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: Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings (Read 11987 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

I have analysed the actual Quality Settings structure of Ogg Vorbis & get to the conclusion that Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings were not like they should have been, actually we have:

Normal Mode Quality Settings: (MP3 friendly)
NQS: Normal Quality Settings

Quality / Nominal Bitrate / Nominal Bitrate Jump

NQS-1,0  =      45Kbps
NQS-0,5  =      55Kbps            +10Kbps

NQS+0,0  =      64Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+0,5  =      72Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+1,0  =      80Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+1,5  =      88Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+2,0  =      96Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+2,5  =    104Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+3,0  =    112Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+3,5  =    120Kbps            +8Kbps
NQS+4,0  =    128Kbps            +8Kbps

NQS+4,5  =    144Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+5,0  =    160Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+5,5  =    176Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+6,0  =    196Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+6,5  =    208Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+7,0  =    224Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+7,5  =    240Kbps            +16Kbps
NQS+8,0  =    256Kbps            +16Kbps

NQS+8,5  =    288Kbps            +32Kbps
NQS+9,0  =    320Kbps            +32Kbps

NQS+9,5  =    410Kbps            +90Kbps
NQS+10    =    500Kbps            +90Kbps

So +1 in Quality Setting sometimes means +10, +8, +16, +32, +90Kbps, which is not very clear IMHO, Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings seems to be directly inspired from MP3 Lame Alt Presets ... which is good for newbies & can help when you begin with Ogg... but with time you soon realize that Ogg has not much to do with MP3 Lame ...
... Ogg works with nominal bitrate, MP3 Lame Presets doesn't ...
so finally I get to the conclusion that Ogg Vorbis Settings should have been this way:

Advanced Mode Quality Settings: (not MP3 friendly)
AQS: Advanced Quality Settings

AQS-10    =      0Kbps           
AQS-9,5  =      8Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-9,0  =      16Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-8,5  =      24Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-8,0  =      32Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-7,5  =      40Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-7,0  =      48Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-6,5  =      56Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-6,0  =      64Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-5,5  =      72Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-5,0  =      80Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-4,5  =      88Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-4,0  =      96Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-3,5  =    104Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-3,0  =    112Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-2,5  =    120Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-2,0  =    128Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-1,5  =    136Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-1,0  =    144Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS-0,5  =    152Kbps            +8Kbps

AQS+0,0  =    160Kbps            +8Kbps

AQS+0,5  =    168Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+1,0  =    176Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+1.5  =    184Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+2,0  =    192Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+2,5  =    200Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+3,0  =    208Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+3,5  =    216Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+4,0  =    224Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+4,5  =    232Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+5,0  =    240Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+5,5  =    248Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+6,0  =    256Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+6,5  =    264Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+7,0  =    272Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+7,5  =    280Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+8,0  =    288Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+8,5  =    296Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+9,0  =    304Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+9.5  =    312Kbps            +8Kbps
AQS+10    =    320Kbps            +8Kbps

AQS+20    =    480Kbps           

Doing so you would have had a very beautifull scale from -10 to +10 with 160NKbps (The standard & default setting) being Q0, & a fix step of +1=+16Kbps

Am I alone to think that this would have been much better ???
Hey Monty  you did a real good job but you should have linked the Quality Settings structure to nominal bitrates, not to MP3 Lame settings, come on it's not that hard to fix, is it ? & it's not too late to includes these in Ogg Vorbis V1.1, before Theora comes out
I know changing Quality Settings will be missleading, but Ogg Vorbis is still young, & if everyone thinks it's better ... that can be bad 

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #1 –
naah you are forgeting that +8kbits does less in the high bitrates as it is a percetage smaller increase

thats why you make bigger and bigger jumps.

E.G
a man erning 100us a month would be happy for an extra 8 buck
a man erning 1million would not even feel the extra money.

