from Beatallica - Metallica singing Beatles music "hey jude"

HEY DUDE

Hey, dude-it'z true not sad
Take a thrash song and make it better
Remembah! That metal iz in your heart
Then you can start to be a fretter

Hey, dude-don't be fuckin' 'fraid
You were made to go be a shreader
The minute you let us under your skin
Then you'll begin to be a fretter

So crank your amp and deal the pain
Hey, dude-you're fuckin' insane!
The riverz run red with blood of poseurs
And don't you know that he'z the fool
Who playz it cool
But needz for hiz beer to be much colder

Hey, dude-nevah turn it down!
You must pound her, I mean Kip Winger
New wave of British heavy metal iz in your heart
And you can start with Diamond Headerz

So let it out! Let it in!
Hey, dude, begin
Don't wait for the Eye of the Beholder
You'll never know when bellz toll for you
Hey, dude, you'll do
Just sling that flying-V 'cross your shoulder

Hey, dude-it'z true not sad
Take a thrash song and make it better
Admit it! Beatallica'z under your skin!
So now begin to be a shreader

:P Beatallica is like eac + ogg....quality over quality :!:

Where the hell you get that jorel :lol:

Ok, here's the real test, comparing original WAV file to a 45Kbps Ogg.

WAV: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/liste..._minus_one.wav
Ogg: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/liste..._minus_one.ogg

Any difference :?:
That's 2.84 times lower in bitrate than a 128Kbps MP3 :!:
I can't tell the difference. They sound the same 8O

-kwag

Hi guys :D

I had to do my own exhaustive test, instead of taking someone elses word for it.
So here it is,
I cut a 30 second WAV, extracted from a very complex musical CD.

Here are the files, including the uncompressed WAV file:

1) Uncompressed: http://www.kvcd.net/test-uncompressed.wav [ 5,224KB ]

2) MP3 at 64Kbps CBR: http://www.kvcd.net/test-64kbps-cbr.mp3 [ 238KB ]

3) MP3 at 128Kbps CBR: http://www.kvcd.net/test-128kbps-cbr.mp3 [ 476KB ]

4) MP3 using -alt-preset=standard: http://www.kvcd.net/test-alt-preset-standard.mp3 [ 769KB ]

5) Ogg Vorbis using Q -1.0 (~45Kbps): http://www.kvcd.net/test-Q-minus-1.0-45kbps.ogg [ 165KB ]

6) Ogg Vorbis using Q 0 (~64Kbps): http://www.kvcd.net/test-Q-0.0-64kbps.ogg [ 286KB ]


In this particular case, I can hear a very small difference in the 45Kbps sample.
The difference is so small, that if I hadn't had the original CD, I couldn't have been able to tell the difference.
Now go ahead and compare the MP3s, and you'll definitely hear the difference on the 64Kbps and 128Kbps sample.
On the --alt-preset-standard, it sounds as good as the original, but the file size says it all.
The 64Kbps Ogg sample is just as good as the WAV, but weighting only 286KB in size against the best MP3, which is 769KB :)

-kwag

Hi karl,

Well, I also did my exhaustive test. By that I mean ABX tests... 10 trials per test.
First I want to say that 45kbps Marc Nelson sample is amazing! And it was completely transparent for me! 8O

Now my test...
First track - Marillion - Anoraknophobia - Between You and Me
Second track - Van Halen - Balance - Don't Tell Me (What Love Can Do)

My goal was to determine what would be the transparent bitrate for me with ogg vorbis with these two tracks. When I say transparent I mean totally transparent. If I can distinguish one tiny little frequency between the source and the encoded file then it’s not transparent.

I spent more than an hour listening to the same sample. My ears are aching! :confused:
As you said, I used oggenc.exe version 1.0.1 for the encodes.
And used foobar2000 v0.8.3 for the ABX test.

So head up for the test:

Quality 0:
I got a 10/10 score with the two tracks.
It was not difficult to distinguish the two files.
BTW, a 10/10 score means that I have 0.1% of chance to be guessing the tracks.
(to get a 10/10 you really have to be hearing differences between the files)

Quality 1:
Again I got a 10/10 score with the two tracks.
The Van Hallen track was a bit more difficult, but clearly different.
The Marillion track was easy again.

From this point I decided to stop testing Van Hallen (that was more difficult to distinguish) and concentrate only with the Marillion track. (my ears were starting to complain).

Quality 2:
Again I got a 10/10 score, but only test the Marillion track.

Quality 3 – Quality 4 – Quality 5 – Quality 6:
All them I was able to distinguish 10/10.
Q5 and Q6 were really difficult to tell the differences, but there ARE differences.

Quality 7:
That was the point where I could not distinguish the encode from the source.
I started the test but stopped at 2/5 score… I was really guessing and was not able to tell any difference.

I also test MP3 Lame –alt-preset standard and could not tell the difference from the source.
Them I tested Lame –alt-preset 192 and again I could not distinguish the encode from the source.

So my final conclusion is that for achieve transparency with this particular Marillion track, I need higher bitrates with OGG (q7 = 224kbps) than with MP3 (alt-preset 192 = 192kbps).

