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 143164 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #225 –
Yeah, piping is buggy, it requires channel count and samplerate options.

Edit. e.g. "-if - -of %d -br 128000 -c 2 -sr 44100"

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #226 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
One more thing - for Gogo, I tried encoding using -v 5 and -v 4. -v 5 averages 140 kbps and -v 4 120 kbps (20 tracks tested). The difference between Gogo and LAME seems to be around 5 kbps. Guess I will go with -v 5. Is this OK?
I would go with -v 5 as well.  Your bitrate test results are the same as the results of my own little test.

As for helix -V65 -X2 should be a good choice as well.
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #227 –
As for FhG I suggest to use
  • Fastenc VBR 60%, highest quality setting
as available for instance in Musicmatch Jukebox 7.00.149 wich can be downloaded as version 7.0 from OldApps.com. Highest quality setting in MMJB 7.0 is achieved by Option > Settings > Recorder > Advanced > Processing Level: Very High.

I just tested it in the context of a 96 kbps thread out of curiosity. The outstanding thing with fastenc seems to be that it is a pretty robust codec (my standard bad tonal samples were encoded at a remarkable good quality - much better than I expected, and ff123 once reported about the consistent quality of this codec). The general quality is very good too to my ears (though I wouldn't call it outstanding).

From 25 samples I encoded (various genres of popular music) the average bitrate was 130+/-10 kbps in 16 cases, the lowest bitrate was 95 kbps, the highest was 141 kbps. So taking from that VBR 60% seems to meet our target bitrate pretty well.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17
 

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #228 –
Quote from: halb27 on
As for FhG I suggest to use
  • Fastenc VBR 60%, highest quality setting
as available for instance in Musicmatch Jukebox 7.00.149 wich can be downloaded as version 7.0 from OldApps.com. Highest quality setting in MMJB 7.0 is achieved by Option > Settings > Recorder > Advanced > Processing Level: Very High.

I just tested it in the context of a 96 kbps thread out of curiosity. The outstanding thing with fastenc seems to be that it is a pretty robust codec (my standard bad tonal samples were encoded at a remarkable good quality - much better than I expected, and ff123 once reported about the consistent quality of this codec). The general quality is very good too to my ears (though I wouldn't call it outstanding).

From 25 samples I encoded (various genres of popular music) the average bitrate was 130+/-10 kbps in 16 cases, the lowest bitrate was 95 kbps, the highest was 141 kbps. So taking from that VBR 60% seems to meet our target bitrate pretty well.

Aren't the VBR MP3s produced by Fastenc in plain Stereo mode?

EDIT - I just downloaded the MMJB 7 thing and the VBR MP3s are in (surprise, surprise) plain Stereo. I'm not saying this is a bad codec for VBR, it just has this handicap and it would (probably) do much better with JS. (this is just my personal opinion)

J.M.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #229 –
Quote from: jmartis on
Aren't the VBR MP3s produced by Fastenc in plain Stereo mode?

Encspot just says stereo and doesn't show stereo usage details. So I'm afraid you are right.
Maybe I was just too impressed by my 96 kbps listening test where a) vbr was the only usable solution because of the 12 kHz lowpass in all the other cases and b) the not-so-good quality of fastenc CBR 96 on my standard bad samples, especially trumpet.

Just tried fastenc CBR 128 (Option > Settings > Recorder > Advanced > Processing Level: Normal) on my standard bad samples, and it's good too.
Because of joint stereo usage I too think this is the better way to go.

Sorry for the confusion.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #230 –
Should FhG be the only encoder tested in CBR mode (WMP)?

Edit: Except the low anchor of course. By the way, I am leaving tomorrow. Wish me luck since we're going by car and I never drove that long before and have no idea how the streets and other drivers are in Hungary and Romania.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #231 –
Why not? If the FhG somehow kicks the other encoder's a$$es... doesn't it prove the superiority of FhG CBR over <whathaveyou> VBR?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #232 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
Why not? If the FhG somehow kicks the other encoder's a$$es... doesn't it prove the superiority of FhG CBR over <whathaveyou> VBR?

Of course  But if it doesn't, be sure that several people will deny all validity to a (unfair) comparison between <whathaveyou> and a handicaped Fhg encoder. Unless you can prove first that Fhg performances are really optimal with CBR and not VBR, the inclusion of a CBR encoder in a VBR arena [LAME, HELIX, iTunes] is highly polemical.
And the problem is not only CBR vs VBR, but also 128 kbps vs 135 kbps. For some people such discrepancy in bitrate isn't acceptable at all and would prove a bit more that the whole test is a biased one, etc, etc...