Same goes with bitrates

64 kbis +8kbits gives a noticabel incrrrease
320kbits +8kbits wouldn't matter much

how ever
320+32 would better as now it actual has an effect
Sven Bent - Denmark

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #2 –
sven_Bent:
well  personnaly I don't really "forget" that the more bitrate is high the less increasing kbps is usefull ... I am quite aware of it but linking the quality setting to this equation is not needed IMHO ...
the quality settings I produced give negative results on Kbps that are "generally" accepted as not transparent & positive one on birates that are "generally" transparent  for music ripping which is IMHO much more selfspeaking for a newbie ...
wonder what are the quality settings made for ?
quality setting are (according to me) made to help people that don't know anything in audio, so even a total newbie can have a clue of which quality he will get by reading the sentence "alt preset standard" of MP3 Lame or by reading " transparent" in MP4 nero, what does oggenc Q3 or CDex Q5 tells to a newbie ?
quite nothing if you refer to the many posts that ask which ogg setting to use ...
I think that a newbie would not naturaly use a negative quality setting
so it's easier for newbies I think (but I may be wrong ... dunno)

secondly I think that if someone is really wishing to use a 8Kbps step increase he will do it weither the quality setting use this step kbps jump or not ...
according to my experience most ripper naturaly dislike half quality setting, quality 4,5-6,5-7,5-8,5 are very unusual ... the exception to this is quality 5.5 176NKbps because transparency is reached somewhere between Q5 & Q6 so I already found several people ripping in Q5.5 thinking it's the absolute optimized setting, weither they're right or wrong doesn't matter it just proved the scale wasn't spreaded enought & my "advanced quality setting" "legalize" Q5.5 as a rounded setting as it becomes Q1 ...

so further than all I already said my Advanced Quality Settings as 2 advantages over the official one:
1: negative settings will prevent newbie from doing "bad" rips
2: increasing the scale will make settings like 176NKbps become more popular, & my experience told me many halved settings are not worst then rounded one

personnaly I think actual Q5 & Q6 are IMHO the optimized settings in ogg but I think  that a 200-208-216Nominal Kbps are more optimized then an actual Q7 224NKbps rip why ? because I hear no difference between actual Q6 & Q7 as I can't ABX it, so I prefer 200-208-216Nominal Kbps as they would all sound as good & would have a smaller size.
Edit1: so 8-16-32Kbps jumps might be clever in term of real quality jumps, but these "exponential" steps just make newbies make exponential errors & big files without real gain, the exact contrary of the optimization it's supposed to do.

with my Quality Settings scale 200-208-216Nominal Kbps become Q2-2,5-3 & people can "naturally" use it, without any advanced knowledge on Ogg

Edit2: Indeed making actual halved setting like Q5.5 176NKbps become a rounded one will maybe just lead some people, to using the other new halved settings, but this is not a problem, as with the new scale each setting really means something: half setting=+8 & full setting=+16kbps jumps
... doing so each nominal bitrate would be given a chance ... & some actually not used nominal birate really deserve it IMHO ... 

the worst thing with the actual Ogg Vorbis Quality Setting is that it formats people's mind to use Ogg Vorbis as if it were MP3 Lame & I really think that
1: this misslead people on what is a good or bad nominal bitrate
2: Ogg Vorbis deserve more than that

Come on free your mind, THINK Vorbis, not MP3

Edit3:
Here is the exact same the Advanced Quality Settings scale, but without the halved settings, I thought that it might look less frightening or more familiar for those that still "think MP3"

AQS-10 = 0Kbps
AQS-9,0 = 16Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-8,0 = 32Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-7,0 = 48Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-6,0 = 64Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-5,0 = 80Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-4,0 = 96Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-3,0 = 112Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-2,0 = 128Kbps +16Kbps
AQS-1,0 = 144Kbps +16Kbps

AQS+0,0 = 160Kbps +16Kbps

AQS+1,0 = 176Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+2,0 = 192Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+3,0 = 208Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+4,0 = 224Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+5,0 = 240Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+6,0 = 256Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+7,0 = 272Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+8,0 = 288Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+9,0 = 304Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+10 = 320Kbps +16Kbps

AQS+20 = 480Kbps

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #4 –
PoisonDan:
??? I am not sure I understand well ???
but changing the quality setting scale would not affect at all the tunings made for the existing quality settings ???
64Kbps Nominal Ogg Vorbis would still be 64Kbps Nominal Ogg Vorbis,
weither it's Q0 actual scale or Q-6 advanced scale doesn't have anything to do with it ??? or maybe you mean something else I didn't get ?

