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: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps (Read 10515 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #50
Just a quick note that the updated FDK AAC settings/tunings in the software I use has been released. Good to see that they’ve been working with Exhale too. I’d love to give it a serious listening test myself but due to the pandemic I don’t currently have the equipment at this high bit rate. https://www.poikosoft.com/music-converter-version-history

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #51
Has something changed between FDK AAC 4.0.0 and 4.0.1? With 4.0.0 there's no Q10 VBR. There are 5 VBR mode for LC-AAC: the fourth one is ≃ 136 kbps and the next, fifth and last VBR mode is ≃ 236 kbps. Not very flexible and no ~192 kbps VBR mode with 4.0.0.
>source<.


I wonder what is the reason for the huge jump in bitrate between 4 & 5?!

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #52
Hello,

I wonder what is the reason for the huge jump in bitrate between 4 & 5?!

It seems to be designed like this,
Code: [Select]
libAACenc/include/aacenc_lib.h

-----------------------------------------------
 VBR_MODE | Approx. Bitrate in kbps for stereo
          |     AAC-LC    |      AAC-ELD
----------+---------------+--------------------
    VBR_1 | 32 (HE-AACv2) |         48
    VBR_2 | 72 (HE-AACv1) |         56
    VBR_3 |      112      |         72
    VBR_4 |      148      |        148
    VBR_5 |      228      |        224
--------------------------------------------
perhaps to accommodate the (superfluous) bandwidth.
Code: [Select]
libAACenc/src/bandwidth.cpp

static const BANDWIDTH_TAB_VBR bandWidthTableVBR[] = {
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_CBR, 0, 0},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_1, 13000, 13000},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_2, 13000, 13000},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_3, 15750, 15750},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_4, 16500, 16500},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_5, 19293, 19293},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_SFR, 0, 0},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_FF, 0, 0}

    AiZ

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #53
Hello,

I wonder what is the reason for the huge jump in bitrate between 4 & 5?!

It seems to be designed like this,
Code: [Select]
libAACenc/include/aacenc_lib.h

-----------------------------------------------
 VBR_MODE | Approx. Bitrate in kbps for stereo
          |     AAC-LC    |      AAC-ELD
----------+---------------+--------------------
    VBR_1 | 32 (HE-AACv2) |         48
    VBR_2 | 72 (HE-AACv1) |         56
    VBR_3 |      112      |         72
    VBR_4 |      148      |        148
    VBR_5 |      228      |        224
--------------------------------------------
perhaps to accommodate the (superfluous) bandwidth.
Code: [Select]
libAACenc/src/bandwidth.cpp

static const BANDWIDTH_TAB_VBR bandWidthTableVBR[] = {
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_CBR, 0, 0},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_1, 13000, 13000},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_2, 13000, 13000},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_3, 15750, 15750},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_4, 16500, 16500},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_VBR_5, 19293, 19293},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_SFR, 0, 0},
    {AACENC_BR_MODE_FF, 0, 0}

    AiZ

I read the code but I still don't understand what does "to accommodate the (superfluous) bandwidth" mean?

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #54
Increasing bitrate on MP3 to ~256-320 kbps doesn't help much to reach quality of  post-MP3 codecs at 192 kbps.

If I am interpreting that correctly... would it be fair to say that if a person is using MP3, that beyond v2 (190kbps average) would be pretty much a waste of storage space in your opinion?

like sound quality keeps increasing at a decent rate for people like you (who can do these listening tests well (which is already clearly above the common person)) on MP3 until v2 (190kbps average) is reached at which point going beyond that is pretty much a waste of storage space. like if there are some quality gains beyond v2 (190kbps average) they are probably very small(?) and the increase in bitrate is not really worth it especially since it appears your tests are samples that don't represent the typical music but more of a worst case scenario type of sample range and if these still score pretty well, which they apparently do, it's safe to say that for music in general that MP3 would easily be satisfactory (even though if post-MP3 formats are a option, use them instead as a general guideline), even if not 'perfect'.

