-q 0.5 (52 kbps nominal bitrate)

At this point, I try not to go below -q -0.5, but if I go below -q 0 I'll resample as well. (of course I don't like lowpass filters so --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=99 is always used  )
-q -.5 --resample 37800
-q -1 --resample 32000
-q -2 --resample 26000 (or lower)
I prefer to resample as apposed to lowpass filtering 
wow,  I just realized I don't find -q -1.5 to be very interesting at all

(of course I don't like lowpass filters so --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=99 is always used  )

Is anybody now about new date of release beta5? 

It doesn't seem wise to force higher lowpass at these bitrates. Almost certainly you are hurting quality. IMO resampling is much more aggressive than lowpassing at these bitrates.

With aoTuV predefined low q values are already tuned by aoyumi in a very competent manner as already proved by listening tests.

Is your lowpass dislike based on listening tests? If it is I'd like to see ABX/ABC-HR tests results proving that resampling is better than lowpassing...

Quote from: gameplaya15143 on 2006-07-21 21:09:27

(of course I don't like lowpass filters so --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=99 is always used  )

Damn. I'm afraid to find out what that sounds like

Yet, I cannot decide a release day.
There is various change etc. and many tests are required.

I don't seem to be as sensitive to minor artifacts/differences than some people.. that or I just don't care.  How is resampling more agressive than lowpassing?  I don't quite follow.

Almost... some of the illogical things from libvorbis still remain.
use "-q 0 --resample 40000" and "-q 1 --resample 39999" and you will see/hear what I mean (I mentioned this 'issue' before in this very thread).  Logic should tell you that 1 sample per second shouldn't make any noticable difference.  After that try "-q 0 --resample 39999 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=15".. the bitrate should be pretty close to the 40000hz encode.

I never said it was 'better', I said I prefer it.

It's probably due to the assumption that 'lower samplerate' = 'less data to code' which implies that you save some bits.  Unfortunately, theory doesn't always work perfectly in practice.  For example "-q -2 --resample 26000 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=99" and "-q -2 --resample 25999 --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=99". These things drive me up a wall.  Those rates are the threshold where vorbis switches from the 32khz settings to the 22khz settings (and the example above ^^ is another threshold where things suddenly change).  So depending on what you prefer to hear, lowpassing a higher samplerate untill it approximates the bitrate of the lower samplerate might be the way to go, I honestly am unsure/undecided which is better for my ears.  And my dislike for lowpass filters came about from 128kbps mp3s back in the days I was still a n00bie.  I just got disappointed that there wasn't anything above 16khz  (I can hear isolated noise up to ~21khz)... it's been a long journey.

Excuse me, but what happens if I don't use --advanced-encode-option lowpass_frequency=99? Does the encoder silently turn lowpass filtering on? Under what conditions?

What about -q6? What is the frequency for lowpass filter there?

Quote from: elenhil on 2006-07-28 14:54:09

What about -q6? What is the frequency for lowpass filter there?

If I understand you, this is clearly visible in the table cited in the posting above yours.

I wonder if -q7 with 96khz produces noticeable artifacts, assuming that the encoder processes the hole spectrum.

To answer your question, -q6 has no lowpass.
(the table says 48Khz, but thats impossible with 44100hz samplerate, so its turned off there)

I wonder if -q7 with 96khz produces noticeable artifacts, assuming that the encoder processes the hole spectrum.

Yet, I cannot decide a release day.

8th August would sound nice, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Aoyumi on 2006-07-22 15:54:23

Yet, I cannot decide a release day.

8th August would sound nice, wouldn't it?