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: Expert users discussion (Read 23402 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Expert users discussion

why is PNS considered an internal?

PNS should be used at lower bitrates to improve the mp3-ish lowpass found in your new encoder.

Expert users discussion

Reply #1 –
what about bitrates of like 64, 56, 48 and such

has the PNS model improved?

Expert users discussion

Reply #2 –
bad idea IMHO.

we need features.

Expert users discussion

Reply #3 –
Obviously your strategy is to keep details away from the user and let the encoder decide to the utmost extent.
Taking this as a preposition my proposal is:
....
Quote from: audioflex on
bad idea IMHO.

we need features.

This strategy really isn't what I'm wishing for, but it looks like the Nero devs are absolutely out for it.
And it's up to them.

As for that and as the user interface is a bit unlucky at the moment I gave a proposal which I think makes sense within the devs' conception.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

Expert users discussion

Reply #4 –
The argument against the extended featureset is sensible, reasonable, and reflects the best intentions of the developers:
Quote
I understand your request for features, but we won't put features that could damage the encodings, and/or lead people to possible confusion.


However, while I fully understand the reasoning behind this, I don't believe this is quite the very best solution.  My proposal is simple and satisfies both sides: A list of advanced features which is *not* included with the installation package and is *not* listed under --help, but is seperately documented and available only from the Nero website or hydrogenaudio with a disclaimer with it. 

No newbie could be confused about options that aren't in his official documentation or listed under --help, but these options would still be available (with some degree of hunting) for the rare case or the truly advanced user.
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon

Expert users discussion

Reply #5 –
I am actually much more afraid of the "advanced users" than of the newbies

Expert users discussion

Reply #6 –
May be maintaining of additional “beta” release with all switches unlocked could solve the problem?
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org

Expert users discussion

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Serge Smirnoff on
May be maintaining of additional “beta” release with all switches unlocked could solve the problem?

and then people would use the "beta" releases to make they "supper-dupper-i-know-better-than-the-devs" customized encoding lines.

Expert users discussion

Reply #8 –
Quote from: kwanbis on
Quote from: Serge Smirnoff on

May be maintaining of additional “beta” release with all switches unlocked could solve the problem?

and then people would use the "beta" releases to make they "supper-dupper-i-know-better-than-the-devs" customized encoding lines.


Yes, why not. It's better to use encoder in that way.

Expert users discussion

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Garf on
I am actually much more afraid of the "advanced users" than of the newbies

Maybe those who just believe they are "advanced users". And even TOS #8 cannot help in those cases. 

I would love to see if the user only needs to specify the quality with -q switch, and the encoder determines the rest automatically. Some simple quality profile, like -portable, -archival, etc, that maps to some quality modes would be nice too.

Maybe, and just maybe, users need to choose between LC-AAC or HE-AAC (for hardware compatibility reasons), but I think that's enough. Those PNS, stereo modes, low pass, etc, etc...just let the encoder decide which is the best.

I don't think making the switches available in betas/alphas is a good idea. People will just get those betas/alphas, play with them, mess with them. They even have an additional feeling of bleeding edge, those "wow, I am using an alpha, I am really a Pro" fizzy feelings.

Expert users discussion

Reply #11 –
and you know this how?

i do understand the "simple idiot users" argument, but features would make this encoder king.

Quote from: William on
Quote from: Garf on

I am actually much more afraid of the "advanced users" than of the newbies

Maybe those who just believe they are "advanced users". And even TOS #8 cannot help in those cases. 

I would love to see if the user only needs to specify the quality with -q switch, and the encoder determines the rest automatically. Some simple quality profile, like -portable, -archival, etc, that maps to some quality modes would be nice too.

Maybe, and just maybe, users need to choose between LC-AAC or HE-AAC (for hardware compatibility reasons), but I think that's enough. Those PNS, stereo modes, low pass, etc, etc...just let the encoder decide which is the best.

I don't think making the switches available in betas/alphas is a good idea. People will just get those betas/alphas, play with them, mess with them. They even have an additional feeling of bleeding edge, those "wow, I am using an alpha, I am really a Pro" fizzy feelings.

total crap, PNS is an important tool that needs to be able to be specified if wanting to be used, stereo/mono modes as well, lowpass would be nice too.