p.s. that's kind of how I am trying to form my suggestions for MP3 in my signature around. like the average person can try v5 (130kbps average) and if that's not good enough for them, use v2 (190kbps average) and forget about it. NOTE: I get what's transparent for one person can vary a bit from another person and all, but just for a quick suggestion, assuming you answer 'yes' to my question, then v5 or v2 sounds like a pretty good guideline for those who don't want to play around with this stuff much. NOTE: I can see how many might just opt for v2 to be on the safe side of sound quality with MP3 since MicroSD cards are huge and near dirt cheap nowadays. but if someone has a older device with limited storage space, then v5 will probably start to look a lot better than v2. so all-in-all, it seems with MP3 that v5 is still a pretty good all-around choice when all things are considered, especially in regards to the common person who's looking for solid efficiency of their storage space.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)...
1)Opus @ 64kbps or 96kbps. NOTE: using 64kbps on Samsung J3 /w Foobar2k.
2)AAC (Apple or FhG(Winamp)) @ 96kbps.
3)MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #55
ThaCrip, do you have any experience with Fraunhofer and Helix encoders when it comes to low bitrates?
I am very interested in hearing your thoughts/opinion about them.
Everything above 16/44 is scam.
Always download first release, never remastered/HD release.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #56
The pre echo/fast attack artifacts I get on stuff like electronic/artifical samples still fail at V0, 320kbps.

It could be, but they won't be as audible. Overall score will rise further even if full transparency is technically impossible to achieve with MP3.

Quote
I moved to other codecs since even just generic crackly static sounds like vinyl, noise, walking on snow would make Lame shoot to 275 ~ 318kbps at V4 setting
During very short moments maybe but overall bitrate is much lower. And 275 kbps frames with V4 are not identical to 275 kbps with V2. Bitrate is only a result: there are maths behind, and different quality settings between different VBR modes.
And it's a smart move from you :) The best MP3 encoder/setting has been surpassed by Vorbis, AAC, MPC for twenty years ago and more recently by OPUS and USAC. Unless specific reason (like a car with limited compatibility) I don't see any reason to stick with MP3.

Noticed that stuff with V0 would be still be there but can be ignored but in quieter stuff it can fall apart still like if there too much acoustic instruments playing.  
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #57
ThaCrip, do you have any experience with Fraunhofer and Helix encoders when it comes to low bitrates?
I am very interested in hearing your thoughts/opinion about them.

I assume for Helix you mean... https://www.rarewares.org/mp3-others.php#helix_enc ? ; which was last updated in 2005 apparently. I am pretty sure I never used that before. NOTE: Foobar2000 only offers LAME when it comes to MP3 for it's built-in presets and I have been using Foobar2000 as my 'go to' general audio playback/conversion program etc for many years now.

but for Fraunhofer... I may have used that in the early-to-mid 2000's (or so) with some random software (I can't quite recall the software's name) to make MP3's.

or... are you referring to Fraunhofer FhG (Winamp encoder) on AAC? ; because I kept that encoder in a small .7z file (about 500KB (the three dll files are dated Dec 2013)) I made years ago as I know it's noticeably faster at encoding AAC files then Apple's AAC on Foobar2000. but it seems Apple AAC is what people (including myself) generally default to around here when it comes to AAC (AAC-LC) encoding.

