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: My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :) (Read 47642 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #75 –
I've taken a test on guruboolez' Hosokawa___Atem_lied sample.
This one is a very good sample for pre-echo, ringing(I couldn't detect in the test though.), HF boost, etc.
result

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #76 –
Quote
I've taken a test on guruboolez' Hosokawa___Atem_lied sample.
This one is a very good sample for pre-echo, ringing(I couldn't detect in the test though.), HF boost, etc.
result

QKTune beta 3.2 at q 5 got a higher rating than GT3b1+QKTune?  That is strange, though I assume John replaced my pre-echo tuning for q 5 with Garf's.... 

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #77 –
Quote
QKTune beta 3.2 at q 5 got a higher rating than GT3b1+QKTune?  That is strange, though I assume John replaced my pre-echo tuning for q 5 with Garf's.... 

I felt qk32q5 is smoother(=less pre-echo) than gt3b2qkt32q5. Then I ranked it higher,  though the difference is seldom apparent.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #78 –
I used foobar for aac-he decoding and winamp with mp3pro plugin for mp3pro playback. actually i used winamp diskwriter to convert mp3pro -> wav and then listened to all the encodes in foobar

EDIT: Uploaded the file here

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #79 –
It makes me wonder whether we can get the same quality as GT3b1 without the bitrate inflation. 

I think my next series of tunings will focus on pre-echo at q 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 with focus on managing bitrate.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #80 –
QuantumKnot, could you please check my private e-mail? I have one question about  angle calculation at precomputed_partial_couple_point() function in your source code.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #81 –
Quote
It makes me wonder whether we can get the same quality as GT3b1 without the bitrate inflation.

The tunings you did so far already seem to have increased quality/bitrate ratio. If Garf's tunings kill problems by throwing with bits at them you're already on a road to a better solution.

Good luck

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #82 –
Quote
QuantumKnot, could you please check my private e-mail? I have one question about  angle calculation at precomputed_partial_couple_point() function in your source code.

Oh sorry!!  Mozilla Thunderbird marked your email as Junk Mail and moved it to the Junk Mail folder without my knowing. 

I just replied to it but forgot to mention one thing.  I assumed qA to be an angular value since the two quantities are named qM and qA, where M is mag and A is ang.  So yes, you are right.  The change I made was an experimental and arbitrary one.  From what I understand, the angle value is essentially the difference between L and R (from a decoupling point of view), thus I understood it from that context.  I didn't really view it as an actual 'angular' value but rather representing a 'diffuse' quantity.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #83 –
On closer inspection, it appears the second channel would decouple to the first plus a fraction of the second.    I do have the coupling code there but since it tended to make things worse at the time, I commented it out.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #84 –
Quote
On closer inspection, it appears the second channel would decouple to the first plus a fraction of the second.     I do have the coupling code there but since it tended to make things worse at the time, I commented it out.

I replied to your email. If we didn't notice any stereo image problem with QK3.2, I think we can set the angle value to zero and only use your linear compensation. 

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #85 –
Quote
Quote
On closer inspection, it appears the second channel would decouple to the first plus a fraction of the second.     I do have the coupling code there but since it tended to make things worse at the time, I commented it out.

I replied to your email. If we didn't notice any stereo image problem with QK3.2, I think we can set the angle value to zero and only use your linear compensation. 

If we set the angle to zero, then the only difference between QK3.2 and QK3.1 becomes only the linear versus non-linear compensation.  I don't quite understand why using a non-linear limiter would interfere with the stereo image. 

Anyway, I've uploaded beta 3.3, which modifies the angle calculation so that it makes a bit more sense (I think).  Now it resembles more of how qB is calculated in lossless coupling function

Code: [Select]
    
*ang=*ang * 0.3 *  cfactor;
...
if (*ang > 0)
      *ang = *mag - *ang;


I have a feeling though this won't be as good as beta 3.2.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #86 –
Quote
Anyway, I've uploaded beta 3.3, which modifies the angle calculation so that it makes a bit more sense (I think).  Now it resembles more of how qB is calculated in lossless coupling function

Code: [Select]
    
*ang=*ang * 0.3 *  cfactor;
...
if (*ang > 0)
      *ang = *mag - *ang;


I have a feeling though this won't be as good as beta 3.2.

If we calculate the angle exactly, it does not differ from lossless coupling (and concequently cannot save bits). If we have to save angle information to improve -q4, we should consider four or eight phase stereo.

I don't think the code you provided is correct
Code: [Select]
if (*ang > 0) *ang = *mag - *ang;

because we have to consider and compare residue values of channel A and B (i.e., which is larger or are they greater than 0?) My assumption is if we did not experience strange impression even when the calculation was incorrect, we can set the value to zero.

However, I think QF3.2 was successful to improve Vorbis. So I'd like to understand why your solution (liner compensation, ang calculation, etc.) improved Vorbis from theoretical view and now thinking.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #87 –
Quote
Quote
Anyway, I've uploaded beta 3.3, which modifies the angle calculation so that it makes a bit more sense (I think).  Now it resembles more of how qB is calculated in lossless coupling function

Code: [Select]
    
*ang=*ang * 0.3 *  cfactor;
...
if (*ang > 0)
      *ang = *mag - *ang;


I have a feeling though this won't be as good as beta 3.2.

If we calculate the angle exactly, it does not differ from lossless coupling (and concequently cannot save bits). If we have to save angle information to improve -q4, we should consider four or eight phase stereo.

