q2
I found hard to ABX. In the end I couldn't ABX any sample I encoded
with -q 3. I had already encoded my collection with -q 4, so I guess I'm
lucky that way, because I'd have added +1 as a safety net.

I'm not deaf yet, I can still hear the the mosquito ringtone loud and clear
and every "broken" tube tv emitting this high pitched noise makes me want
to leave the room. I'm pretty amazed what vorbis and aotuv can do.

Regards
micmac
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: aabxx on 2007-06-02 15:26:04
Considering quality 0 sounds very good to me, I would reckon something between quality 1 and quality 2 would be enough for me >90% of the time. Let's say quality 2 to be on the safe side. So never mind quality 4
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: CioCio on 2007-06-28 05:38:42
-q2 drives me crazy trying to ABX, because pretty soon everything starts to sound the same.  I have my collection at -q4 and now I'm debating going down to -q2 or -q2.5

It'd save me several gigs, but I might be getting a new hard drive soon anyways, so I don't know
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-06-28 20:32:30
CioCio: Just keep your collection as it is, unless you are *really* pressed for space.

But next time you encode into Vorbis: Now you know what -q to use
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: CioCio on 2007-06-29 05:59:33
CioCio: Just keep your collection as it is, unless you are *really* pressed for space.

But next time you encode into Vorbis: Now you know what -q to use


Haha, thanks for the advice!  Yeah, I wish I hadn't been so lazy before doing it originally
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: hybridfan on 2007-07-10 11:11:42
I use -q5 normally and that sounds very good in my shell likes, but yes I would say that -q4 does sound tranparent for me.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: HeXeR on 2007-07-16 19:03:44
I usually listen to Rock and Metal, sometimes Pop, and I was able to ABX it up to -q3. It wasn't even a killer sample, they were some tracks from my own collection. At -q4 everything was abrupt transparent to me, so this is what I use.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Whelkman on 2007-07-31 07:02:34
I echo the sentiments of many in saying I'm surprised any codec could sound as indistinguishable from source at such low bitrates. I am a victim of an outlier case, unfortunately, in that Vorbis/aoTuV Beta 5 does not handle stereo chiptunes at all well, specifically dual POKEY audio.

For the uninitiated, POKEY is an audio/controller chip found in virtually every Atari computer and arcade machine from the late 70s to the mid 80s; it produces primitive square waves and white noise across four channels. A common (and cheap--$5!) modification to the XE line of home computers was to solder a second POKEY chip for pseudo stereo sound. These days, one can best listen to these tunes using a POKEY emulator, such as ASAP.

I suppose this setup creates a worst case scenario for Vorbis stereo coupling as some tunes leverage eight possible channels by playing completely different waveforms in left and right. The end result is that, for this type of music, Vorbis is essentially useless below -q 6.0. I can reliably ABX at -q 5.0 with cheap headphones and a blaring air conditioner less than five feet to my right; by -q 5.9 I think I still hear a difference but can't (patiently) sort it out.

By contrast, I can't distinguish at all between source and LAME -V6 --vbr-new. In fact, the 12,100 Hz drop with -V7 is more transparent to me than Vorbis at -q 5.0. On my testing sample (full song), the bitrate difference between Vorbis -q 6.0 and LAME -V6 --vbr-new is 224 - 136 = 88. Wow, that represents an additional 65% overhead for a comparative level of transparency! In this scenario I'm less disappointed in Vorbis than I am impressed with LAME. Lossy encoders once sucked at encoding primitive waveforms, but now I can achieve casual transparency on tough, "unrealistic" stereo samples at a mere 128-150 kbps.

For the record, I'm not the habitual ABXing type, but when I started experimenting once again with Vorbis against this particular type of music I immediately knew something was amiss. This is the most extensive testing I've ever conducted; I just couldn't believe Vorbis could perform so badly against anything compared to MP3. I guess there's still work to be done, though I doubt this type of composition is a high priority for tuning. In fairness, Vorbis becomes the clear winner in the 64-80 kbps range; here LAME becomes garbled while Vorbis merely sounds a little muddled--and not too different from results 100 kbps higher, strangely.

Samples are available if anyone's interested.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: slks on 2007-08-03 21:08:08
I'm interested. Upload these samples.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Whelkman on 2007-08-04 01:34:04
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=56591 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=56591)
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Bourne on 2007-08-28 06:54:37
This test is the most crazy thing I have gone through concerning ABXing audio. Truly pointless!
To me, LAME V6 is beaten by itself at V4 or V2. OGG is pretty transparent at -q4 already, would easily be equivalent to Lame V0.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: shadowking on 2007-08-28 07:34:18
This test is the most crazy thing I have gone through concerning ABXing audio. Truly pointless!
To me, LAME V6 is beaten by itself at V4 or V2. OGG is pretty transparent at -q4 already, would easily be equivalent to Lame V0.


Hmm.. Maybe on those mp3 bad samples, Otherwise I really doubt this claim that 130k ogg = 230k mp3. On average the two are close at 128k. Guruboolez still rated -V2 anchor higher than all codecs in his 128k test of over 100 samples. In the last two public tests, LAME -V5 is competitive with ogg Q4. If you want to push it then ogg q4 *might* compete with LAME -V4.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Aoyumi on 2007-12-15 02:06:15
BTW: with the new b5, I can see (by no way hear) low-level noise in the spectrum at about 20kHz (with 1kHz bandwidth) when using q5 that did not appear when encoding to q5 with aoTuV r1. What is the cause of this?

