Skip to main content
Topic: Vorbis 1.1 vs Vorbis aoTuVb3 (Read 10991 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vorbis 1.1 vs Vorbis aoTuVb3

Reply #25
I have now  listened to 37 samples + the 4 samples in the post above by nyaochi. My main conclusion is that my hearing isn't that good

Most of  the tracks was abx'able vs the original, but hearing differences between xiph and archer was close to impossible.
Of the 37 samples I could only abx between xiph and aotuvPB4 on 2 samples.
I thought I could hear differences for like 6-7 of them, but not abx able below a usable margin.
Mostly get it right the first 5-6 tries then I might just have been kidding myself or getting listening fatigue.

I agree with nyaochi that this is very hard. For his 4 samples I could only abx the mint one. But my conclusion is the opposite of his.
It comes down to preference in artifacts, but I think aoTuv pb4 was closest to the original in overall "sound".

The main info I want to get across is this:
if you hate the treble boost effect, and listen to alot of transients go for aoTuvbp4
but then you get more stereo wobble and swoshy sound effects in the background.
xiph seems to preserve less stereo, but more stable sound with less stereo wobble/swoosh. Worse on some types of transients.
However the differences are so small it borders on academic for the most part in my opinion.

What DOES stand out is the typical vorbis artifact of  tonal vibrato effect. Which after debate in another thread seems to be linked to how vorbis handles stereo.
This effect completely dwarfs everything else to my ears, and is readily apparent on almost all tracks where stereo is used heavily, like live recordings etc.
the pre-echo , noise modulation,  treble boost and background swosh are not annoying to me at this bitrate. The vibrato/wobble effect is , big time.
I could hear no difference between the candidates with regard to this effect.
I repeat my conclusion from another thread where one track was encoded as dual mono with same bitrate and sounded better than normal vorbis:
it is here where the potential for improvements in vorbis really lies and where people doing tunings should put their effort. 

Now, if I had to choose one of them I'd choose aoTuv pb4, as it for the most part maintains the "sound" from the original slightly better to my ears.
But since my ears apparently isn't that golden, I wish some guru's might take some time off to test a few samples before the listening test starts

Vorbis 1.1 vs Vorbis aoTuVb3

Reply #26
I've just done a quick retest of the SinceAlways sample, using vorbis 1.1, aoTuvb3 and this time adding aoTuV pb4 20050412.  Here are the results:

Code: [Select]
ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: SinceAlways

1R = SinceAlways-Vorbis-aoTuV-b3.wav
2R = SinceAlways-Vorbis-aoTuV-pb4-20050412.wav
3L = SinceAlways-Vorbis-1.1.wav

General Comments:

1R File: SinceAlways-Vorbis-aoTuV-b3.wav
1R Rating: 2.5
1R Comment: HF Boost
Stereo Collapse
2R File: SinceAlways-Vorbis-aoTuV-pb4-20050412.wav
2R Rating: 3.0
2R Comment: HF Boost
3L File: SinceAlways-Vorbis-1.1.wav
3L Rating: 2.5
3L Comment: HF Boost
Stereo Collapse

ABX Results:
Original vs SinceAlways-Vorbis-aoTuV-b3.wav
   16 out of 18, pval < 0.001
Original vs SinceAlways-Vorbis-aoTuV-pb4-20050412.wav
   16 out of 18, pval < 0.001
Original vs SinceAlways-Vorbis-1.1.wav
   10 out of 10, pval < 0.001

Interestingly, I noticed different artifacts to the last time I tested this sample in this thread.  aoTuV pb4 sounded the best of the three, this time around.  It sounded less coarse and less stereo collapse, compared to the other two.

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020