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #233 –
I would prefer multi-format at 96kbps instead of 80kbps.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #234 –
That reminds me that the surround encoder supporst that CBR mode which is scaled (  i.e. any bitrate ). so.. it shouldn't be a problem to use it in CBR at 135kbps, isn't it?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #235 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
... And the problem is not only CBR vs VBR, but also 128 kbps vs 135 kbps. ...

Sure, but I think we have to stick with that. More generally speaking with any encoder we choose a setting which is plausible to be good but we can't be sure of. As for VBR we always have the difficulty that settings are not exactly comparable, but AFAIK nobody seriously complained about it.

For the encoder settings we have to meet decisions. Some choices are rather obvious (Lame -V5), others are not so it is discussed here. And as long as no kind of war comes up here everything is fine. With any decision it can happy that there are people which are not happy with it.

We should use for each encoder that setting which is supposed to be most widely supported in the discussion  here.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #236 –
Quote from: halb27 on
As for VBR we always have the difficulty that settings are not exactly comparable, but AFAIK nobody seriously complained about it.

Ask Roberto...
...or read old debates about collective listening tests.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #237 –
I am back folks, but am very tired right now after 21 hours of driving. If you ever want to commit suicide, get a car and drive to Romania - the roads there are perfectly suitable for this task.

Will get back to you Sunday...

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #239 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
OK, so what do we do with FhG guys? We still have to decide which encoder to use and with what settings.

I suggest to use Fastenc CBR 128.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #241 –
Quote from: jmartis on
... from WMP

I agree, it would be more useful/practical. MP3 encoder shipped with the new WMP is supposedly more widespread (as WMP is an essential modern Windows component).

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #242 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
OK, so what do we do with FhG guys? We still have to decide which encoder to use and with what settings.

I would say that the answer should depend on the choice of all other competitors. Will you force all MP3 encoders to use CBR or will you take the risk of using CBR with Fhg only?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #243 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
I would say that the answer should depend on the choice of all other competitors. Will you force all MP3 encoders to use CBR or will you take the risk of using CBR with Fhg only?

What is the risk? Endless polemics?

Isn't it acceptable to pick a popular, widely (freely) available option to conclude about overall performance? What are other variants that are "popular, widely available"? Nero isn't free, MMJB isn't popular, mp3sEncoder isn't popular (and probably in experimental stage), Audition+MP3 filter aren't free and so on...

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #244 –
Quote
Isn't it acceptable to pick a popular, widely (freely) available option to conclude about overall performance?

It is of course. The persitant problem is simply that the choice of Fhg competitor would be ruled by a different criterion than all other competitors (choice based on popularity instead of supposed quality). BTW, which is the most popular mode for LAME: CBR or VBR? and for iTunes?

If we decide that LAME, HELIX, iTUNES' encoders should be tested with the best available setting (which is known or supposed to be VBR) without any consideration for the popularity (real or supposed) then it would be difficult to make a pertinent exception for the sole FHG's competitor.

An answer to the problem would be CBR for all. But the point of such test would clearly be Ubuesque (deciding which encoder sounds the best with the worst encoding mode    ?)

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #245 –
Edit: I forgot that the MusicMatch JB supports JS VBR sometimes  .

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #246 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on

OK, so what do we do with FhG guys? We still have to decide which encoder to use and with what settings.

I would say that the answer should depend on the choice of all other competitors. Will you force all MP3 encoders to use CBR or will you take the risk of using CBR with Fhg only?


All other encoders will use VBR (except low anchor).

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #247 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
....
If we decide that LAME, HELIX, iTUNES' encoders should be tested with the best available setting (which is known or supposed to be VBR) without any consideration for the popularity (real or supposed) then it would be difficult to make a pertinent exception for the sole FHG's competitor.

An answer to the problem would be CBR for all. But the point of such test would clearly be Ubuesque (deciding which encoder sounds the best with the worst encoding mode    ?)

I think the answer to the problem is by thinking in terms of settings and not giving special attention to vbr vs. cbr. With FhG CBR 128 vs. VBR it's also ls-stereo vs. joint stereo and knowbody knows (and it will depend on the samples) whether to give more weight to the vbr vs. cbr thing or to the ls-stereo vs. joint stereo. And even that is only part of the story as long as we don't know all about FhG's vbr and cbr behavior at ~ 130 kbps.

So it's the old thing we also have for Helix vbr settings: without a pre-test we don't know what settings are best. The best we can do is use those settings which are most widely considered best during the discussion.

We should keep our minds on settings - not concentrate on isolated though important features.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #249 –
Umm... WMP Eleven, 128?