Skip to main content
Topic: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample) (Read 47815 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #25
Quote
can you nail down a freeformat@640?

If you mean "lame.exe --freeformat -b 640 *.wav", I cannot find how to decode it.


fb2k cannot play it. I am not on my home computer right now, but ... tried lame.exe --decode and then comparing the WAV's? Though, according to http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/freeformat.html , older Lame couldn't decode the highest-bitrate freeformats, but MAD can. http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/



Anyway, it must be useless.


Absolutely, except possibly for this particular purpose.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #26
Quote
Opusdec will decode at 44.1kHz, if the opus file was sourced from a 44.1kHz WAV. Maybe that's what softrunner meant.

Exactly. Surprisingly, foobar2000 decodes at 48kHz.

Quote
... tried lame.exe --decode and then comparing the WAV's?

It looks like it works:

d:\@Portable@\Audio\@Encoders@> lame.exe --decode test_freeformat_640.mp3
Input file is freeformat.
hip: bitstream problem, resyncing skipping 2088 bytes...
input:  test_freeformat_640.mp3  (44.1 kHz, 2 channels, MPEG-1 Layer III)
output: test_freeformat_640.wav  (16 bit, Microsoft WAVE)
skipping initial 1105 samples (encoder+decoder delay)
skipping final 1015 samples (encoder padding-decoder delay)
Frame#  308/308    168 kbps  MS

I'll try it later.
-----------------
To all. You may not believe me, but I've passed ABX test of Vorbis Q10 (619 kbps) 


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/24 00:58:35

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\test.flac
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\test (Vorbis q10,0).ogg

00:58:35 : Test started.
01:02:12 : 01/01  50.0%
01:04:00 : 01/02  75.0%
01:04:31 : 02/03  50.0%
01:05:51 : 03/04  31.3%
01:07:24 : 04/05  18.8%
01:08:09 : 05/06  10.9%
01:08:36 : 06/07  6.3%
01:08:59 : 07/08  3.5%
01:09:12 : 08/09  2.0%
01:10:02 : 09/10  1.1%
01:10:58 : 10/11  0.6%
01:11:39 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

The difference in signals is that in the original sample the background flow of noise is not interrupted, but in Vorbis it is got interrupted somehow, other signals overlap it, so that I am loosing it (cannot hear it constantly).

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #27
Quote
can you nail down a freeformat@640?

I've met some difficulties with it. I know that the difference is there (original sounds sharper), but I can't get enought percent in abx test for posting it (as I remember, I had 9 of 10 but then made some mistakes). For me it is painfull to search this difference, so I'd better focus on testing Opus.
In Opus tests I got stuck at 200+ kbps (300+ real bitrate), but on portable player I recognize at least 224 kbps (converted in vorbis q10), so have to try it more.

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #28
I wonder how a hybrid format would perform on this. Do you mind trying wavpack -b256hx4 or even -b352hx4
wavpack 4.8 -b256hx6c

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #29
LossyWAV, too.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #30
lossyWAV (standard) yields a bitrate of 907kbit/s compared to FLAC 1013kbit/s [attached]....
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848| FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S-

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #31
I'm curious, what sound card do you have, softrunner? I remember back in the old days my Sound Blaster Audigy, that was also AC'97 compatible, mutilated the output enough to make lossy codecs much easier to ABX.

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #32
Quote
I wonder how a hybrid format would perform on this. Do you mind trying wavpack -b256hx4 or even -b352hx4

Quote
lossyWAV (standard) yields a bitrate of 907kbit/s compared to FLAC 1013kbit/s [attached]....

Can't pass it. For me they sound like lossless.
By the way I have ABXed Musepack q10 to be sure I have not lost my sensitivity due to listening the same sample that much.

Musepack Q10 (420 kbps)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/27 04:02:32

File A: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\input\test.flac
File B: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\output\test (Musepack q10.0).mpc

04:02:32 : Test started.
04:16:17 : Trial reset.
04:17:35 : 01/01  50.0%
04:18:35 : 02/02  25.0%
04:20:18 : 02/03  50.0%
04:20:58 : 03/04  31.3%
04:21:56 : 04/05  18.8%
04:22:43 : 05/06  10.9%
04:23:38 : 06/07  6.3%
04:24:37 : 07/08  3.5%
04:26:31 : 08/09  2.0%
04:26:58 : 09/10  1.1%
04:29:16 : 10/11  0.6%
04:29:21 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

(it sounds smoothed on the background in the right channel)

Quote
I'm curious, what sound card do you have, softrunner?

It is just standard AC97 (ALC850).

Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #33
Opus 256 kbps (326 kbps) (git version from 10.11.2012)


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.16
2012/11/19 04:32:08

File A: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\output\FighterBeatLoop\FighterBeatLoop.flac
File B: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\output\FighterBeatLoop\FighterBeatLoop (Opus 256 kbps).opus

04:32:08 : Test started.
04:32:28 : 01/01  50.0%
04:32:53 : 02/02  25.0%
04:33:18 : 03/03  12.5%
04:35:05 : 03/04  31.3%
04:36:00 : 04/05  18.8%
04:37:36 : 05/06  10.9%
04:37:53 : 05/07  22.7%
04:38:14 : 06/08  14.5%
04:38:51 : 06/09  25.4%
04:39:56 : 07/10  17.2%
04:42:56 : 08/11  11.3%
04:45:31 : 09/12  7.3%
04:46:25 : 10/13  4.6%
04:47:15 : 11/14  2.9%
04:48:35 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/14 (2.9%)

Encoded sample sounds slightly poorer then the original one, with less amplitude of a saw-like sound.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #34
Sorry to bump this, but this statement (kills all lossy codecs) looked too interesting.
Is anyone able to reproduce this now in 2018 with Opus, or any other lossy codecs?
I tested this sample with Opus (version: opus-tools 0.1.10 using libopus 1.2.1, parameters: "--padding 0 --bitrate 185") and Musepack (mppenc  1.30.0, default settings), resulting file size was 235151 for Opus and 234736 bytes for MPC, in neither case could I hear any differences, and it looks like Musepack was not even updated since 2009, and people were able to hear the difference even at MPC max quality settings, so does that mean I am just deaf and should give it up? Or is it okay no not hear this if I am 27 years old?

I also tried Opus --bitrate 128, it seems it's at the edge of my ability, it could be that the rhythmic scratching sound is made less sharp, but I am not completely sure I hear it or it might be guessing, in ABX testing training mode I got 7/7 (it took about 10 minutes of careful listening with too much loudness) and then I failed 8th try. I am not sure I am able to 100% correctly pass it to post a worthy log, and it's too painful.
The difference becomes really obvious with Opus --bitrate 64 (and the actual average bitrate is 82 then). So the transition for me must be somewhere in between.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #35
Actually, I now found how to listen this. Now I can easily ABX it with QAAC (VBR, target bitrate 128) and Opus 128.  In both cases (Opus and QAAC) the difference is that saw-like sound is made more "neutral" sounding after encoding.
Also tried MPC Q4, also ABX-able, but harder and the difference is different (instead of making scratching sound more neutral, it just adds some squeaking noises).
The trick is to know what to give attention to. Can be learned by adding the difference signal along with the original into a DAW (like Audacity) and trying with various gain for the difference track, muting and unmuting it. After a couple of minutes spent doing this, it becomes more clear how to find difference here, which may be unnoticeable at first. 
A lot of people already passed this test I guess so I just did 8/8 and didn't save logs, but in case anyone needs it, I can try to pass 16/16 and post the logs.

relative rankings (how easy to detect blindly)
QAAC: easy
Opus: medium at first, became harder after getting tired a bit but taking a break fixes it
Musepack: hard (was not always sure that I pick the right thing, ended up 8/8 anyway)

Now, I'm just feeling stupid as I have to increase the bitrate for encoding music to portable devices or maybe even think about changing format again, and it'd suck because there isn't much space already...

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #36
Actually, tried again and Musepack is also affected just the same, also has the same kind of difference as QAAC and Opus.
Easy to ABX even at default preset (Q 5). So I can now get why some people said it "kills" "all" codecs.

So untimately it seems Opus is relatively the best here, hardest to ABX (but still not transparent at 128)

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #37
@magicgoose
Have you tried encoding this sample with Opus @ vbr -140 ?
I've read before that most problematic samples became transparent or at least non-ABX-able at this bitrate.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #38
I'll try Opus @ 140 later today maybe. Hopefully that will become transparent.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #39
140 definitely harder than 128 but I think it's still not a guesswork yet.

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.6c report
foobar2000 v1.4.6
2019-08-19 14:09:29

File A: Fighter_Beat_Loop.flac
SHA1: 796f85a948de5135e0393930694ee0fb4c487b00
Gain adjustment: -6.18 dB
File B: Fighter_Beat_Loop opus 140.opus
SHA1: c229cced96be7836872632c1f3a5c09cd4ba5f0f
Gain adjustment: -6.16 dB

Output:
WASAPI (shared) : Out: default
Crossfading: NO

14:09:29 : Test started.
14:10:14 : 01/01
14:10:20 : 02/02
14:10:41 : 03/03
14:10:52 : 04/04
14:11:11 : 05/05
14:11:33 : 06/06
14:11:51 : 07/07
14:12:01 : 08/08
14:12:01 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8
p-value: 0.0039 (0.39%)

 -- signature --
72720452143acc87b189f6ab7fb3f2dce3349f64


Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #40
8/8 even for Opus @ 200. But it was very hard, and I wasn't always sure that I definitely hear it or it's in my head.