I don't even have the Winamp FhG AAC dll's installed to Foobar2000 currently but I could easily enable them if I wanted to. in Foobar2000 it does have a 'AAC (Winamp AAC)' preset available as it allows VBR 1 through VBR 6 (i.e. 32/64/96/128/192/256 kbps options). I think that 'AAC (Winamp AAC)' is still a pretty good all-around choice though. or one might be able to say a good alternative choice to Apple AAC as I was looking around a moment ago I noticed this text on the hydrogenaudio wiki page under 'Fraunhofer AAC Encoders'... "According to the July 2011 96kbps listening tests by IgorC, Winamp's Fraunhofer encoder is better than Nero AAC and tied with the Apple encoder (then part of QuickTime)". ; that info is probably still accurate today given what IgorC said from a post in late 2019 which basically said that about 2009/2011 was the most recent there have been any improvements in general audio quality for AAC/MP3 encoders that people care about (i.e. https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=118446.msg977450#msg977450 ; at the bottom of his post there ).
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)...
1)Opus @ 64kbps or 96kbps. NOTE: using 64kbps on Samsung J3 /w Foobar2k.
2)AAC (Apple or FhG(Winamp)) @ 96kbps.
3)MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #58
Increasing bitrate on MP3 to ~256-320 kbps doesn't help much to reach quality of  post-MP3 codecs at 192 kbps.

If I am interpreting that correctly... would it be fair to say that if a person is using MP3, that beyond v2 (190kbps average) would be pretty much a waste of storage space in your opinion?
No.
I literally have meant what I've written. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now if you ask my experience  with  V2 vs V0, there is certainly improvement going to V0 but that won't do to reach the quality of newer formats at 192 kbps.  To have an idea, V0/CBR320 would be at ~4.6-4.7 score in such test.

p.s. that's kind of how I am trying to form my suggestions for MP3 in my signature around.
It would be better to leave people to choose what's better for them by themselves.
Otherwise the span is too wide, V6...V0.   Also LAME  has a nice wiki --> https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php/LAME

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #59
Yup, V0 just makes Eig.wav less annoying but still not transparent. 256 ~ 320kbps on the post codecs is unneeded unless you find a rare sample that trips them up. 
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #60
Now if you ask my experience  with  V2 vs V0, there is certainly improvement going to V0 but that won't do to reach the quality of newer formats at 192 kbps.  To have an idea, V0/CBR320 would be at ~4.6-4.7 score in such test.

Knowing that, ill ask you this... do you think it's enough of a difference to justify using v0(or 320kbps) over v2 in general?

if you answer "No"... then my question to you would be how much lower would you go below v2(like say v3 or v4 etc), if at all? (NOTE: if you answer 'Yes' (to my initial question) then we are probably too far apart as, at least for me, v0 seems to be too much of a bit rate increase for minimal gains even going strictly by your tests of v2(190kbps) @ 4.5 vs v0(245kbps)/320kbps @ 4.6-4.7 since at that rate, maybe short of a very select amount of samples, it seems your nearly at the level of splitting hairs(?) (no offense or anything as you have made solid contributions around here and seem to be one of the more respected members etc))

NOTE: with you leaning a bit more toward sound quality than file size efficiency since we are talking the higher bit rates already which would obviously mean someone who's using those rates is more concerned with sound quality than file size. but at the same time... someone can't really give a answer of v0 or 320kbps either since it's basically THE top of the MP3 sound quality bar and I tend to assume there's a bit rate lower than that where the sound quality gains reach a point to where raising bit rate further is not really worth it anymore. my best guesstimate would be v2 or v3 given the LAME wiki guide since it seems the shift from v4(165kbps) to v3 (175kbps) is when LAME enters 'high quality' mode. so that's why I think I am pretty close claiming v2 (190kbps) is a pretty good set it and forget it option for those more concerned with sound quality but there is still some level of efficiency as I think beyond this point efficiency takes a solid hit for what appears to be minimal(if not very minimal(?)) gains.

