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: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014) (Read 146483 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #250 –
IMHO, it doesn't make sense, to tune the settings for selected samples. Determining comparable encoder settings and selecting samples should be done independant from each other. Take your whole music collection to find matching encoder settings.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #251 –
Quote from: robert on
Take your whole music collection to find matching encoder settings.

What exactly collection - classical, pop, electronic, folk, jazz ... ? If all, in what proportion?
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #252 –
Everything in your reach.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #253 –
1679 lossless tracks, biased towards metal and folk. Bitrates as reported by foobar2000.

Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 96
Average bitrate: 100 kbps
Standard deviation: 9.7 kbps

Apple CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3, TVBR 45
Average bitrate: 93 kbps
Standard deviation: 12.6 kbps

Vorbis BS; Lancer(SSE3MT) [20061110] (based on aoTuV b5 [20061024]), -q 2
Average bitrate: 92 kbps
Standard deviation: 7.4 kbps

Opus seems to use above-average bitrates on folk music with highly tonal components (e.g. accordion).
Apple drops bitrates significantly on lo-fi material (e.g. old recordings with low bandwith and/or mono only).
I hope I'm using the correct versions. Opus and Vorbis are the ones from foobar's "Free Encoder Pack 2013-12-06".

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #254 –
Robert,

What would be your suggestion which version of LAME to use in test? A stable 3.99.5, 3.100 or some of  a halb27's extensions?

Thank You.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #255 –
Quote from: Gecko on
1679 lossless tracks, biased towards metal and folk. Bitrates as reported by foobar2000.

Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 96
Average bitrate: 100 kbps
Standard deviation: 9.7 kbps

Apple CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3, TVBR 45
Average bitrate: 93 kbps
Standard deviation: 12.6 kbps

Vorbis BS; Lancer(SSE3MT) [20061110] (based on aoTuV b5 [20061024]), -q 2
Average bitrate: 92 kbps
Standard deviation: 7.4 kbps

Opus seems to use above-average bitrates on folk music with highly tonal components (e.g. accordion).
Apple drops bitrates significantly on lo-fi material (e.g. old recordings with low bandwith and/or mono only).
I hope I'm using the correct versions. Opus and Vorbis are the ones from foobar's "Free Encoder Pack 2013-12-06".


Gecko,

as I've already posted here
Quote
Opus 1.1@96k has the same bitrate as Apple CVBR 96. approx. 100 kbps.

In the other hand, Apple TVBR 45 is ~94 kbps...

Opus has a few kbits higher bitrate than TVBR 45.
Can You try 92k (or some other values) for Opus?

Oh, and You use an old version of aoTuv b5.  Current version is b6.03. http://www.geocities.jp/aoyoume/aotuv/
Encoder http://www.geocities.jp/aoyoume/aotuv/binary/aoTuV_b6.03.zip

Today I will update the table of bitrate reports

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #256 –
From those listed, I guess version 3.99.5 is the one most people (especially outside from HA) have an idea about, and can be used as a reference point for interpretation.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #257 –
Then it will be LAME 3.99.5 -V 5 unless there're some other suggestins.

Seems like most of people agree with it here.

Quote from: Kamedo2 on
I like the lame 3.99.5 -V5, even if the bitrate is slightly less than 128. It's the version used by many people. Or CBR 128kbps.


Quote from: Serge Smirnoff on
Also vote for -V5, looks like higher bitrates will make the test too hard for listeners. And yes, -V5 is popular.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #258 –
Quote from: Gecko on
1679 lossless tracks, biased towards metal and folk. Bitrates as reported by foobar2000.

Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 96
Average bitrate: 100 kbps
Standard deviation: 9.7 kbps

Apple CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3, TVBR 45
Average bitrate: 93 kbps
Standard deviation: 12.6 kbps

I'd be happier if you have the result of Apple CVBR 96, Opus 92, 97, and Vorbis 1.99, 2, 2.4, 2.5.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #259 –
Guys,

Kamedo2 will pick a bitrate reports of users.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #260 –
Quote from: Gecko on
Opus seems to use above-average bitrates on folk music with highly tonal components (e.g. accordion).
Apple drops bitrates significantly on lo-fi material (e.g. old recordings with low bandwith and/or mono only).

