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: Autumn 2006 Listening Test (Read 145782 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #200 –
Thanks. "seemed to work" - well, they do if they have the right syntax, but do people agree that they sound well? Are they recommended settings?
And do you guys think I should use some cryptic command line arguments or should I stick to the simple -V setting (and -X2 to write a Xing header with TOC)?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #201 –
Damn, still no reply from Helix / Real. Going to contact Karl on his private mail address. If I still don't get any answer, I think I am going with the VBR switch only (-Vwhatever -X2).

BTW, should I choose LAME 3.97b2 or b3? Gabriel?

One more thing - for Gogo, I tried encoding using -v 5 and -v 4. -v 5 averages 140 kbps and -v 4 120 kbps (20 tracks tested). The difference between Gogo and LAME seems to be around 5 kbps. Guess I will go with -v 5. Is this OK?

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #203 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
One more thing - for Gogo, I tried encoding using -v 5 and -v 4. -v 5 averages 140 kbps and -v 4 120 kbps (20 tracks tested). The difference between Gogo and LAME seems to be around 5 kbps. Guess I will go with -v 5. Is this OK?
Fine with me!
I'd go with lame 3.97b3.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #204 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
And do you guys think I should use some cryptic command line arguments or should I stick to the simple -V setting (and -X2 to write a Xing header with TOC)?
Will using -X2 affect quality in some ways?


According to the documentation, it only activates writing of Xing header with TOC. So, no, it should not affect quality.

Karl just replied:

Quote
sorry for not replying sooner. Audio encoding is simply not my area of
expertise. I would ask Jon Recker <#######@real.com>, one of our two
audio codec experts, but I spoke with him, and even he has not used this
MP3 encoder much, and I would not be too hopeful of an answer from him
either. Perhaps just a forum thread, the original thread for the release
of the encoder would be the best place to find an answer from the community.

Karl.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #205 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
One more thing - for Gogo, I tried encoding using -v 5 and -v 4. -v 5 averages 140 kbps and -v 4 120 kbps (20 tracks tested). The difference between Gogo and LAME seems to be around 5 kbps. Guess I will go with -v 5. Is this OK?


Hmm, 140 is 12 kbps over the nominal rate of 128, 120 is 8 under it. Wouldn't it be logical to pick the rate closest to nominal?
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #207 –
Quote
BTW, should I choose LAME 3.97b2 or b3? Gabriel?

3.97b3

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #209 –
I was away over a week. I am trying to catch up this thread now.


Quote
One more thing - for Gogo, I tried encoding using -v 5 and -v 4. -v 5 averages 140 kbps and -v 4 120 kbps (20 tracks tested). The difference between Gogo and LAME seems to be around 5 kbps. Guess I will go with -v 5. Is this OK?

I have had an impression that Gogo should be used with ABR at a bitrate like ~130 kbps. It is based on LAME 3.88 and VBR wasn't very matured at that time. Even LAME 3.9x ABR has been used at lower bitrates for example by Guruboolez until the most recent versions. I mentioned earlier that I have used command lines like this: "-a -b 192 -m j -q 2". For this test the command line could be like "-a -b 135 -m j" and the quality option 0, 1 or 2. (I have used -q 2 without any testing just because LAME 3.88 -h was mapped with the -q 2 option and it produced a good balance between the quality and speed).


Quote
sorry for not replying sooner. Audio encoding is simply not my area of
expertise. I would ask Jon Recker <#######@real.com>, one of our two
audio codec experts, but I spoke with him, and even he has not used this
MP3 encoder much, and I would not be too hopeful of an answer from him
either. Perhaps just a forum thread, the original thread for the release
of the encoder would be the best place to find an answer from the community.

I was afraid that this would be the answer. Perhaps it is then best to use the default VBR setting if it is not possible to pre-test encoders.


Quote
I just noticed that Nero does not write a VBRI header to MP3s with variable bitrate. Wondering if it's still based on FhG - still guess so, though.

Also the FhG encoder in Wavelab does not write a VBRI header for some reason.


It seems that no one has commented the decoder clipping issue I wrote about. Isn't it interesting or am I totally wrong in assuming that it may have some uncontrolled effect to the test results? (I'll try to do the listening test that I promised earlier now.)

Edit: typo

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #211 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
I just noticed that Nero does not write a VBRI header to MP3s with variable bitrate. Wondering if it's still based on FhG - still guess so, though.

Might just be an integration issue. You need to rewind in the stream to write the VBRI header, and this is not always possible.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #212 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Well, what can you do about the clipping?

That's a good question.

Because the users can avoid the mp3 decoder clipping issue in real life should a test also do that?

In my opinion the test samples that produce clipping should be MP3gained with maximum no-clip replay gain.