It would be better to leave people to choose what's better for them by themselves.
Otherwise the span is too wide, V6...V0.   Also LAME  has a nice wiki --> https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php/LAME

Agreed. but... I want to keep suggestions in my signature simple for people who don't want to test things much for themselves is all. so while there is no definitive answer, as someone could still argue either way (a lower or higher setting) of my v5(130kbps) and v2(190kbps) suggestions, given your reply here I suspect I am pretty close for those who want a 'set-it-and-forget-it' type of suggestion depending on whether they are concerned mainly with file size (i.e. v5), or not (i.e. v2), but obviously not TOO far either way in favor of file size or sound quality otherwise people could easily say v7 (or so) or just peg the bit rate at v0(or 320kbps CBR) to squeeze every last drop of sound quality out of MP3 which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of lossy encoders which is to get as high quality as possible (or thereabouts) but keeping the bit rates a bit more sane as it's not worth jacking up bit rate beyond a certain point just to clean up a tiny amount of sound.

that's kind of why I am thinking my two suggestions (i.e. v5 or v2) seem to have a good balance, like one favors file size (without too much of a hit to sound quality(it's still pretty good, especially for general use in a variety of situations)) and the other favors sound quality (without pegging the bit rate TOO high), and would cover just about everyone in regards to file size and sound quality (assuming a person only gets to choose two options like I did in my signature for MP3) short of those who have bad hearing (or those who don't really care about sound quality as long as it's not obviously bad), or those perfectionist types who don't settle for anything less. so I guess, at least in my opinion, that MP3 as a general rule is probably overall best balance of sound/file size between v5-v2 (while one could argue for options between those two, I just tend to either go v5 or v2 and forget about it) for just about everyone lacking some people since you can't please everyone ;)

but thanks for the info and the LAME wiki link which seems to be good info.

p.s. I have mentioned before, at least on my Klipsch Pro-Media speakers on my desktop PC, that going from v7(100kbps) down to v8(85kbps) is when the quality drop becomes obvious for me as I can immediately notice (like within a few seconds tops of any random song switching back and forth) it due to the overall sound being muffled (lacks clarity in the overall sound that you expect to hear) as it's something really obvious when switching back and fourth between the v7 and v8 MP3's. so that LAME wiki guide's, what seems to be minimum suggestion of v6(115kbps), as 'acceptable', is probably a pretty good guideline for a near bare minimum without rolling-the-dice on quality too much. in my opinion, I would almost surely never use below v7(100kbps) even though v6(115kbps) is probably a little more of a safety buffer for those who prefer to keep file size at a minimum but don't want quality taking TOO much of a hit either. but with that said, it's not like v8 is 'horrible' though either but at that point there is just too much of a obvious hit to the overall sound quality to where unless someone is extremely tight on storage space and wants to cram in as many songs as they can into a limited amount of storage space(which probably ain't a real concern for a high percentage of people nowadays), it don't make much sense to use MP3 on a setting any lower than v7 in my opinion as a absolute minimum for MP3.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)...
1)Opus @ 64kbps or 96kbps. NOTE: using 64kbps on Samsung J3 /w Foobar2k.
2)AAC (Apple or FhG(Winamp)) @ 96kbps.
3)MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #61
Less is more

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #62
Less is more

Let me put it this way (to keep it short)... with MP3 (LAME), what setting would be your favorite all-around choice between v5-v2?
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)...
1)Opus @ 64kbps or 96kbps. NOTE: using 64kbps on Samsung J3 /w Foobar2k.
2)AAC (Apple or FhG(Winamp)) @ 96kbps.
3)MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in order on AGPTEK-U3.

 

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #63
IIRC LAME options are case sensitive, so it's V2 (or V5), not v2 or v5.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #64
Let me put it this way (to keep it short)... with MP3 (LAME), what setting would be your favorite all-around choice between v5-v2?
-V 3.14
Because it's well rounded.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #65
-V 3.14
Because it's well rounded.

