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: Lossy compression (Read 6582 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lossy compression

There is much hatred for the WMA, but Microsoft claims that it can achieve a higher rate of compression while having the same sound quality as MP3. And now there is this new WMA pro, which they claim is even better. It maxes out at 192kbps, which Microsoft considers to be CD quality. I'm going to listen to music on my computer "surround theater system" , so compatibility won't matter.

What is the format+encoder that offers virtually transparent effects at the lowest bitrate?

Lossless compression is just a bit too big.

Thanks.

Lossy compression

Reply #1 –
Microsoft's claims about WMA standard have not borne out in listening tests. WMA pro does indeed seem to be significantly better, but there is almost nothing that will play it, so there is not much interest. You would be better to choose one of the open standard codecs, either mp3 for maximum compatibility, or one of the more modern codecs for best quality/size ratio.

Lossy compression

Reply #2 –
Some codecs to consider for lossy compression:

WMA Pro
Lame 3.98b5 MP3
Nero AAC MP4 (M4A)
Ogg Vorbis aoTuV OGG
Musepack MPC
Wavpack Hybrid WV

All setups for foobar2000 can be seen in the knowledge base except for WMA Pro, which the setup for is right here --> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=47759

Listening tests are also in the Knowledgebase but it will also require for you to listen to a couple of encodes to determine just which setting is right for you.
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice

Lossy compression

Reply #3 –
If you want to get real scientific, read-up on doing ABX with Foobar.  Then you can find out what format works best for you.  I am not trying to avoid your question, but doing the actual tests with different formats  helped me make my own decisions.

For me, I don't really like aac compared to mp3 or ogg.  Actually, ogg at -q 2.00 is my favorite (this is for my Rockboxed portable).  I can tell the difference when comparing -q 2.00 with the uncompressed version (aka ABX), but I can't really tell when listening to my MP3 player in my car or on my stereo system.  A safe bet is MP3 at -V2, or ogg at -q 5 (or 6).  As for aac, I can't say.  To me, I can hear artifacts at comparable bitrates (with aac), but that is me.  To others, MP3 or ogg might be a bad choice.  I guess it all depends on your ear, your system, and your how your mind processes the sounds.

Sorry for the confusion...but I hope it helps

Lossy compression

Reply #4 –
I'm not familiar with these ogg, aac and other codecs. I know them but I haven't used them. Does being less popular mean they are necessarily worse?

And I currently use WMP to rip and encode the files, but it doesn't say if it's CBR/VBR, 1pass/2pass etc... so I have no clue how it's doing. Also, how well does WMP encodes anyway?


Edit: Is foobar superior to Winamp? Can Winamp also encode and rip these formats?

Edit: And what does "Change the argument marked with green color according to the table:" mean?

Lossy compression

Reply #5 –
Quote from: HTS on
I'm not familiar with these ogg, aac and other codecs. I know them but I haven't used them. Does being less popular mean they are necessarily worse?

Absolutely not! OGG and AAC are arguably better than MP3 at lower bitrates (we're talking less than or equal to 128 kbps). IIRC, OGG/AAC also have fewer artifacts/ problem samples (which could be due to lack of extensive testing though). So short answer: NO. They're technically supposed to be 'superior', but if you throw enough bitrates at it, any codec will do fine.

Quote from: HTS on
And I currently use WMP to rip and encode the files, but it doesn't say if it's CBR/VBR, 1pass/2pass etc... so I have no clue how it's doing. Also, how well does WMP encodes anyway?

I see two reasons to use some other program to do your ripping (i'd recommend EAC or dbpoweramp):
1. Can't choose custom encoders
2. doesn't produce log files to show how the rip went

So windows media player will rip just as well as EAC if the cd isn't scratched, but if the cd is scratched, at the very least, EAC will TELL you that there were problems while ripping.

Quote from: HTS on
Edit: Is foobar superior to Winamp? Can Winamp also encode and rip these formats?


This question will definitely start a flamewar  .
I, like many HA regulars prefer foobar because of it's customizability and "advanced options". But foobar isn't as user-friendly as winamp. i don't follow winamp development, but i'm sure it can rip to OGG/aac etc.

Lossy compression

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Gow on
Some codecs to consider for lossy compression:

WMA Pro
Lame 3.98b5 MP3
Nero AAC MP4 (M4A)
Ogg Vorbis aoTuV OGG
Musepack MPC
Wavpack Hybrid WV

All setups for foobar2000 can be seen in the knowledge base except for WMA Pro, which the setup for is right here --> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=47759

Listening tests are also in the Knowledgebase but it will also require for you to listen to a couple of encodes to determine just which setting is right for you.
The link said:

Quote
Change the argument marked with green color according to the table:

What does that mean?

Nevermind, I figured it out.

So WMA pro at 253kbps is essentially transparent? I used quality based.

Lossy compression

Reply #7 –
Is it transparent to your hearing? (aka sound good to you?)