Another option would be to wavegain the samples before encoding if needed, but this is more complicated and possibly would result altered MP3 files because the source files would be changed.

In general, HA should advice how the users can avoid decoder clipping for getting the best mp3 decoding results. These instructions should be as strong as the recommended LAME settings. I don't think this is anything too complicated. Similarly HA has advised for years how LAME can be used properly.

Personally, I always apply maximum no-clip album gain after encoding in case the decoded files clip (I don't use MP3Gain's undo tags because I've had problems with converting the APE tags). After that I reanalyze the files with foobar2000 in album mode so that I can use all replay gain playback settings.

It would be nice if foobar2000 9.x had all options that are available in MP3gain. The needed engine is already built-in and the same results can be achieved by manual tweaking, but that is too complex so I just analyze the files twice.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #213 –
About iTunes's mp3 encoder:
the "vbr" mode can be safely used over cbr in the context of a 128-135kbps test. (according to Apple)

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #216 –
Are you going to set the test up before you travel to Romania Sebastian?
That would be great (in case you don't get a laptop there).
I simply can't wait to try out my new old phones in a proper listening test.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #217 –
Happily, I just got a reply from Fraunhofer Audio and Multimedia division:

Quote
thank you for your inquiry and my apologies for not responding earlier
to your email.

I'm not sure if we are in the right position to give a strong
recommendation for your planned listening test.
One reason is, that we're often not really aware which versions of our
mp3 libraries are used in a certain customer's product.

When browsing through the discussion thread a little, we at least would
not recommend to use the famous old hacked versions of our libraries,
like the fastencc, that is a buggy version from the 90ies afaik.

From our point of view, the command-line codecs available at
www.all4mp3.com are using our latest MP3 libraries. Besides the surround
capabilities, they offer CBR-encoding in stereo and mono. The encoder
implementation is optimized for high execution speed on modern machines.
These command-line codecs have been updated last week, mostly adding new
functionality for file handling and surround operation.

All the best and have fun with your listening test

-Johannes

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #218 –
Quote from: Hollunder on
Are you going to set the test up before you travel to Romania Sebastian?
That would be great (in case you don't get a laptop there).
I simply can't wait to try out my new old phones in a proper listening test.


I doubt it. We are leaving in three days and we still have to discuss samples. Anyways, once I get back late September, the test will follow in a few days.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #219 –
Quote from: Egor on
Happily, I just got a reply from Fraunhofer Audio and Multimedia division:

Quote
thank you for your inquiry and my apologies for not responding earlier
to your email.

I'm not sure if we are in the right position to give a strong
recommendation for your planned listening test.
One reason is, that we're often not really aware which versions of our
mp3 libraries are used in a certain customer's product.

When browsing through the discussion thread a little, we at least would
not recommend to use the famous old hacked versions of our libraries,
like the fastencc, that is a buggy version from the 90ies afaik.

From our point of view, the command-line codecs available at
www.all4mp3.com are using our latest MP3 libraries. Besides the surround
capabilities, they offer CBR-encoding in stereo and mono. The encoder
implementation is optimized for high execution speed on modern machines.
These command-line codecs have been updated last week, mostly adding new
functionality for file handling and surround operation.

All the best and have fun with your listening test

-Johannes

A tad off topic: anyone knows what actually happens (registry entry, file(s) saved somewhere, binary mod, etc.) when you accept the license agreement?
WavPack 5.7.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.80 -V 100

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #220 –
Quote from: DARcode on
A tad off topic: anyone knows what actually happens (registry entry, file(s) saved somewhere, binary mod, etc.) when you accept the license agreement?

C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\Application Data\Fraunhofer\MP3sCmdlEncDec\EulaEnc.txt is created

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #221 –
Quote from: mlb2gm5x on
Quote from: DARcode on

A tad off topic: anyone knows what actually happens (registry entry, file(s) saved somewhere, binary mod, etc.) when you accept the license agreement?

C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\Application Data\Fraunhofer\MP3sCmdlEncDec\EulaEnc.txt is created

Many thanks!
WavPack 5.7.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.80 -V 100

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #222 –
Quote
From our point of view, the command-line codecs available at
www.all4mp3.com are using our latest MP3 libraries. Besides the surround
capabilities, they offer CBR-encoding in stereo and mono. The encoder
implementation is optimized for high execution speed on modern machines.
These command-line codecs have been updated last week, mostly adding new
functionality for file handling and surround operation.


That still leaves the case of FhG VBR vs CBR... Could you ask specifically about that?
ruxvilti'a

Autumn 2006 Listening Test

Reply #224 –
New FhG Surround encoder (v1.2) claimed supporting piping from stdin, but I failed use
-if - -of %d -br 128000
with foobar2000's encoder setting for this codec.

I wonder if I uses the wrong command or the support of piping is buggy.