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #5 –
OggZealot, Sorry to say it this way but you seem to walk backwards instead of forwards.
You seem to suggest in your post to "Make ogg-Vorbis CBR" ( as you are trying to map exactly the Q's to bitrates ).

I don't really understand why you are trying to compare Vorbis to LAME, since LAME doesn't have at all a "Q" setting ( ok, it has, but not with the same meaning ). Rather, MusePack does have a Q setting, and it is REALLY a VBR codec.
Suggest anything like you've said here for MPC, and people will Laught out loud at you.

But I'm not writing here to laught at you, rather, to make you understand what are your wrong assumptions.

You have tested that there are some approximate jumps in bitrate when changing the Q. This is to be expected as bitrate is a factor of the quality, between others.

Now, looking directly at your suggestion, other people has already suggested you that higher bitrates need higher jump, as it wouldn't be as noticeable as in low bitrates.
Appart of that, I don't see how a scale between 160 and 320, instead of one between 64 and 500 is any better. It's like saying that the other settings are useless,and in these boards there are people ripping at Q 3 and even Q 1. Are those people wrong for you?


To finish this. If you are expecting to control the bitrate that Vorbis outputs, I believe you have chosen the wrong codec. Take LAME CBR or ABR and you'll have it all the way.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #6 –
Seems that some people have too much time on their hands 

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #7 –
Please note that the "nominal bitrate" in Vorbis is just an indicator, it has no connection to the actual inner workings of Vorbis.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #8 –
Quote
PoisonDan:
??? I am not sure I understand well ???
but changing the quality setting scale would not affect at all the tunings made for the existing quality settings ???
64Kbps Nominal Ogg Vorbis would still be 64Kbps Nominal Ogg Vorbis,
weither it's Q0 actual scale or Q-6 advanced scale doesn't have anything to do with it ??? or maybe you mean something else I didn't get ?

Your proposed method will discourage the use of low bitrates, while this is one of Vorbis' great strengths.

AFAIK, Vorbis has been mostly tuned for low bitrates, and on this area it is a real contender (well, somewhat less since we have HE-AAC), and much better than MP3.

On higher bitrates, the difference between MP3 and Vorbis is quite small.

So to conclude: there are very good reasons to use low bitrates in Vorbis, and there is no need to discourage them.

Oh, and I also agree with NumLOCK: I'm amazed that you put so much effort in such a trivial thing as bitrate differences between -q values (i.e. most users, including me, couldn't care less).
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #9 –
[JAZ] :
"You seem to suggest in your post to "Make ogg-Vorbis CBR" "
I am not trying to link at all my scale to a CBR but to nominal bitrates, ABR would have been a much appropriate term though I really dislike speaking of Vorbis in ABR terms as Ogg Vorbis refers to a no-optimized MP3 setting in most people mind, & the optimized ABR used by vorbis is in quality term equivalent to VBR.
weither you like or not actual quality setting are already linked to nominal settings you called "CBR" & if Quality Setting would not exist we would all speak of nominal bitrates ...
So no I definitly don't think I am going backward.

"You have tested that there are some approximate jumps"
==> ... nominal bitrate has nothing to do with approximation it's a fix number you can rely on ...

"Appart of that, I don't see how a scale between 160 and 320, instead of one between 64 and 500 is any better"
==> my scale is not 160-320 my scale is 64-500 too

"If you are expecting to control the bitrate that Vorbis outputs, I believe you have chosen the wrong codec"
==> sorry but Vorbis output is very predictable, even if has all VBR codec the outputs always vary

"It's like saying that the other settings are useless"
==> you didn't understund a word of what I was saying, plz re-read my previous post, I told that there are absolutly unused settings which I like & think are usefull !!!
I use 96Nkbps Q2 for video which is not in your  160-320 scale.