Expert users discussion

Reply #12 –
Quote from: audioflex on
total crap, PNS is an important tool that needs to be able to be specified if wanting to be used, stereo/mono modes as well, lowpass would be nice too.

you are saying that you are smarter than the people that have developed the tool itself, programers, sound engeneers, etc, and that you know better than then on when to use what feature? right. why don't you write your own encoder to show how smart you are?

Expert users discussion

Reply #13 –
Oh man, this thread is turning into a disaster. Why do you guys all care sooo deeply about having these switches or not having them?

Expert users discussion

Reply #14 –
taking away features is like treating your users into child, no options to turn on that may actually IMPROVE quality at times. i for one am not a huge fan of everything standardised, this is why i don't use FHG for my mp3 needs, this is why i don't use itunes for my AAC needs, because these are encoders for the stupid masses.

i like an encoder to have options, i may never use some of them, but it's nice to know they are there, i'd like even one build with options enabled. please?

Expert users discussion

Reply #15 –
Quote from: audioflex on
taking away features is like treating your users into child, no options to turn on that may actually IMPROVE quality at times. i for one am not a huge fan of everything standardised, this is why i don't use FHG for my mp3 needs, this is why i don't use itunes for my AAC needs, because these are encoders for the stupid masses.

i like an encoder to have options, i may never use some of them, but it's nice to know they are there, i'd like even one build with options enabled. please?


You've got plenty of options. You can choose the profile, bitrate or q level. The only reason LAME had all those switches was because the first developers made every internal variable a switch for easy testing. Do you need a million options to save a JPEG or GIF file, or is Photoshop for the "stupid masses" too?

Expert users discussion

Reply #16 –
First off, thanks so much to all you Nero guys for providing the community with an excellent quality encoder for free.

What Garf, Ivan, Menno, and co. are concerned with is a possible myriad of trash encodings flying around with Nero's name written in their "encoded by" tags.  Please, pause in remembrance of r3mix.

After almost all of the dust has settled with mp3, we're left with -V0 - 9 for the best quality available.  The Nero guys are just trying to establish this from the start.  I agree with switches for compatibility purposes, but remember that these guys have more to worry about - this encoder is attached to a company which is providing their jobs. Also, they're doing their best to preserve a standard of quality for all future evolutions of AAC encoding.

Community tweaking and testing is useful in the tuning of the encoder, yes.  But this can be done with listening tests, closed dev groups, etc. Free or not, it's their sources, their decision.

As far as choice and "knowing better than the devs" is concerned, again, look at LAME.  Recommended settings? -V#, no more, no less, except for compatibility.  As long as there's adequate testing, reasoning, and feedback concerned, I don't mind a lack of customization.  Less crap for me to have to worry about, if everything is as close to transparent as it can be at its particular restrictions.

Edit:
Er, heh. I should just slow down and read a little more. I apologize for the wordy elaboration on Ivan's post further up the page... 

Expert users discussion

Reply #17 –
The funny part is, vorbis has never exposed all these options even though it has certain models and modes that are used at different quality levels for different reasons, yet no one complains about that, because it's very well tuned. Even now the few options that are exposed, like lowpass and impulse, are almost never actually used, because they almost invariably degrade quality. Just let Nero tune it over time, and it will end up better than you could get by tweaking every possible hidden encoder option now.

Expert users discussion

Reply #18 –
musepack did expose all options and psymodels even, and it is still one of the best mid-high bitrate encoder available. 

so there.

Expert users discussion

Reply #19 –
Ideally, users don't even need to think about "improving quality" the manual way, because the encoder should give the best quality it outputs all the time. Any modification could only lead to degradation of quality.

Musepack does this, Vorbis does this, and I am confident Nero can do it. So why expose the switches if they are not needed at all?

Do you think Nero can never achieve the "optimal" settings, or you are such a genius that you can do what Garf, Ivan or Menno cannot do?

Expert users discussion

Reply #20 –
Quote from: audioflex on
musepack did expose all options and psymodels even, and it is still the best mid-high bitrate encoder available.

"The best"? Got any proof for that? It's not 2001 anymore, you know...
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Expert users discussion

Reply #21 –
With Vorbis there is no such thing as SBR, PNS, PS.
So with vorbis essentially providing only one quality parameter for user input doesn't have a negative impact (other than that it doesn't please the one or other user).

But AAC is different cause you do have to take into account what the targeted playing machinery supports.
As for this you can't hide these things from the user.

I can see only these choices
  • a target-device conception as proposed by Gabriel
  • a design like that of my proposal with just one quality parameter but with reliably defined q-borders at which certain features are switched on or toggled
  • a multi-parameter design which gives the user the choice for the most important aac features
My personal favorite is a variant of the multi-parameter design which drops the idea of a floating quality level but simply provides for a discrete limited number of encoding modes. Pretty much the same conception as with Nero 6 AAC but taking into account the new AAC features.
Each encoding mode can tell about the most important AAC features and about the quality (not necessarily in textual form).
As for the limited number of encoding modes optimizing on these is a well-defined task.
This approach keeps everything that is vital to the devs' concern as I understand it, and it allows as well for requested features in a way controlled by the devs.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17
 

Expert users discussion

Reply #22 –
An user point of view to aac:

nero devs are right to focus on optimized quality settings for their end product with no additional switches which could degrade quality.

This is the successful way, Musepack offered,
Vorbis & Lame have taken.

Though, there are more or less problems to deal with:

MP3: here it is easy for the informed people, use Lame, and you get best.
You can use the simple presets for optimized quality, and you don't need to worry about hardware compliancy/compatibility, it *should* be mp3 standard...
Unfortunately, some (older) hardware devices cannot cope with mp3 standards like vbr or 320k.

MPC: well, the informed cannot go wrong.

Vorbis: the informed know which encoder versions are good or best, then it is simple with the settings.
Though, there are or have been different branches, the official vorbis, the aotuv etc.
if the best (probably aotuv, I am not so into vorbis) should not be the 'official' vorbis, then there is something wrong or 'suboptimal'.

AAC: What I've read here, you can encode aac music, but you cannot be sure, that every aac compliant hardware device can play it ?
So the suggestions in this topic to include some special switches for hardware compliancy ?
This sounds most worrying for me, if i would want to decide to switch from mp3 portable to aac portable. I'd stick with mp3, seems to be less hardware troubles. it is quite worrying to read about HE-aac and whatever variants, I'd prefer aac-only.
btw., how is the aac-nero development done, if there are no experimental switches? of course, the nero guys have much abilities to (pre)tweak the encoder in their own labs. But fine tuning, not with the help of HA guys, who can pick up an encoder and play with it ?  Or maybe nero-aac is already advanced over this step of dev. The other possibility nero guys might have taken also, that they have given a test thing to some ha guys in privacy/comparable with this: the nero-aac in ha 128k test.

Expert users discussion

Reply #23 –
Quote from: PoisonDan on
Quote from: audioflex on

musepack did expose all options and psymodels even, and it is still one of the best mid-high bitrate encoder available.

"The best"? Got any proof for that? It's not 2001 anymore, you know...

yes, because subband encoders handle tonality and transcode much better for the most part.. (again, my opinion and i do not have to prove it), musepack is an encoder i trust.

why did i recieve warn? i said one of the best mid-high bitrate encoders.

it is best for archiving in these bitrates because it is more stable (my opinion, do not flame or warn me for it) than the ever changing ogg and mp3.

Expert users discussion

Reply #24 –
Quote from: audioflex on
Quote from: PoisonDan on

Quote from: audioflex on

musepack did expose all options and psymodels even, and it is still one of the best mid-high bitrate encoder available.

"The best"? Got any proof for that? It's not 2001 anymore, you know...

yes, because subband encoders handle tonality and transcode much better for the most part.. (again, my opinion and i do not have to prove it), musepack is an encoder i trust.

why did i recieve warn? i said one of the best mid-high bitrate encoders.

it is best for archiving in these bitrates because it is more stable (my opinion, do not flame or warn me for it) than the ever changing ogg and mp3.


This forum is fairly unusual because just stating "its my opinion" doesn't relieve you of the responsibility for stating the objective facts that support it.

TOS 8 says that if you put forth a statement regarding sound quality you are expected to have objective evidence to support it.  No exception for statements of opinion. 

Incidentally, the reason that mp3 and vorbis are "ever changing" is that people are actually working on improving them.  Mpc...not so much.