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.6c report
foobar2000 v1.4.6
2019-08-19 14:17:10

File A: Fighter_Beat_Loop.flac
SHA1: 796f85a948de5135e0393930694ee0fb4c487b00
Gain adjustment: -6.18 dB
File B: Fighter_Beat_Loop opus 200.opus
SHA1: 7b7090d4acbb266a77f2480696d901978d3972ae
Gain adjustment: -6.17 dB

Output:
WASAPI (shared) : Out: default
Crossfading: NO

14:17:10 : Test started.
14:18:29 : 01/01
14:18:52 : 02/02
14:19:03 : 03/03
14:19:17 : 04/04
14:19:41 : 05/05
14:19:59 : 06/06
14:20:05 : 07/07
14:20:16 : 08/08
14:20:16 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8
p-value: 0.0039 (0.39%)

 -- signature --
fa735075f5989a252419922560a29be2a83e8223

 

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #41
Tried with MPC @ Q7, completely unsure if I can hear the difference, ABX failed. Guess I'll settle for it for now, overkill yes, but I don't know any samples that kill it, and it's still not as bad as using stuff like lossywav / wavpack.
(but I can't be sure that I won't hear it at another day when I'm less tired... if only I could have enough space on portable devices to not care about lossy, lol)

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #42
So this fighter loop is really tough one. :D
Which setting did you use on wavpack lossy?

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #43
I didn't test wavpack lossy.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #44
But you said in previous post:
"but I don't know any samples that kill it, and it's still not as bad as using stuff like lossywav / wavpack"

What did you mean by that?
I thought that you have tested wavpack before. Probably missed something...

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #45
I wonder how a hybrid format would perform on this. Do you mind trying wavpack -b256hx4 or even -b352hx4
This would definitely be an interesting test. If someone is willing to do it. :)

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #46
> What did you mean by that?
sorry, I didn't mean it.
I meant that using lossywav or wavpack for all the music would probably be very inefficient due to the nature of these.
Wavpack doesn't even have "true" VBR mode (where the deciding factor is a quality level and not bitrate).
Lossywav + FLAC maybe is actually still worth trying, I'll maybe try it later. But it's still not very practical choice even compared to higher presets of MPC:
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LossyWAV
The minimum level which is expected to at least "likely to be transparent" gives 407 kbit/s on the "10 Album Test Set", that's really a lot, even MPC/Q10 is expected to give "only" 350 on average

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #47

Wavpack doesn't even have "true" VBR mode (where the deciding factor is a quality level and not bitrate).

That's true however, wavpack lossy @ -b350hx4 should yield very high quality.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #48
MPC Q7 ABX
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.6c report
foobar2000 v1.4.6
2019-08-20 13:58:13

File A: Fighter_Beat_Loop.flac
SHA1: 796f85a948de5135e0393930694ee0fb4c487b00
Gain adjustment: -6.18 dB
File B: Fighter_Beat_Loop mpc q7.mpc
SHA1: d648e0a463cb6817af7c7dafedf13f605c6a4e30
Gain adjustment: -6.17 dB

Output:
WASAPI (shared) : Out: default
Crossfading: NO

13:58:13 : Test started.
13:58:59 : 01/01
13:59:22 : 02/02
13:59:35 : 03/03
13:59:46 : 04/04
13:59:56 : 05/05
14:00:13 : 06/06
14:00:35 : 07/07
14:02:31 : 08/08
14:03:02 : 09/09
14:03:20 : 10/10
14:03:36 : 11/11
14:05:44 : 12/12
14:07:09 : 13/13
14:08:27 : 14/14
14:08:34 : 14/15
14:09:26 : 15/16
14:09:26 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 15/16
p-value: 0.0003 (0.03%)

 -- signature --
ac7d37d206823e19ce9b5e287afb6f34a27d9836

Quickly got tired and it became even harder at the last iterations, I was surprised to get 15/16 because I thought it'd be lower
So, probably MPC Q7 also isn't enough.

Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)

Reply #49
Try MPC with max mid side mode; --ms 15 (default for Q10):

--quality 7 --ms 15
--quality 7.5 --ms 15
wavpack 4.8 -b256hx6c

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019