In my mind MPC is very similar to MP3 except its improved quality, the fact that you refer to it is funny too for me  (let's laught a little of each other  )
it proves you still "think MP3" personnaly I think MP3 Lame & MPC are obsolete codecs, compared to Ogg & Nero Mp4(aac).

After reading your answer I feel like speaking to a wall ...
according to what I read I guess you're an MPC zealot that doesn't know what he is speaking of when it comes to Ogg Vorbis ...
Nothing bad in it we all were newbie, & I still have a lot to learn here ... but damn telling me I am a CBR ogger is such an insult  nevermind that's all folks ...

I take your post as a joke

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #10 –
NumLOCK:
this seems completly useless at first lock, but I am quite sure quality settings has affected every of us in a way or another.

dev0:
I would be curious to know more about the link between nominal & "inner workings of Vorbis" ... as I said I still have a lot to learn

PoisonDan:
I agree with the fact that Vorbis is damn good at low bitrate & that giving low bitrate a negative quality setting can "at first look" give a bad idea of what Vorbis can achieve at these bitrates, but you know it's more logical ... "low"-bitrate low itself is negative ...

To everyone:
Indeed I agree too that the idea that Vorbis scale is not perfect is hard to accept ...
but come on I know bad habbit die hard ...
I know you must all see me as an "alien" but  think of it & maybe in a week or two the idea will not be so strange to your mind anymore

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #11 –
There is no link between the nominal bitrate and the inner workings of Vorbis. Your whole idea is completely absurd. Please try informing yourself by reading source/documentation next time.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #12 –
I 100% agree with dev0, but I just wanted to add one more thing (in case this thread gets locked ).

OggZealot, the -q values cannot be used to predict bitrates. There're quality indicators, not bitrate indicators. There's no definite correlation between the two.

So when you use Ogg Vorbis (or MPC for that matter), you should configure a quality level, not a bitrate setting. To use your terminology: think "quality", don't think "bitrate".

It's quite ironic that you accuse other people of "thinking MP3", while your obsession with bitrate is something I typically see with long-time MP3 users trying to get their head around the usage of -q values instead. So it seems you "think MP3" yourself, and more than you'd like to admit.

On a side note: I don't like the tone of your reply to [JAZ]'s post at all.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #13 –
@OggZealot

As far as my understanding goes, Q-Factors in Vorbis and Musepack are exactly what they are supposed to be ... they stand for a certain amount of listening quality and scale very well from lower Q to high Q.

Listening quality depends not only on the achieved compression rate (or bitrate if you like) ... Vorbis (if using the Q-switches) and Musepack are constant-quality-codecs which will give you an average bitrate that heavily varies with the music you feed the codecs ... "demanding" music will need more bitrate at a chosen q setting and the codec will therefore allocate more bitrate for that music.

BTW ... you are free to choose a q-factor of 4.56 when using Vorbis and Musepack ... you could do some statistics on that as well  ... no offense ;-)
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #14 –
dev0:
      LOL

PoisonDan:
If the problem is really negative settings, I have nothing against this personnaly,maybe you're right maybe it's even better ...

AQS+0 = 0Kbps
AQS+1 = 16Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+2 = 32Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+3 = 48Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+4 = 64Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+5 = 80Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+6 = 96Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+7 = 112Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+8 = 128Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+9 = 144Kbps +16Kbps

AQS+10 = 160Kbps +16Kbps

AQS+11 = 176Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+12 = 192Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+13 = 208Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+14 = 224Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+15 = 240Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+16 = 256Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+17 = 272Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+18 = 288Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+19 = 304Kbps +16Kbps
AQS+20 = 320Kbps +16Kbps

AQS+30 = 480Kbps

As you see I go forward

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #15 –
Quote
After reading your answer I feel like speaking to a wall ...

Yay! More irony!

I will repeat it again. Maybe if we all repeat it enough, you will understand.

Say after me:
There is no definite, predictable correlation between -q values and bitrates.

Different sounds will cause Vorbis to allocate a different number of bytes (hence, a different bitrate) for a given -q value. This is the way a true VBR codec works.

