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: Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion (Read 54969 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #25 –
Quote
How about increasing from 12 samples to 18?

hm would this help the final results? if not i would avoid this, as 10 samples are already enough to listen to imho
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #27 –
Quote
Quote
How about increasing from 12 samples to 18?

hm would this help the final results? if not i would avoid this, as 10 samples are already enough to listen to imho

Again, people would not be expected to listen to all 18 samples.  This should probably be made very clear in the test instructions, though, so listeners don't kill themselves.

ff123

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #28 –
Quote
This should probably be made very clear in the test instructions, though, so listeners don't kill themselves.



Headline: "Roberto's Listening Test claim another victim!"

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #29 –
WMA Standard????

Finally!!! Too cool. I'm curious to see how much better my iTunes purchased songs are than the same offering from Napster and hoping I made the right decision in ditching my Creative products (WMA) for Apple's (AAC) line of DAPs.

VQF 128

  Was that a joke??? Does ANYONE use this codec??

ATRAC3

Very interesting 6th choice as sony Connect debuts in weeks.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #30 –
OK, so I can consider that the vast majority wants Atrac3?

In this case, the codec list will be:
-Musepack
-Apple AAC
-Vorbis
-WMA Std.
-Lame
-Atrac3

I want to make clear I'm not sure yet I will be able to provide Atrac3 encodings. I have SonicStage2 installed, but I didn't tried yet doing encoding -> decoding. Input from people experienced with it will be hugely appreciated.

Regards;

Roberto.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #31 –
Probably too late now but I just wanted to put my hand up for atrac as well.

One question:  Will MPC, like the other VBR codecs to be tested, be tested at the quality that gives a bitrate closest to 128 kbps as well?  In your very first post, you seem to have just put quality 4 for musepack. 

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #33 –
great to see people also want atrac3

rjamorim can you plz add mp3 when you write lame. cause i showed your last multiformat test at 128 to some newbies and they believed mpc was mp3 
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #34 –
Quote
I want to make clear I'm not sure yet I will be able to provide Atrac3 encodings. I have SonicStage2 installed, but I didn't tried yet doing encoding -> decoding. Input from people experienced with it will be hugely appreciated.

To decode .omg (encrypted atrac3) files:
- encode the samples
- RENAME or CHANGE LOCATION of the ORIGINAL samples. If you don't do that, Sonic Stage will play the original file, and not the encoded one.
- Play the sample(s) with Sonic Stage and capture the stream with Total Recorder.

I've tried to capture the decoded stream through foobar2000 or Adobe Audition. I don't know why, but there was a slight parasite noise VISIBLE in high frequencies. No problems with Total Recorded. Problem with Windows mixer?


There's a possible problem: the offset. You have to find it for each sample (or to cut exactly the stream). Maybe Java ABC/HR could do this automatically. Otherwise, it will be painful (especially with more than 12 samples).

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #35 –
Or burn *.omg files into AudioCD then rip 'em. It's still hassle in this way though.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #36 –
ATRAC3 should be "The one".
But what do you think about this sample? I can't be sure tho if it is good "problem" sample.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #37 –
how about using wma 9 Pro as the 6th competitor? this way we can see what the Pro really makes...I mean it's the newest encoder from MS.
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #38 –
Quote
how about using wma 9 Pro as the 6th competitor? this way we can see what the Pro really makes...I mean it's the newest encoder from MS.

hm rjamorim already said that "The main reason I'm not planning to include WMA Pro is that it has not changed since the 128kbps test."

i think it would make much more sense to test a new codec than testing the same codec again
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #39 –
Quote
how about using wma 9 Pro as the 6th competitor? this way we can see what the Pro really makes...I mean it's the newest encoder from MS.

Additionally to what bond said, wma9 standard is supported by some portable players (and wma9pro is not), so the results can help ppl to choose what player to buy. Or do you suggest to ditch some other codec and include wma9pro additionally? In this case - what encoder would you suggest to be replaces with wma9pro (and why do you think wma9pro is more interesting)?
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #40 –
It makes no sense whatsoever to include WMA Pro. Since MusePack is in both tests and also unchanged since, you can compare the results with the previous test and see how WMA Pro compares.

(And if you wonder, it makes more sense to have MusePack as reference since it won the last test)

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #41 –
Quote
(And if you wonder, it makes more sense to have MusePack as reference since it won the last test)

I'll save Roberto the trouble of replying:

[span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%']Musepack didn't win.[/span]

 




Just nitpicking, of course. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to include WMA Pro.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #42 –
Quote
Just nitpicking, of course. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to include WMA Pro.

Lol, I remembered the result wrong. OF COURSE AAC was also at the top

Edit: The text says 'big tie for first place', but I assume that was written before the error margins were corrected.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #43 –
Quote
Edit: The text says 'big tie for first place', but I assume that was written before the error margins were corrected.

Aree!?! When was this update done? And how could there be such a big change? Were the analysis that messed up before? 

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #44 –
Quote
Aree!?! When was this update done? And how could there be such a big change? Were the analysis that messed up before? 


There was a bug in the calculation of the error margins, several of the old test results got updated. The relative positions didn't change, but the results are much more significant now.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #45 –
Quote
Quote
Edit: The text says 'big tie for first place', but I assume that was written before the error margins were corrected.

Aree!?! When was this update done? And how could there be such a big change? Were the analysis that messed up before? 

 

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=190675

Edit, more here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=190827
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #46 –
Quote
The text says 'big tie for first place', but I assume that was written before the error margins were corrected.

Good point. AFAIK Roberto didn't change the text after the margins were corrected.

From the second link in my previous post:
Quote
At the Extension test, it seems Vorbis and WMAPro are no longer tied to AAC and MPC, and now share second place. I'll leave it to others to discuss.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #47 –
If the new version of LAME is used (3.96) then which setting will be used:
[span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%']--preset 128 or -V 5[/span]

Quote
3.96b1 -V 5 > 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Quizas :: tigre :: 0x verified so far
3.96b1 --p 128 < 3.90.3 --ap 128 :: Quizas :: tigre :: 0x verified so far


On this sample -V5 is better, but it hasnt been tested very much.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #48 –
Changing the text at the 128kbps test is a problem. Even after the error margins were corrected, all the 4 fist places overlap, if even a little. I would eyeball that Musepack is better than Vorbis and WMA Pro.. But Musepack isn't first place alone, as it is obviously tied to iTunes. And, for it's turn, iTunes is tied to Vorbis and WMA Pro. So there you have it...

And, to clarify: I still maintain Musepack didn't win - alone. At least, Musepack and iTunes AAC both won.

Multiformat @ 128kbps - test discussion

Reply #49 –
I think that we should lower the bitrate of MPC compared to the last test! In the last test MPC got a bitrate of 146.1 and that's a big difference to 128 I think. I think that the average bitrate of all test samples should be between 125 and 130!

Big_Berny