I have already revised the problem. However, the official release of the version including it has not yet come.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Ragnarok on 2008-01-02 17:36:14
I agree on the most part, -q4 weather abxing or not they generaly sounds transparent to my ears ( baring killer samples of course) whatever equipment I listen on which included a ogg album decoded burnt cd-r vs the original on a tag maclaren setup.

However the artifacts in ogg are very diffrent, not really anoying or very noticable. I can pick out some some samples in q3 it's also for the odd brief moment their is a partiular sound that you notice a drop in calarity as if the sound for that partiular frequency had is sample rate droped compaired to a uncompressed/lossless or q4 version.

OGG vorbis is a great format. Still for serious listening I'd rather have a lossless or uncompressed version.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Raptus on 2008-01-02 19:16:44
Managed to ABX some non-killer samples at q5, so I settled with q6.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Raptus on 2008-01-04 17:02:16
Trust me: For personal use and enjoyment, ABX-ing is totally useless. You'll never be able to enjoy your songs again, always worrying that it is non-transparently encoded.

Well, then I must be the exception 
I've done extensive ABXing, I've become very sensitive to artifacts, yet I settled for a lossy codec but at a quality that is transparent to me on all _music_ I tested. I never looked back and have no problem simply enjoying the music.
Yes, I occasionally notice artifacts in the original recording (bad edits, noise filtering or samples taken from bad mp3's!), but I'm not bothered, I just note it. It only starts to become annoying when I listen to songs I know encoded by other people and start hearing artifacts I'm sure aren't in the original 
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: naylor83 on 2008-01-04 17:11:10
I've done extensive ABXing, I've become very sensitive to artifacts, yet I settled for a lossy codec but at a quality that is transparent to me on all _music_ I tested. I never looked back and have no problem simply enjoying the music.


I couldn't agree more. By properly testing beforehand at which Q setting I could detect artifacts in a number of my tunes, I now feel great knowing that I'm using the minimum amount of disk space possible for a compressed and (to me) transparent archive of my music.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: pepoluan on 2008-01-04 19:13:16
Trust me: For personal use and enjoyment, ABX-ing is totally useless. You'll never be able to enjoy your songs again, always worrying that it is non-transparently encoded.

Well, then I must be the exception 
I've done extensive ABXing, I've become very sensitive to artifacts, yet I settled for a lossy codec but at a quality that is transparent to me on all _music_ I tested. I never looked back and have no problem simply enjoying the music.
Yes, I occasionally notice artifacts in the original recording (bad edits, noise filtering or samples taken from bad mp3's!), but I'm not bothered, I just note it. It only starts to become annoying when I listen to songs I know encoded by other people and start hearing artifacts I'm sure aren't in the original 

Ah, I may be a bit too harsh in stating that

Anyways, I have to add that there are 2 kinds of people:
- People who are annoyed by artifacts
- People who are not (so) annoyed by artifacts

My comments apply mostly to those of the first kind.

I myself fall squarely within the definition of the second kind. And I think, you, too
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: naylor83 on 2008-01-04 19:26:57
Umm.... I'm definitely annoyed by artifacts. That's why I abxed and came to the conclusion that I can't hear artifacts using Ogg Vorbis Q4.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: Francksoy-Wizzu on 2008-01-07 02:05:01
Hello all.

This whole topic is what finally made me register, after all these months spent in reading the Hydrogenaudio forums.

My initial, fast ABX'ing with pop music made me believe that Q1 was good enough for me for mobile purposes. 'Great', I though, 'I can can fit so much music in my 2GB Sansa this way'. Well, I was wrong.   

After I started being annoyed by artifacts mainly on vocal classical music, further and more careful ABX'ing and repeated listening taught me that my personal comfort zone starts at Q3 (112Kbps) and that Q4 is, like for many others, mostly transparent to my ears. Some very rare tracks are not 100% OK for me at this setting, but I don't care that much for mobile use.

But yes, I think that Q4 (128Kbps) is mostly transparent, and can probably be even 100% transparent to some less picky/fussy ears than mine. Sometimes I feel like hearing all these small details is a curse. 
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: stevenv on 2010-01-11 10:09:26
After I started being annoyed by artifacts mainly on vocal classical music ...


Hi,

It would be great if you could give (ex/s)amples where this is the case at "-q 1".

thnx,
Steven
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: dsimcha on 2010-03-30 03:55:49
Hi,

I just started transcoding my FLAC albums (I'll save them) to Ogg. I first tested q 5, q 6 and then q 4 and I can't tell any difference between them.

But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent? I know it's very subjective, but I wanted to ask you if it's also transparent to you or if you hear any artifacts?

Greets

Edit: I use AoTuV beta 5


I've come to the conclusion that "absolute" transparency is not the best benchmark.  If you demand perfection and have plenty of space, go with lossless.  It's guaranteed to be transparent even on the most killer samples you can throw at it.  Using aoTuv Beta 5.7, it seems to me like the drop-off in ABXable samples with increasing quality is roughly exponential.  It seems like increasing the quality setting by one unit makes about half of the samples that I could previously ABX transparent.  I could probably ABX about 50% of my music at -q1, 25% at -q2, 12.5% at -q3, etc.  I use -q2 for my portable player, as I've never found a sample that's easy to ABX and a lot of samples are transparent.  I feel anything more would take up a lot of extra space for very little additional quality.  However, I've found at least one killer sample in music I actually listen to, not in a search specifically for killer samples, that I could ABX all the way up to -q7.  Therefore, on my PC, where space is ridiculously cheap and plentiful, I use FLAC.
Title: Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Post by: RogerG on 2010-07-17 03:00:59
-q4 is intransparent to me using aoTuV b5.7 even with my crappy old hardware setup. I'd never use something below q6. I need a big buffer because in the future I am going to have a better soundcard and headphones.