Quantcast Best Audio Extractor - Page 6 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #101  
09-09-2004, 01:38 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
see that i never post my opinion in lots of tests in hidrogenaudio...why?
simple: they did tests to know what give better results encoding in 128....or less.
Fore sure that’s not just what they do.
They seem to me serious people that deeply love and understand audio.
I do trust in HA tests. I think that HA is for audio as KVCD is for video.
If for nothing else, knowing that the optimized lame compile and alt-presset settings, that I'm using today, came from them is already enough to give them respect.
i trust in his tests and they are serious like you wrote!

looking the listening tests in hydrogenaudio,
i saw tests with 64K, 175, 320k, and in the top(today) 128k!
all this tests are useless for my taste cos....
i don't encode audio after 256k or above 192k no matter what format choosed.
above 192k only in the future when the encoders encrease quality !
space to backup this files isn't a problem for cd-r or dvd-r medias
cos the proposal of this thread now is: "audio cd's to "...we are testing to choose!
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40

then,
reading the first post from proposal on listening tests
by rjamorin using his avatar LSD (Look, Seems Dope)

---> just kiddin

"....and I'd like to propose some tests that can be conduced by the more courageous people out there.
It's about time new tests start getting planned."
very cool,...just what i (we) want to do here !

and
"Sthayashi proposed a test comparing several AAC encoders againt Vorbis,
to see how Vorbis performs againt encoders other than iTunes.
I guess that the answer is now clear that Vorbis will perform better
than all AAC encoders at 128kbps, since if it won even over the best of them.
But the proposal is made."
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...pic=25835&st=0

i trust in his tests and results,
i only wrote here why i don't post my opinions there !
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
see that i never post my opinion in lots of tests in hidrogenaudio...why?
simple: they did tests to know what give better results encoding in 128....or less.
best regards muADdib!
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #102  
09-09-2004, 02:57 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
i'm playing with winamp with the "new" in_mp4.dll that you send,
now i ask:
if i install foobar ( fubá? ) it can sounds better?
Well, I did not test winamp with the new in_mp4.dll against foobar. But What I know for sure is that foobar is a great player that will play all audio formats that you put into it with excellence.

Besides that, IMHO you should not make tests with winamp. Every time you change tracks, the filters will be reinitialized and so will be your ears You can start hearing “placebos” much easier with winamp then with a proper ABX tool. If you don’t want to use foobar, then use WinABX or ABC/HR.

But give foobar a chance… just mark two tracks and select “ABX two tracks”. As I said, it is a great player, plus you will get a thousands great features as replaygain native support, truly gapless mp3 playback, mp3 header fix, mass tagger, low memory footprint, efficient handling of really large playlists, highly customizable playlist display, easy to use ABX tool, etc, etc... and most of standard components are opensourced under BSD license (source included with the SDK).

At a first sight foobar is neither impressive nor beautiful, but it has an amazing background, and even the way it looks is totally customizable.
Here are 3 different display styles that I use:
foobar1.png - default UI (that’s the way I most like it)
foobar2.png - footunes UI
foobar3.png - foo_looks (skin - I almost never use skins)

Please, don't get me wrong... I also use winamp, and I think it is a great player too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
hey, i'm using my ears to listen without any graphical frequency analyzer or something like that to judge this!
That's the way it should be!
Reply With Quote
  #103  
09-09-2004, 10:38 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Foobar2000 is really the bomb
I hadn't seen all the options it had
I like Winamp too, but I think I'll be using foobar from now on.
Thanks muaddib

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #104  
09-09-2004, 11:28 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
his avatar LSD (Look, Seems Dope)
That can't be LSD - Syd Barrett's already been replaced by David Gilmour Anybody ever seen The Syd Barrett Story?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
09-09-2004, 12:19 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder
That can't be LSD - Syd Barrett's already been replaced by David Gilmour Anybody ever seen The Syd Barrett Story?
yes , i know his story(little fragments)and i have 1 lp(vinyl) of Syd after PF and with PF too!
in the end we.....

L-oose
S-yd.......
D-amn !

.........

testing FooBar *( fuba? ) now!