If Vorbis would use the same bitrate for a given -q value every time again, it would effectively be a CBR codec.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #16 –
On a side note: I don't like the tone of your reply to [JAZ]'s post at all
Well JAZ started mocking me  &  dev0: already punish by riculizing me
hey JAZ if I hurted you I apoligize  you see all i'm quite open ...

I don't really understand when you all say:
Quality Setting is so different than Nominal Bitrate
QS5=160NKbps & will always be ??? no ???

In a way you're right when you say I "think Bitrate" but I disagree when you say I "think MP3" ... I never collected ripped much in MP3 format at all so I am not at all "long-time MP3 users"... but I still think bitrates help for Ogg just because as I told for me QS=Selected Nonimal bitrates

(in case this thread gets locked) ==> ? you may dislike it but all I told to JAY was in a happy not serious tone lol ... again maybe this is due to bad english but I am not a troll ... would be a pity it get closed as I want Monty opinion on in even if like you all he really dislike it ... but I known from start many people would disagree ...

JeanLuc
nothing much to add  I agree with most of what you said, welcome in

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #17 –
@ OggZealot ...

Do you see what we want you to do ?

We want you to repeat (at least 500 times) the words "constant quality" ... just like a school teacher does with some sort of rebel student

By The Way ... why don't you go and write your own frontend which will wrap the existing q settings in your preferred syntax ? But think about the possibility of adjusting the q-level up to 1/100 ...
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #18 –
PoisonDan:
There is no definite, predictable correlation between -q values and bitrates. LOL

ah ok I think I finally get what you meant: at same nominal bitrates Vorbis give various average on different music ... if it's that ...
well I totally agree & this is clear to my mind from start  no need to argue,
still that at same nominal bitrates & on same sample vorbis is always predictable ... that's what I meant by "you can rely on nominal bitrates" ... sorry if it wasn't clear ...
I am a native french sorry ... much sorry for not being cristal clear

so we finally agree no ? & my all positive scale ? still not convinced ?

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #19 –
I'm not angry, it was my fault for not being clear enough.

As said by the others, the nominal bitrate is an indicator of the average bitrate that this setting produces. In hard samples, it will be much more, and in easy (or mono) samples, it will be less.

You are partially right in saying that Vorbis is quite predictable. It is actually too much, but not to the point that you suggest.

Vorbis, when using the Q setting, enables or disables several tools, and defines different thresholds, that end in using an amount of bits (bitrate). This size depends from sample to sample, but, of course, on the same sample it is always the same ( like 2+2 is always 4 ).

Your points seem to be two: Zoom the range  (hence, q0 = 160 and q10 = 320) allowing higher and lower Q numbers, and to make it more linearly.

About the first point, it isn't really needed. When you use q0 (as in "supposedly lowest" setting), you're not expecting a transparent file.
About the second point, there's no sense in making it linearly, as it is not predictable (it's just an (rounded) average)

If you still don't get what we are trying to say, try to be more concrete on what chokes to your understandings.



btw: I am not an MPC zealot, neither an ogg zealot, but i've been following both since the early days ( MPC when it was developped by Andree, and Ogg previous to the RC's ) but for reasons of compatibility, i haven't really left LAME.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #20 –
OggZealot, please try understanding the replies before continueing this discussion otherwise I'll have to close the thread, since it leads nowhere and will only cause further flaming (which I'm myself are guilty off too).

dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #21 –
OggZealot, your proposal is based on the belief that the nominal bitrate should depend on the quality in a linear fashion. That belief is arbitrary and mistaken. For reasons pointed out by sven_Bent in the first reply to your proposal, the current pseudo-exponential piecewise linear mapping is much better suited to describe distinguishable quality levels, and it's not going to change.