I don't think the code you provided is correct
Code: [Select]
if (*ang > 0) *ang = *mag - *ang;

because we have to consider and compare residue values of channel A and B (i.e., which is larger or are they greater than 0?) My assumption is if we did not experience strange impression even when the calculation was incorrect, we can set the value to zero.

However, I think QF3.2 was successful to improve Vorbis. So I'd like to understand why your solution (liner compensation, ang calculation, etc.) improved Vorbis from theoretical view and now thinking. 


Yeah, I know it's not correct since its only a half (or quarter) of the lossless coupling code.  But when I uncomment the entire code there, I got a lot of shift to the left channel.  Also, I still have the check in place where if ang is greater than mag, ang is set to 0, thus this if condition won't execute if that occurred.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #88 –
In order to see the effect of having zero angle, I've uploaded beta 3.4 which is exactly the same as beta 3.2 (linear limiter) but sets the angle to zero.  My suspicion is that we will get some sort of stereo problem (like in beta 3.1) but let us see how it goes.

Can I stress that both beta 3.3 and beta 3.4 are very experimental releases so for those who want to re-encode their 40 GB collection, consider sticking with beta 3.2 for now.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #89 –
Beta 3.2 has been reloaded and can be downloaded from the usual location:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=187669

or at:

http://steve8988.homestead.com/files/vorbis/oggencqk32.zip

Changes:

- Fixed major bug that caused Visual Studio.NET to produce a broken encoder at q < 4.  Now we are back to .NET compiles
- Some minor pre-echo adjustments.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #90 –
I know you submitted a finalized 3.2 for the Ogg Vorbis test, but have you come to any conclusions on or has anyone else worked with 3.3 or 3.4?  From your choice to add 3.2 to the Vorbis test, my conclusion was that 3.3 and 3.4 did not come up with positive results.  Is this true, or have they still just not been tested enough?
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #91 –
Quote
I know you submitted a finalized 3.2 for the Ogg Vorbis test, but have you come to any conclusions on or has anyone else worked with 3.3 or 3.4?  From your choice to add 3.2 to the Vorbis test, my conclusion was that 3.3 and 3.4 did not come up with positive results.  Is this true, or have they still just not been tested enough?

Haven't had any results for 3.3 or 3.4 yet, so I'm placing my bets on the verified one (3.2).  But after some conversing with nyaochi, personally I don't hold any high hopes for 3.3 or 3.4 either.

Beta 3.2 is da best in the QKTune series ATM

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #92 –
Quote
Beta 3.2 has been reloaded and can be downloaded from the usual location:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=187669

or at:

http://steve8988.homestead.com/files/vorbis/oggencqk32.zip

Changes:

- Fixed major bug that caused Visual Studio.NET to produce a broken encoder at q < 4.  Now we are back to .NET compiles
- Some minor pre-echo adjustments.

Any chance of the source, Steve?

Edit: OK, ignore me, I just read the other thread. Seems I already have it!!

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #93 –
Hi,
that might be interesting for you (all developers):
http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis-dev/20...-0005/01-sq.pdf
Found at: http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis-dev/200403/0005.html

You see, there are also people at xiph who work on the problem.
Let's hope that it can be fixed before the big listeningtest!

Big_Berny

PS: Look at my new avatar

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #94 –
Quote
Hi,
that might be interesting for you (all developers):
http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis-dev/20...-0005/01-sq.pdf
Found at: http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis-dev/200403/0005.html

You see, there are also people at xiph who work on the problem.
Let's hope that it can be fixed before the big listeningtest!

Big_Berny


Yeah I know of that thread since I was the one who started that topic on stereo mode settings

Quote
PS: Look at my new avatar


And mine too.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #95 –
Are you able to impement this fix? Or is this to difficult/complexe?

Big_Berny

PS: QK: A nice avatar, too.

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #96 –
Quote
Are you able to impement this fix? Or is this to difficult/complexe?

Not at the moment.  I don't know much of the mechanisms in residue quantisation so I'll have to become familiar with that.  Plus I don't have much time to work on Vorbis now which is why I decided to submit beta 3.2, despite the doubtul nature of the stereo hack I made..

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #97 –
Would QKTune 3.2 be wise to use for Q0-Q1 (64-80kbps) ?. I've got a Sony Ericsson P800 and a 128MB memory card, and i'm using OggPlay! to playback vorbis files on it. Or is QKTune only optimized for high bitrates?

I've done some tests that shows that files encoded in Q0-Q1 actually has lower bitrate (3-6kbps usually) than official 1.0.1 encoded files.

I haven't had time to do a ABX test though, hence i'm asking


EDIT:

Hmm, nope.. i'll stick to 1.0.1 official. Found some huge artifacts in some Q1 encodings of a few Pink Floyd tunes (especially Comfortably Numb from the Pulse CD, at around 2:20-2:40 (guitar)). official 1.0.1 doesn't have these artifacts/errors at all. The tunes was transcoded from APE, so it shouldn't be anything to do with that.
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei

My tuned Vorbis: QKTune beta 1 :)

Reply #98 –
Quote
EDIT:

Hmm, nope.. i'll stick to 1.0.1 official. Found some huge artifacts in some Q1 encodings of a few Pink Floyd tunes (especially Comfortably Numb from the Pulse CD, at around 2:20-2:40 (guitar)). official 1.0.1 doesn't have these artifacts/errors at all. The tunes was transcoded from APE, so it shouldn't be anything to do with that.

Yes, that doesn't sound too unusual since there is a large amount of point stereo being used at q 0 and 1.

Try aoTuV.  I think it was tuned for low bitrates.