* in portuguese the "foobar" pronunciation seems "fubá" (maize flour,corn meal)
Reply With Quote
  #106  
09-10-2004, 02:38 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
all right boys see what i did.
like i posted before i change the in_mp4.dll to use winamp see here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
muaddib (and all)
i'm using winamp 505 as posted.
inside have the in_mp4.dll(14-07-04) with 13K that was installed by winamp and it's sounds horrible playing the "test-nero-aac-40kbps.mp4 that you posted.
then i download the in_mp4.dll(09-07-04) with 243kb that you posted and the sound is really better....no "underwater" then i change my "taste" for that file and now my new impressions:

test-uncompressed.wav .......the source!
test-nero-aac-40kbps.mp4 ......really better BUT the reverberation of the chords in the background are rough,uneven. ..(atention in the begining of the music)......and loose trebles,just a little...and basses have littles distortions too.
test-ogg-40kbps.ogg ....still a winner

i'm playing with winamp with the "new" in_mp4.dll that you send,
now i ask:
if i install foobar ( fubá? ) it can sounds better?

hey, i'm using my ears to listen without any graphical frequency analyzer or something like that to judge this!
then i install foobar to test everything again.
sounds exact like winamp using the same in_mp4.dll(09-07-04) with 243kb
in winamp or foobar!
nothing is change and my opinion remais the same:

test-ogg-40kbps.ogg ....still a winner using foobar that sounds like winamp with the in_mp4.dll(09-07-04) 243kb!!


doubts:
we're still doing our own tests in kvcd forum? anyone have samples or tests?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
09-12-2004, 03:10 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@muaddib (and all!),

I just ran several tests, using the song "Survivor - I Can't Hold Back", and indeed, using ABX function I am able to tell "someting" is not the same, even with Q = 4.0 in oggenc.exe.
The quality is just excelent, but there's something missing in the VERY high frequency spectrum.
At a Q = 5.0, it's VERY hard to tell, but I DID still find some differences.
So I downloaded the oggenc_aoTuV.exe (optimized for lower bitrates), and ran the tests again. ( as documented here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=15049 )

This time, with a Q = 3.0 (default), ABX test results in ~70% guessing, so it seems that with oggenc_aoTuV, the high frequencies are much better encoded than with the standard oggenc
Even with Q = 2.0, it's very hard to tell the difference, and that's an average bitrate of around 96Kbps.
Give it a try


All tests were conducted listening on my "Bose Wave Radio".

I'm running more tests now with Sony earphones.
It seems to me that the most closest to perfect reproduction of sound and size ratio, would be using oggenc_aoTuV with a Q of ~2.0.
This is under the size of a 128Kbps MP3, but with sound quality equal to the original Audio CD (To the ears, that is. Not mathematically).

Comments
Anyone compared oggenc_aoTuV to other Codecs, to find lowest bitrate for transparency point

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #108  
09-16-2004, 11:50 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hi all

i'm still testing...anyone more?

please, don't left this thread alone without a final conclusion(consensus from all)

thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #109  
09-16-2004, 02:09 PM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Jorel,
I dropped my tests due to lack of time
I'm planning to come back in 2 or 3 weeks, though.
I really like Ogg quality.
But I'm still stuck at q=6
Maybe I'll try that other version Karl recommended
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #110  
09-17-2004, 07:48 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Guys,

Well, I have to say that I found something better than MP3's "--alt-preset standard"

It's "--vbr-new"

Here's what happens. When you encode with "--alt-preset standard", you are basically encoding with a VBR Q of 2, and clamping the MIN bitrate to 128Kbps.
As we old dogs know , that's a waste of bits, because some parts of silence, spaced gaps on music, silence gaps , etc., can drop bitrate way below 128Kbps, and we can use those bits on high complex frames.
That's exactly what "--vbr-new" does, because without any parameters, it sets MIN bitrate to 32Kbps and MAX bitrate to 320Kbps, and uses a default VBR Q of 4
But the good news is that the file sizes are SMALLER than using "--alt-preset standard", because of the MIN bitrate usage.
This is almost as good (or better!) as using a setting of "--alt-preset extreme"

So now, I'm getting file sizes slightly lower than ogg vorbis (with -q 5), but fully transparent.

