Skip to main content
Topic: Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa (Read 22159 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #100
Beatles,

Please contact me at: -  I will supply you with the latest build of AACEnc

-- Ivan

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #101
Ivan, have many improvements been made quality-wise since the september build of aac-enc?  I'm just interested to know how its coming along.  And another question, how much quality do you think can be brought out of aac as a format for archiving?  Do you think it would be possible to improve quality much more at the top end?  Also, Beatles, do you mind sharing your tweaked mpc command line that you have created?


Jordan

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #102
There were some changes related to ATH and presets, but they do not affect quality too much (except some rare cases with ATH overmasking)

AAC has great potential for archival-like encoding, however it is under question what is the exact legal status and situation with AAC, since patent holders are not interested in making another general-purpose format.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #103
Currently using this commandline. Gives nice results with a BR in the low 500s.
-nmt 16 -tmn 32 -ms 0 -minSMR 30 -cvd 0 -ans 0 -tmpMASK 0

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #104
With this type of bitrate, you might do better with Matt's lossy (not lossless) Monkey's Audio (which he has declined to develop).  Contact me if you would like to play around with this.  I believe I still have it saved on my hard drive.  If not, several other people should have it.

ff123 (miyaguch@eskimo.com)

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #105
Quote
Originally posted by ff123
With this type of bitrate, you might do better with Matt's lossy (not lossless) Monkey's Audio (which he has declined to develop).  Contact me if you would like to play around with this.  I believe I still have it saved on my hard drive.  If not, several other people should have it.

ff123 (miyaguch@eskimo.com)


Hi there,

Yes I have been trying it out.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #106
How does the quality of the lossy monkey encoder compare to the equivalent bitrate mpc file?  Doesn't that encoder use a similar method to ADPCM?  Have you tried Rkau's lossy encoder?  I think I recall that these types of codecs don't have artifacts, but have a sort of harmonic distortion.  Is this correct?  And would this type of distortion be audible?  A 1:4 ratio for encoding to these formats would be quite acceptable, if there is no audible distortion.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #107
I was never able to hear a difference from the original when using lossy Monkey's.  Neither was Hans or David Robinson.  However, the Monkey himself (Matt) claimed to hear a difference, and halted work on this shortly thereafter.  I would expect that an audible difference might be similar to the type of difference one hears between undithered and dithered 16-bit audio.  I know I certainly can't hear that, although some people apparently can.

ff123

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #108
Quote
Originally posted by ff123
I was never able to hear a difference from the original when using lossy Monkey's.  Neither was Hans or David Robinson. 
Nor myself. I tried to get Matt to continue with it but what can you do? I still have it if anyone wants to check it out.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #109
Does anybody know how Rkau's VRQ lossy mode compares to lossy monkeys audio.  I use the -v2 setting and end up with files about 1/4 the size of a normal wave.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #110
I remember both RKAU and Wavpack performing worse than lossy ape, on a few tough artificial samples, at 400+ bitrates.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #111
In the newest WavPack (3.92) lossless compression is much improved (faster and better compression). I don't know about lossy, but because of the imrovements in the lossless routines, maybe lossy has also improved.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #112
On the Wavpack website, it said that lossy compression has about 1 dB less noise than in the previous versions.

Jordan

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #113
Beatles,

<rant=on>
I now see why you are so skeptical about re-mastered stuff. As you said,
Quote
Originally posted by Beatles
On Every Street is deservedly known as an extremely good dynamic recording.

I have borrowed the 1996 remastered version of that album from a friend of mine (it's part of a complete series of "Dire Straits Remastered" CDs released in 1996):

"Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering".

Right, and guess what: The bass is now at full level on many of the tracks, but the nice dynamics on "On Every Street" (the original 1991 release really sounded beautiful) are, like, gone. Some of the other tracks sound better than before, though.

What do these people do when they remaster an album, for heaven's sake? I don't get it  (Besides: Since the original 1991 release already was a fully digital recording, why is there any need to remaster that album?  )
</rant>

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #114
Volcano,

You're right, I thought, obviously stupidly, that the main idea of digital re-mastering was to 'repair' old analogue recordings, not to mess with something already in digital form and, what's more, in the form that the original artists wanted it to be! :confused:

john33
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #115
Beatles, I think most of the people are interested in ABX tests with mpc -xtreme -insane and/or psytel -extreme or -archiving. Tell us your results (are you willing to do it?),  if you ear any difference comparing with original. The bitrates your talking about (400-500) aren´t the objective of lossy formats, so I think it´s not practical and interesting for the majority of the users.

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #116
What happened to Beatles?

Was I dreaming, or did he supply ABX results with Madonna's "Frozen"? If he did, I can't find them with the search facility.

Can someone please paraphrase (or link to) what happened (if anything!).

Cheers,
David.
http://www.David.Robinson.org/

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #117
Beatles did not post ABX results, but Garf did.  A difference was heard, according to the ABX results, but it apparently is quite subtle, taking many trials to achieve significance.  The difference was described as a spreading out of the sibilance in MPC xtreme.

ff123

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #118
<OT>
Quote
Originally posted by Volcano
<rant=on>
[...]
</rant>

I take that back, it's nothing like a bad remaster, it's a damn good one, in fact. I have listened to the album on _real_ equipment, which brought to light things that my own stereo system didn't. Jeeez 
</OT>

Is there any listening results for Psytel AAC v1.2 vs MusePa

Reply #119
hi

i had read all posts of the thread last night.

1.Although there is not a result, the discussion is interesting;
  as if  we all can't get same decision about a specific codec.


2. how about the recording engineer?
    is he doing ABX testing to MPC and AAC?
  (about a month passed)
  is it another unsettled question?

regards.

P.S. :  I also wish to read testing result of him.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019