-Carsten Haese

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #22 –
Ok I understand, that my position is hard to defend against so many advanced users but there are some points I want to definitly clarify before we continue:

1: I DO understand that Nominal Bitrates are only a virtual usefull tools to work with,
that has always been clear in my mind, so the argue on weither if Nominal Bitrate is are predictable/relyable or not is CLOSED

2: There has never been real flamming-trolling here, we are gentlemen aren't we lol ? so this argue is CLOSED too

Due to these two missunderstandings the debate was leading nowhere & dev0 almost closed it, I asked him on IRC not close it & he was nice enought to let it go on a few more ...

so now that we all agree (cauz yes I admit always agreed with most of what have been said here, even if it doesn't seem to have always been the case)

We have the old quality settings that indicates the optimized settings, with real difference between settings

& we have what I proposed & what I say is not at all that the old quality settings points to bad nominal bitrates & what I say is:
old quality settings dismiss some multiple of +16Kbps nominal bitrates that would have wished it doesn't dismiss from the rounded settings that most of us use.

a jump between actual Q6 196Kbps & actual Q7 224Kbps is a 32Kbps jump:
like everyone of you told me this is the cleverer-optimised jump in term of pure quality & I AGREE with it.

now what I say is that I can't ABX Q6 & Q7 so I would prefer a wider scale in order that people wanting to use 208 or 216Nkbps would not be seen as exotic aliens because if these settings are not optimised in term of pure quality jump, still they "virtualy" outputs smaller files than official Q7, & so if you can't ABX Q6-Q7 SMALLER files are always BETTER

I hope I am clear: what I want with my new scale is not to tell old rounded setting are bad, what I want is to open rounded setting to actualy distrusted settings like 208 or 240 Nominal Bitrate which I agree might not be optimized in term of quality jump but is not a bad setting in term of quality/size ratio

There is nothing to lose with my new scale:
there are new rounded settings (which quality/size speaking are as good as the older even if the jump in quality is not significative) that people will start using.
(When I speak quality/size keep in mind that I speak for someone who can't ABX Q6 & Q7)
And everyone using an old rounded setting can still use a rounded setting as even if the number changed that change nothing to the nominal bitrates people use.

Keep also in mind that this is also a proposal, a topic made to discuss the idea of a new scale ... weither the idea is good or bad doesn't really matter

My knowledge is weak compared to many of you, but still I beggin to be a experienced Ogg user  now & if I opened a polemic topic that give violent reaction maybe that's cauz I touch a sensible Ogg weakness ... there are a lots of developpers here & sometimes developpers goes far from the "users friendlyness" they want to achieve, see my topic has a simple end-user feedback

If I think a linear scale is easier than an exponential scale for a not-experienced despite the fact that the exponential scale is more accurate for an experienced users like us all ... well that is only my humble opinion after all

I was sure I  would have a massive bad reaction, but wonder that:
99% of ogg users are not experienced a linear scale is easier for them
99% of ogg users can't ABX Q6-Q7 so an exponential scale drive them to exponential
quality/size errors
1% the remaining ogg users are experienced & experienced users like us know exactly which Nominal bitrates are optimized so a linear scale isn't a problem for them, like some of you said, they don't even care about the scale.

Whishing I was understund the right way this time.
Thks all for answers.

The Crazy LinearScaleZealot 

Edit:
Carsten Haese
even if nominal bitrates are not perfect this is the most accurate objective tool we have so far, the supposed 8-16-32 optimized increases is a fact I agree, but it's only true if you CAN abx the High bitrates, so it's partially objective (8-16-32 exponential optimized increases are true if you can ABX it) partially subjective (this exponential fact is lower by bad human ears) that's why with my crap end-user ears I prefer linear scale while your developper bionic ears prefer exponential scale

You may think the whole discussion was useless, but personnaly as an unusual topic I enjoyed it much, so thks all for contradicting me  it was a pleasure

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #23 –
Currently, the -q value can be anywhere from -1.00 to 10.00. Values like 3.14 or -0.99 are alowed, and allow intermediate values just fine.

Advanced Ogg Vorbis Quality Settings

Reply #24 –
What's wrong with using the -b switch to select quality mode? It's already mapped to the quality scale and is linear (and even equal) to the nominal bitrate.