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: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03 (Read 1062 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Are they both the same?, or is AoTuv gains so minimal that it not worth it?. Noticed that latest 192kbps blind test didn't try libvorbis only just the latest AoTuv.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

 

Re: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Reply #1
Using aotuv I really liked using the advanced options to my likings.

Re: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Reply #2
Using aotuv I really liked using the advanced options to my likings.

Is there a list of them?, Yeah i like how the bit rate will boost on complex stuff if only they did with puffy artifact. Since some songs need Q 9.2 to sound transparent but at least i can have 99.5% at 160kbps no problem.
Got locked out on a password i didn't remember. :/

Re: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Reply #3
I tried the following that did or I imagined made a difference to transients:

-q 3 --advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-15 --advanced-encode-option bit_reservoir_bias=0 --advanced-encode-option bit_reservoir_bits=4 --advanced-encode-option bitrate_average_damping=0.1


Re: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Reply #4
Those options are exposed in oggdropXPd. :)

Re: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Reply #5
-q 3 [...] --advanced-encode-option bit_reservoir_bits=4 [...]
"bit_reservoir_bits=N
              [...]  This option must be  used
              with  --managed  to have any effect and affects only minimum and
              maximum bitrate management.  Average bitrate  encoding  with  no
              hard bitrate boundaries does not use a bit reservoir."

Re: Libvorbis 1.3.7 vs AoTuv B6.03

Reply #6
m14u,
Thank you for the clarification on that parameter.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020