I should have worded my question to you like that earlier as it appears your "-V 3.14" suggestion seems to be your sweet-spot (like optimal balance between file size/sound quality), which is basically the answer I was looking for and trying to get from you in the first place (and was even a little more precise than I expected ;) ).

so basically you prefer a slightly modified v3 (175kbps average) then, which if I calculated that correctly (since there is only 10kbps difference between v4 to v3 and your nearly at v3), would be about 173-174kbps average. even on a couple songs I converted between V3.14 and v3 was about 100KB difference or so which sounds right since it's barely lower on average bit rate. so your choice, without details, would be basically V3 which is the lowest bit rate of the 'high quality' options based on the LAME wiki link.

but looking at the switches (which I posted below to 'lvqcl')... it appears the "n" in "-V n" equals a number (i.e. 3.14 for example). so it would be typed out like "-V 3.14" (and NOT "-V n 3.14") for custom bit rates with LAME. which is easy enough to do in Foobar2000 as I noticed in Foobar2000 when previously selecting 'MP3 (LAME)' (which in my case it was on v5 already (but any LAME option in the menu will work as there is at least one there if I recall correctly by default)) and then switch over to 'Custom' it already has "-S --noreplaygain -V 5 - %d" there. so given that info, I reasoned out that one can swap the '5' (in the "-V 5" section) with '3.14'. or to spell it out for someone else reading this post who wants to use IgorC's 3.14 suggestion for LAME in Foobar2000... I would simply do "-S --noreplaygain -V 3.14 - %d". then adjust the 'Display' section accordingly which I think "-V 3.14" would be about 174kbps average which is only a touch smaller file size vs the default v3 at which point it's probably just easier for someone reading this to just use the defaults for LAME on Foobar2000 and use the slider to select "V3"(175kbps average) since it's only barely less efficient compared to your preferred standard of V3.14(174kbps average). but if one is more of a perfectionist in this regard(i.e. optimal file size/sound quality combo), then using IgorC's 3.14 is probably a good all-around set it and forget it option.

thanks for your time.

p.s. but now knowing this... it's possible I could tweak my signature so it's "v5 (130kbps) (or v3 (175kbps))". but at the same time, I might just leave it like it is (i.e. "v5 (130kbps) (or v2 (190kbps))" since it's only about a 15kbps difference and might give a little more safety buffer unless you feel the sound quality difference between v3 and v2 is negligible for you in general? ; which I suspect it might negligible because you feel V3.14 (basically V3) is the sweet spot straight up even though you could have went with V2, but did not. hell, come to think of it... if you don't mind me asking, what would be your rough equivalent of LAME @ v3.14(174kbps) with Opus/AAC(Apple)? ; maybe 96-128kbps or so?

IIRC LAME options are case sensitive, so it's V2 (or V5), not v2 or v5.

Did they add the lower case 'v' option at some point? ; because I see the following (which seems to allow 'v' or 'V')....

Code: [Select]
Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
-v             VBR  ( alias of -V 4 )
--vbr-old      use old variable bitrate (VBR) routine
--vbr-new      use new variable bitrate (VBR) routine (default)
-V n           VBR quality setting  (0=highest quality, 9.999=lowest)
-b  n          specify a minimum allowed bitrate (8,16,24,...,320)
-B  n          specify a maximum allowed bitrate (8,16,24,...,320)
-F             strictly enforce minimum bitrate
-t             disable VBR informational tag
--nohist       disable display of VBR bitrate histogram

so it appears one can do 'v' instead of 'V' but it's probably something that they added into the LAME encoder at some point(?) to make it simpler so if people forget to do the proper "V" and just put "v", it will still work as expected.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)...
1)Opus @ 64kbps or 96kbps. NOTE: using 64kbps on Samsung J3 /w Foobar2k.
2)AAC (Apple or FhG(Winamp)) @ 96kbps.
3)MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #66
Lowercase -v turns on variable bitrate but does not take a parameter. He was probably making a joke by suggesting the pi number.

You write a lengthy essay about "efficiency" in many threads. But in reality we are already freed from constraints of bitrate. Listening to music is about an enjoyment without worry, and not an essential task with an utility where the gain should be maximized.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #67
Lowercase -v turns on variable bitrate but does not take a parameter.

If I understand that correctly... are you saying that using a lowercase 'v' that one can only select the basic V0-9 without the details like '9.999'?