@muaddib,
Give this a try

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #111  
09-17-2004, 08:22 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
bahahaha ....without samples we can't trust!

Kwag, welcome back after the hurricame, i read your news there!
Reply With Quote
  #112  
09-17-2004, 08:58 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
bahahaha ....without samples we can't trust!
It's very easy to test it yourself
Just extract your favorite audio CD track to WAV, and type:

lame --alt-preset standard mywavefile.wav
Note the file size.

Then try this:

lame --vbr-new mywave.wav

Take particular atention at the encoder screen. Notice that --alt-preset standard uses a MIN of 128Kbps, where the --vbr-new uses 32Kbps and a V Q of 4, as opposed to a V Q of 2, as used on --alt-preset standard.
So the final quality of --vbr-new is two points higher than alt-preset standard
Quote:

Kwag, welcome back after the hurricame, i read your news there!
Thanks

EDIT:

Please note that a Q of 4 is actually lower quality than a Q of 2, when using LAME.
The higher the number, the lower the quality.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #113  
10-01-2004, 02:49 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
@muaddib,
Give this a try
Hi kwag and all!
I tried ogg aoTuV and think you are 100% right about the high frequencies been much better encoded than with the standard oggenc at low bitrates.

I will try “--vbr-new” as soon as I get some time... (I wish a day with 30 hours )
BTW, are you sure that “--altpreset standard” does not go down to 32kbps?
Well, I’ll check that too.

PS: What LAME version are you using?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
10-01-2004, 02:55 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
I will try “--vbr-new” as soon as I get some time... (I wish a day with 30 hours )
Me too
Quote:
BTW, are you sure that “--altpreset standard” does not go down to 32kbps?
Yep. For sure. It's limited to 128Kbps min
Quote:
Well, I’ll check that too.

PS: What LAME version are you using?
Version 3.96.1
BTW, my latest (and probably last settings) are now.
-vbr-new -q 2 -V 2
You get full range from 32Kbps to 320Kbps, and a SUPERB quality (to me, it's CD quality), and file size is smaller than -alt-preset standard, because the bitrate can go down to 32Kbps.

Edit: -q 2 -V 3

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #115  
10-01-2004, 02:57 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
And with the --vbr-new option, you can use q=0 without any huge performance hit, getting the best out of the encoder
Reply With Quote
  #116  
10-01-2004, 03:05 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder
And with the --vbr-new option, you can use q=0 without any huge performance hit, getting the best out of the encoder
Nope. Don't do that.
There's a bug in LAME
Don't use a q lower than 2.
Check hydrogenaudio forums. I can't remember the link right now, but it's there.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #117  
10-01-2004, 03:13 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BTW, I just bought this last night: http://www.iriver.com/product/info.a...P-700%20Series the iFP-790 (256MB model), and it plays my OGGs sweeeeeet
Only problem, which I already wrote an E-Mail to support, is that the OGG format must be a minimum of ~90Kbps. If I encode something with Q=2 or less, it's not recognized.
So they are not fully compliant on Vorbis specifications.
I already downloaded the latest firmware, and installed it flawlessly.
Sound is beautiful, and it's a very neat unit.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #118  
10-01-2004, 03:16 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Found it: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...c=26895&hl=-q0

I've been using 3.90.3 for a long time so didn't know this. Thanks for the info
Reply With Quote
  #119  
10-01-2004, 03:18 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Great

BTW, new release of Vorbis
http://www.vorbis.com/news.psp

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #120  
10-01-2004, 03:42 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hey,thank you all.you're too fast to post !
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Easy CD-DA Extractor 6.5 vdk_au Audio Conversion 7 02-15-2004 10:34 AM
Audio Codecs: LSAMP (leon's simple audio mastering program) jorel Audio Conversion 0 11-18-2003 11:10 PM
Audio Codecs: Audacity - cool and free audio editor jorel Audio Conversion 0 10-23-2003 12:19 AM
Audio Codecs: AVI2WAV Extractor jorel Audio Conversion 0 09-30-2003 03:45 PM
Audio Codecs: Befa - Time signal removal Band Eliminate Filter for Audio jorel Audio Conversion 0 07-24-2003 06:53 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd