Skip to main content

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps (Read 2388 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #25

Musepack has transparent transients but it’s very slightly noisy on high frequencies of tonality.
Its high frequency muffling which is perceived as very slightly dull + flat noise addition.


Do you think that using lowpass filter switch (--bw 16500 or 17200) would help Musepack to achieve better results?

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #26
@C.R.Helmrich
I'm agree with your observations. All post-MP3 formats are generally on par on such bitrate.

Clearly in the grand scheme of things such killer samples aren't that common, esp the Fatboy one, ...
Transients aren't that uncommon. Electronic music is full of them.

Also You make accent only on Fatboy sample and I've alredy mentioned to You that it wasn't the only sample where exhale had an issue.
One of another samples where exhale wasn't transparent is EIG ... which also has transients.

I 'm wondering if the results will be the same if the test is realized with hifi speakers...
Everything is transparent

Do you think that using lowpass filter switch (--bw 16500 or 17200) would help Musepack to achieve better results?
I don't know and I have no plans to dig into that.
As for me, only recommended default settings. Any deviation from default can work for one individual but can break the things for others. Not my type of fun.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #27
 Does anyone has tried opusrug? Is it competitive with some rock, melodic music? How does it score with fatboy or enolaguy? Do you think change the tonality target to 1.2f default could help with pads at low bitrate such as 32 kbps (Romanian music) while reducing the accuracy only a bit?
Anyone interested to try it in Linux?

So far it doesn't beat quality records with pop and it isn't miracles like Jpeg XL, Nero AAC ABR two-pass 69 kbps can sound good on unreleased pop. Also nobody has produced a bitstream of it in Linux and as I heard developers aren't interested because I didn't compile myself and the program should be up to master at least or use opusfile latest, I don't think j m valin or some other opus contributors have read my thread.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #28
Thanks very much, Igor, for this high-bit-rate test! It is very helpful for me, as the developer of exhale, since my hearing is not good enough anymore for testing such high rates myself.
You're always welcome, Chris.  :)
I didn't answer soon because was recovering from covid.  It's all ok now.

Second cent
Indeed, Igor, the reason is an excessive chain of transients on the first half of Fatboy. A few weeks ago I had a possible solution for this, but at the lower bit-rates it degraded the audio quality on some other samples, so I decided not to follow up on that issue. And, as Kamedo2 mentioned, at 96 kbit/s, where the overall audio quality is lower, the score on Fatboy doesn't degrade much more (3.5), see his personal test.
I see.  As from exhale's topic it's pretty clear that now its priority is lower bitrates <= 96 kbps.  And I can't be more agree with that. There is no reason to work on xHE-AAC and bitrates higher than 96 kbps when LC-AAC with its expired patents does excellent on such high bitrates. Last time I've tried exhale 1.0.7.0 @ 96 kbps and similar bitrates it was the best encoder and performed on par with Opus.

The main targent of this test was "MP3 vs post-MP3 codecs at high bitrate". I suspected but wasn't sure that all post-MP3 encoders were going to perform on par. Detecting where xHE-AAC has some issues was a by-product. Exhale here was for a complete picture, as just another post-MP3 encoder.

Take care, guys

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #29
Musepack can go above 320kbps even at --standard, I have some tracks reaching 390 ~ 800kbps. Yet with AAC/Vorbis on tracks like that don't do that despite having no frame limit like MP3/Opus. Yet on Noise/synth focused samples transform codecs really hate it, There some samples i have where the either artifact or have horrid bitrate bloat.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #30
I didn't answer soon because was recovering from covid.  It's all ok now.
Ouch! I'm glad you recovered!
There is no reason to work on xHE-AAC and bitrates higher than 96 kbps ... Last time I've tried exhale 1.0.7.0 @ 96 kbps and similar bitrates it was the best encoder and performed on par with Opus.
I'm glad to hear that. Still, your test sparked my motivation to look at exhale's handling of transients once more. Attached an experiment which, hopefully, improves the Fatboy sample a bit. I can hardly hear a difference. Could you compare this against the encoding in your test if you have time, please?

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #31
Chris,

Yes,  now it's much better.

Code: [Select]
ABC/HR Version 1.1 beta 2, 18 June 2004
Testname:

1R = C:\Audio\15_samples\Personal Test 192 kbps\exhale m9 192 kbps\fatboy_exhale_cvbr9_exp17-brmRS2.wav
2R = C:\Audio\15_samples\Personal Test 192 kbps\exhale m9 192 kbps\13 fatboy_30sec.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1R File: C:\Audio\15_samples\Personal Test 192 kbps\exhale m9 192 kbps\fatboy_exhale_cvbr9_exp17-brmRS2.wav
1R Rating: 4.6
1R Comment:
---------------------------------------
2R File: C:\Audio\15_samples\Personal Test 192 kbps\exhale m9 192 kbps\13 fatboy_30sec.wav
2R Rating: 4.0
2R Comment: Some  ghost speech in R channel.
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
C:\Audio\15_samples\Personal Test 192 kbps\exhale m9 192 kbps\fatboy_exhale_cvbr9_exp17-brmRS2.wav vs C:\Audio\15_samples\Personal Test 192 kbps\exhale m9 192 kbps\13 fatboy_30sec.wav
    5 out of 5, pval = 0.031

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #32
Great, thanks a lot! That would, hypothetically, result in an average score of almost 4.91 on your test set, assuming of course that no other samples are degraded in audio quality. I'll check if that's the case and then add this fix to the upcoming exhale 1.0.8 release.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #33
Has anyone here tested MPC at Q4.5 which is 160kbps VBR?, Would be fun too see how it fairs to AAC/Ogg/Opus there. No idea why people are perplexed MPC is transparent within 130 ~ 200kbps despite being pretty much modern MP2. It already uses PNS when under 128kbps & i wonder if that helping it a bit even at 200kbps?.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Personal blind listening test – MultiCodec at ~192 VBR kbps

Reply #34
I'm back on HA.org
I'm truly impressed by this test Igor: I know how hard it is to get usable results at such high bitrate. Well done!
Result is not a real surprise to me: MP3 struggles with pre-echo/killer samples and increasing the bitrate doesn't always help.
Post-MP3 formats are therefore better but not equally. However it's very difficult to show on a listening test.

Still, this test shows that an alternative to MP3 is preferable even near 200 kbps.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020