He was probably making a joke by suggesting the pi number.

I see, that went over my head. but knowing that, it's probably his subtle/fancy way of saying I am too concerned with this stuff ;)

You write a lengthy essay about "efficiency" in many threads. But in reality we are already freed from constraints of bitrate. Listening to music is about an enjoyment without worry, and not an essential task with an utility where the gain should be maximized.

Yeah, I get it ;)

but I just tend to prefer some level of efficiency instead of just throwing a boatload of bit rate into the music simply because we can. even though I realize the average person this does not even cross their mind as long as they got a way of listening to their music that sounds good enough. hell, I would not be surprised if many just listen to music on YouTube/iTunes etc. but who knows, I suspect I am out of touch with the younger generation by now and even those who are a bit older generation probably are still stuck with audio CD's, or maybe records.

but as you know, a fair amount of the people around here, tend to be a little more into this stuff than the common person (probably a little OCD to be honest). so we might get a little obsessive about it (which the average person couldn't care less about) and sometimes we need to take a step back and just use a decent bit rate and move on, which is pretty much what you said ;)

thanks for your time.
For music I suggest (using Foobar2000)...
1)Opus @ 64kbps or 96kbps. NOTE: using 64kbps on Samsung J3 /w Foobar2k.
2)AAC (Apple or FhG(Winamp)) @ 96kbps.
3)MP3 (LAME) @ V5 (130kbps). NOTE: using on AGPTEK-U3 as of Mar 18th 2021. I use 'fatsort' (on Linux) so MP3's are listed in order on AGPTEK-U3.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #68
Yup, V0 just makes Eig.wav less annoying but still not transparent. 256 ~ 320kbps on the post codecs is unneeded unless you find a rare sample that trips them up. 
Try adding -f switch in Lame (256-320k). There should be an improvement on those pre echo samples.
WavPack v5.4 -b450hh

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #69
I had to force allshort since I had Lame 3.99a on my PC, Fixes it on more than just eig at the cost of high bitrate. But then again the post codecs are transparent on samples like that at 160kbps with MPC being the most robust.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #70
I had to force allshort since I had Lame 3.99a on my PC, Fixes it on more than just eig at the cost of high bitrate. But then again the post codecs are transparent on samples like that at 160kbps with MPC being the most robust.

MPC sounds very attractive as quality is excellent on Q5 and above but after reading this post, I'm kind of skeptical.
halb27 ran into problem using Q7 in normal listening situation:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=102429.50

WavPack v5.4 -b450hh

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #71
It isnt clear if it was a one off or could be repeated.
A single 5/5 isn't always something to be concerned with.
If the artifact is really bad it is enough, but when more subtle and
combined with very high settings you want better score / repeat result (IMO).
wavpack hybrid 256k -hx4

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #72
So basically continue to use AAC-LC 256Kbps, which is also patent free.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #73
It isnt clear if it was a one off or could be repeated.
A single 5/5 isn't always something to be concerned with.
If the artifact is really bad it is enough, but when more subtle and
combined with very high settings you want better score / repeat result (IMO).
Yes, It's hard to say is it serious or something like very rare case.
However, Joni Mitchell "Cool Water" is not a problem sample (at least I'm considering it as normal cd music),
and when someone notice a problem on normal listening using extreme mpc setting Q7 that is slightly worrying.
But it's probably very rare case and difference should be very subtle on Q7.
btw, nice to hear from you @shadowking ;)
WavPack v5.4 -b450hh

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #74
It isnt clear if it was a one off or could be repeated.
A single 5/5 isn't always something to be concerned with.
If the artifact is really bad it is enough, but when more subtle and
combined with very high settings you want better score / repeat result (IMO).

Yup 256kbps Is where 95% of the tuning on MPC went too with the remaining going to 175kbps. For DBT that just a demo test for those I don't even use the full test on foobar DBT app if I'm just checking if my mpc files sound fine.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021