I noticed that Opus shows "inverted" behavior - for complex and saturated music it uses less bits than for minimalistic one. For --bitrate 93:
[blockquote]Prodigy - 96.6 kbit/s
Shpongle - 101.4 kbit/s
Schnittke - 104.8 kbit/s
    [/blockquote]
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #261 –

Those who have a empty cell are recommended to report more to fill the space.
And lvqcl and halb27, how many tracks did you used? (Sorry If I had missed something)

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #262 –


Plan A:
TVBR 45
Opus 91
Vorbis q2

Plan B:
CVBR 96
Opus 94
Vorbis q2

I like the Plan B. The plan B is quite close to what's really used.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #263 –
Quote from: Gecko on
1679 lossless tracks, biased towards metal and folk. Bitrates as reported by foobar2000.
...

It will be better to report a real bitrates (filesize/duration). I see the difference is ~ 2 kbps because of  different container overheads.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #264 –
Quote from: Gecko on
1679 lossless tracks, biased towards metal and folk. Bitrates as reported by foobar2000.
...

You are using too many tracks and it is slowing down the entire process. I'd be happier if you pick 50 tracks randomly and quickly fill the blank in the table.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #265 –
Winamp FhG V3: 105 kbps
FDK V3: 106
aotuv -q 1.99: 91.6

Opus 92, 97, aotuv 2.4 - will test later

# of tracks: 86

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #266 –
I think there is no need to include a bitrate for codecs those won't be tested.

The list of codecs to test:
Quote
1.   LAME 3.99.5 -V 5
2.   Apple AAC
3.   Opus 1.1
4.   Vorbis aoTuV
+middle-low anchor FAAC 96 kbps *1
+low anchor ...

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #267 –
Quote from: IgorC on
It will be better to report a real bitrates (filesize/duration). I see the difference is ~ 2 kbps because of  different container overheads.

OK, will do. Should I worry about stripping the tags?

Quote from: Kamedo2 on
You are using too many tracks and it is slowing down the entire process. I'd be happier if you pick 50 tracks randomly and quickly fill the blank in the table.

Yes, aoTuV encode took 1 1/4 hours. I'm working on a reduced but representative set. However this will take some time.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #268 –
Quote from: Gecko on
OK, will do. Should I worry about stripping the tags?

hehe.

No, it's already hair splitting. Plus we store music with tags in real world.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #269 –
aotuv -q 2.4: 103 kbps
opus 92: 94.7 kbps
opus 97: 99.8 kbps

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #270 –


Thank you for providing the useful data.
 

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #271 –
opus 94: 96.8 kbps

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #272 –

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #273 –
100 tracks
edit:
kbps as: totalsize [bytes] / duration [sec] / 1024 * 8
kbps as: totalsize [bytes] / duration [sec] / 1000 * 8

Apple CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3, CVBR 96: 98.6 101.0
Apple CoreAudioToolbox 7.9.8.3, TVBR 45: 91.6 93.8 (foobar: 92; 1679 tracks: 91.4 93.6)

FhG Winamp, vbr 3: 102.8

Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 92: 94.4 96.6
Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 94: 96.3 98.6
Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 96: 98.3 100.7 (foobar: 101; 1679 tracks: 98.0 100.3)
Opus libopus 1.1, --bitrate 97: 99.3 101.7

Vorbis aoTuV [20110424], q1.99: 88.2 90.3
Vorbis aoTuV [20110424], q2: 94.2 96.4 (foobar: 96; 1679 tracks: 94.2 96.4)
Vorbis aoTuV [20110424], q2.4: 98.2 100.5

As you can see, the chosen sample of 100 tracks is quite faithful to the bitrates achieved over the 1679 tracks. Median and stddev should also be similar.

edit: How come foobar deviates so much? Assuming foobar is discarding container overhead, shouldn't the reported bitrates be smaller than the ones calculated from the raw filesize? Am I doing something wrong?

edit: Arg! Damn kilo issue!  I hope I didn't mess up the numbers since I had to enter everything again.

New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #274 –
Well, kbps is totalsize [bytes] / duration / 1000 * 8