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: listening test at 160 kbps (Read 74620 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #75 –
Quote
question about vorbis megamix

between q 1 to q 2 and between q 4 to q 5 (e.g. q 1.50 and q 4.75) , what tuning encoder is chosen?

q 1 to q 2 -> aoTuV beta 2? QuantumKnot tune beta 3.2 + aoTuV beta 2? or both marge?

q 4 to q 5 -> QuantumKnot tune beta 3.2 + aoTuV beta 2? Galf Tuned 3 beta 2 + aoTuV beta 2? or both marge?

between q 1 and 2, I expect it to be partial QKTune with the full tunings coming into effect at 2.  Same for q 4 to 5 as well (partial QKTune, partial GT3b2).

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #76 –
So, is it safe to assume that the new Vorbis Megamix can be used outside of testing?

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #77 –
Quote
Quote
question about vorbis megamix

between q 1 to q 2 and between q 4 to q 5 (e.g. q 1.50 and q 4.75) , what tuning encoder is chosen?

q 1 to q 2 -> aoTuV beta 2? QuantumKnot tune beta 3.2 + aoTuV beta 2? or both marge?

q 4 to q 5 -> QuantumKnot tune beta 3.2 + aoTuV beta 2? Galf Tuned 3 beta 2 + aoTuV beta 2? or both marge?

between q 1 and 2, I expect it to be partial QKTune with the full tunings coming into effect at 2.  Same for q 4 to 5 as well (partial QKTune, partial GT3b2).

i understood.

thank you, QuantumKnot. you are great!!!!
<name>madoka</name>

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #78 –
Quote
So, is it safe to assume that the new Vorbis Megamix can be used outside of testing?

I think more listening tests on a range of q values would be needed as Vorbis Megamix may still regress in some ranges for some samples.    But if you feel adventurous, you can always try it (on stuff that you can re-encode later if needed)

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #79 –
I've finished up some tests feature aoTuVb2 -q 4.47 and Megamix -q 4.00. I cut other encoders down to spare time.



Conclusion: I haven't been able to find any regression(i.e. additional hiss) with Megamix at least for these samples at -q4.

I'm impressed with Megamix especially for harpsichord sample(Sarabande, not perfect though).

Anyhow, since I still have trouble with HA's uploader, I uploaded  Ravel_Alborada.flac at my hosting space as well. This is a kind of "sharp attack" sample.

pre-echo_q4_results.zip

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #80 –
I've compiled a linux static megamix binary if anybody wants to try this on linux:

http://www.caddr.com/oggenc

Many thanks to all of you for your work on vorbis!

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #81 –
Considering this tests and my personal ones, it appears that the megamix is indeed not a regression comparate to oaTuVb2 :-)
It also seems that oaTuVb2 + QK is better than oaTuVb2 + GT3b2 (and with less bitrate) ... I've donne several tests at -q5 and oaTuVb2 + QK really works great. I can't ear any hiss problem with it :-) So I really would like to test oaTuVb2 + QK tuned for all quality levels...
oaTuVb2 + QK at -q7 may be transparent for everybody and for everything  and with a little bit more tuning on microattacks, ogg/vorbis will be able to replace MPC ;-)
QuantumKnot, what do you think about that ? 

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #82 –
Quote
I've compiled a linux static megamix binary if anybody wants to try this on linux:

http://www.caddr.com/oggenc


Thanx kuniklo! Goo Goo Dolls' Gutterflower sounds great at q7.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #83 –
Do you think we can get an oggdropXPd build using the megamix code?

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #84 –
Quote
Considering this tests and my personal ones, it appears that the megamix is indeed not a regression comparate to oaTuVb2 :-)
It also seems that oaTuVb2 + QK is better than oaTuVb2 + GT3b2 (and with less bitrate) ... I've donne several tests at -q5 and oaTuVb2 + QK really works great. I can't ear any hiss problem with it :-) So I really would like to test oaTuVb2 + QK tuned for all quality levels...
oaTuVb2 + QK at -q7 may be transparent for everybody and for everything  and with a little bit more tuning on microattacks, ogg/vorbis will be able to replace MPC ;-)
QuantumKnot, what do you think about that ? 

Given some time, I can probably tune all the way up to q 10 but my ears aren't that sensitive to pre-echo at these high bitrates.  It happens that q 2, 3, 4, 5 had serious issues with pre-echo, to the point where I was able to discern quite easily.  Any type of tuning I do at q > 6 would be similar to GT3b2, but I'll be aiming for less bits.  We'll see whether I have some spare time.  By the time I do, aoyumi or Monty will probably have a better version out. hehe

As for Vorbis replacing MPC on things like microattacks, I doubt we'll see that in the foreseeable future.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #85 –
Quote
Do you think we can get an oggdropXPd build using the megamix code?

Sure can.  Sorry, I've been a bit distracted of late with system rebuild and heavy video encoding.  Give me a few hours and I'll see what I can do.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #86 –
Quote
Do you think we can get an oggdropXPd build using the megamix code?

At Rarewares now in P3 and P4 versions.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #88 –
Thanks for the build. It works fine.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #89 –

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #90 –
I want to do the download.
But, the connection is failed at a http://www.rarewares.org/ site. 

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #91 –
I am expecting the Oggenc2.3 P4.
Because the oggenc-megamix.exe is too slow on my computer

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #92 –
Quote
I am expecting the Oggenc2.3 P4.
Because the oggenc-megamix.exe is too slow on my computer

OK, I hear you!!  I'll do it soon.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #93 –
Thank you!!!!

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #94 –
Quote
I am expecting the Oggenc2.3 P4.
Because the oggenc-megamix.exe is too slow on my computer

Done.  ICL 7.1 compiles now at Rarewares.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #95 –
I get it.    it works fine. 

Thank you!!

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #96 –
Quote
Quote
I am expecting the Oggenc2.3 P4.
Because the oggenc-megamix.exe is too slow on my computer

Done.  ICL 7.1 compiles now at Rarewares.

The "about" box reports vorbis Post Release 1.0.1 CVS with OggDrop Megamix. Didn't know if that's OK.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #97 –
If you ever get bored john33  you can update the quality management mode slider control to go down to -2 since the current batch of encoders recognize this quality level.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #98 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
I am expecting the Oggenc2.3 P4.
Because the oggenc-megamix.exe is too slow on my computer

Done.  ICL 7.1 compiles now at Rarewares.

The "about" box reports vorbis Post Release 1.0.1 CVS with OggDrop Megamix. Didn't know if that's OK.

Yeah, that's OK. I was in a hurry and forgot to update the box. I assume the vendor string says the right thing?

I'll update the box and reload in the next couple of hours.  Thanks for letting me know.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #99 –
  Why the song using oggdropXPd is not the same size as the one using Oggenc2.3 P4 or oggenc-megamix.exe.
I see the song's size with Foobar.