I would wager that you have a high enough coding for WMA Pro...you could test WMA Pro Q75 see if that is still good and if it is than bonus for saving space, if not you hear why it isn't and go with higher.

I see you figured out what they meant by green...just changing the values in green to meet with whatever standard you want.  Back when I did WMA Pro I used
Code: [Select]
-silent -a_codec WMA9PRO -a_mode 2 -a_setting Q75_44_2_24 -input %s -output %d


foobar2000 can be setup for mass conversion on a very large scale with customization down to the use of straight codecs.  This allows you to be more up to date (with the latest and greatest) that other programs will not get to until the next software update.  If you are going with WMA Pro, make sure you install Windows Media Player 11 as it comes with updated WMA Pro codec.

Plus foobar2000 can be made to look pretty if you so wish it...like I do...
example: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=55841

If you decide to go that route make sure you grab PanelsUI 0.14.9 from ssconfig thread as other PanelsUI versions crash.

Enjoy your music...or don't.
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice

Lossy compression

Reply #8 –
What does the Q value stand for? Is it the bitrate?

Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out too.

But what does QXX really mean? Which one is supposed to stand for transparent?

Lossy compression

Reply #9 –
Q value is Quality Based Encoding or you can go standard bitrate encoding that uses Bitrate #_44_2_24 instead of Q(#)_44_2_24

What the numbers mean is this...

Q# or 128 in the first set of the series means what Quality based VBR you are encoding to or what Standard Bitrate encoding.

The next number 44 is the kilohertz range...unless you want to go 48, 44 is the standard as of right now.

2 is channels a.k.a. Stereo

24 is bit depth, standard is sometimes 16 but 24 is becoming just as common now. 

Q75 produces WMA Pro files that range from 150kbps to 192kbps VBR while Q98 produces files from 256kbps up to 320kbps.  Q90 is inbetween Q75 and Q98.  If the Q settings are to confusing go with Standard bitrate encoding and put the number you think will work (i.e. 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320).  Although with 320 it tends to be a waste with lossy files as it produces a file much larger than it needs to be in any codec (mp3, ogg, etc.). 

The point of lossy audio is to reach the point of transparency in the encoding level, which means the point at which you, the listener, can't tell the difference between the lossy file and the original wav file.  It varies from person to person and some people like to notch it up one more level past that point for a "safety measure" such as myself.
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice

Lossy compression

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Gow on
Q value is Quality Based Encoding or you can go standard bitrate encoding that uses Bitrate #_44_2_24 instead of Q(#)_44_2_24

What the numbers mean is this...

Q# or 128 in the first set of the series means what Quality based VBR you are encoding to or what Standard Bitrate encoding.

The next number 44 is the kilohertz range...unless you want to go 48, 44 is the standard as of right now.

2 is channels a.k.a. Stereo

24 is bit depth, standard is sometimes 16 but 24 is becoming just as common now. 

Q75 produces WMA Pro files that range from 150kbps to 192kbps VBR while Q98 produces files from 256kbps up to 320kbps.  Q90 is inbetween Q75 and Q98.  If the Q settings are to confusing go with Standard bitrate encoding and put the number you think will work (i.e. 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320).  Although with 320 it tends to be a waste with lossy files as it produces a file much larger than it needs to be in any codec (mp3, ogg, etc.). 

The point of lossy audio is to reach the point of transparency in the encoding level, which means the point at which you, the listener, can't tell the difference between the lossy file and the original wav file.  It varies from person to person and some people like to notch it up one more level past that point for a "safety measure" such as myself.
Thanks.

How is Q defined? Like for 192 it means 192kbps average, but Q 75, what is the definition of that? Like subjectively 75 percent as good as the CD? Especially when you select a Q and it produces different bitrates for each track, how does it determine which bitrate is at the Q level for this track?

Maybe I should just use the bitrate setting instead, it's kind of weird seeing some files at 150kbps and some at 192. Then I wonder, is the 150 one really as good as the 192?
 

Lossy compression

Reply #11 –
At such high bitrates (192kbps and up), there is no point in using anything else than VBR-MP3, because every modern codec is perceptually indistinguishable to the original almost all of the time. In other words, from a practical POV, there is no qualitative difference at those bitrates..... so you can as well get all the compatibility benefits which MP3 offers.

Other modern lossy codecs are only interesting below 150kbps average. And thats why other codecs are also tuned mostly for below 150kbps encoding - because thats where they can have an advantage.

Overally, one could simplify the entire audio codec market like this:

Below 150kbps range:
Other codecs than MP3 are interesting, because they can make use of their technological advantages.

150-320kbps range:
MP3 FTW. From a practical POV, nothing can beat MP3 at that range, because mp3 is already almost perfect in those range and additionally has the best software and hardware support of all codecs.

350-550kbps range:
Hybrid encoders in lossy mode. Interesting if one wants to transcode or postprocess later, yet cannot affort bandwidth of pure lossless codecs.

Above 550kbps range:
lossless codecs.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.