This DOES NOT prove that MP3 is better than OGG. We have many different styles of music, and the results could be completely different with them.
And as I said before, transparency is a subjective matter. And I think that OGG could be much more efficient than MP3 at lower bitrates… But at higher bitrates, reaching for transparency with this particular track, MP3 wins.

Conclusion of the conclusion… for now, I’ll stick to MP3. It’s a great codec and is compatible with all players. 8)


Here is the log from the last test (-q 6):
PS: If any one wants the samples tested, I’ll post them here. :wink:

Hi muaddib,

Great tests :D
I'll do some more testing on more mixed music material.
I do think that low bitrate Oggs reproduces higher frequencies much better than MP3s.
But as you say, maybe on high bitrates, the MP3 reproduces the audio more transparently, and Ogg has some "unnatural" or artifact reproduction.
I have to make more tests with Ogg, because the compression is just too awesome.
BTW, could you cut a small WAV from "Marillion - Anoraknophobia - Between You and Me" :?:
I'd like to test that, and I don't have that CD.

-kwag

:lol: muaddib and his jbls!

...yes, send the source (waves) too...we need to test "everything".
this thread is encreasing in good taste! 8)

Here's another site with more comparisons.
The uncompressed test file is VERY complex in frequency spectrum, so it's a good source for encodings: http://www.xciv.org/~meta/audio-shootout/

-kwag

hy boys...i had one idea (is too rare) :idea:

i have one gentle giant cd- the power and the glory.one music from this cd have a magnific introduction with great basses, strings and solos.
i can cut some seconds (sound forge as wave)and send to do tests.
another great option is from santana-abraxas(remastered).the first music have very cool effects(basses and strings)....is another option.
another great is king krimson- 3 of a perfect pair.
.....or i playing acoustic guitar (with a hammer-i love metal....hammer is metal)! :lol:
cool?...or lame? :?
if "lame", choose another source (maybe i have)!

How about some 30 second WAV cuts jorel :?:
The ones with "strings" and high frequencies are the best to test, because on low frequencies, just about all Codecs do a good job. It's on the high frequency spectrum where they choke, specially 128Kbps MP3's, that sound like "tin cans" or "under water" effects :lol:

But I agree that MP3's over 192Kbps are just like the original (to the ears).
But I like the Ogg better, because it seems it hides the artifacts WAY better than other Codecs, and even when there are small differences compared to the original, it still sounds excelent, where a MP3, WMA, AAC just sound completely horrible at 45Kbps :!:

-kwag

ok i will send to your mail ! :wink: (the basses from gentle giant have magnific harmonics too- seems sintesized with vcf... are really cool)

true! 8O

true too! my mp3 are in 192 or more!
i'm witness that in low bitrates, vorbis is winner.
for high bitrates deserve more tests(i never did)...we will do it! :)

Great kwag! Try to make some ABX tests... Foobar2000 (or a direct link to the special installer) has a good, and really easy to use, tool to make this kind of test.

And I agree with you! :D

Before post the samples, I need to say that today afternoon I tried to duplicate the test of last night with these samples. Until -q5 was the same, but I could not pass through -q6 (like last night).
I'm not sure why this happened... may be the louder noises from the day had distracted or confused me. Or maybe the "save selection" function from Adobe Audition (with I used to trim the wav) is not lossless... I don't know.

Here are the samples (if left click don't work, try right click->save as):
-> wav sample - 2.88MB RAR

-> ogg -q0 - 194KB
-> ogg -q2 - 281KB
-> ogg -q4 - 382KB
-> ogg -q5 - 489KB
-> ogg -q6 - 585KB
-> ogg -q7 - 676KB

-> mp3 alt-preset 192 - 625KB
-> mp3 alt-preset standard - 657KB

If you are going to make the ABX test... pay attention to the high frequencies at the beginning of the drums. That's where I find most of the differences.

:P are lossless or not?!?!?...just listen! :hihi:

thanks muaddib!
i got the foobar( fubá? 8O )and all samples to listen in the morning...my kid is sleeping! :wink:

Has anybody tested MusePack (.mpc) at low bitrates? Sounds better than MP3 at avg 128kbps. I tried searching for a low-bitrate listening test at hydrogenaudio.org but it looks like there's yet to be one. There's discussion about a dial-up bitrate listening test but the test isn't probably done yet.

I totally agree with you... again. :D
When I say that I can distinguish the encoded file from the source, in no way I'm telling that the encode was bad. Far from it! OGG sound quality at low bitrates is amazing! Thought I must say that (for my taste) I found 45kbps and 64kbps just too low. At that kbps the music sounds kind of artificial to my ears... :roll: But that feeling disappeared at around -q2 (~96kbps).

I noticed that the recomended encoder from HA for that low bitrate is differente from the one we are using (the standard Xiph.Org encoder). Look here. May be we can squeeze a bit more quality with that one at low bitrates... I'll check that later.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=24311
It's done. And looks like the winner is Nero HE-AAC. :wink:
Here are the complete results of the dial-up bitrate (32kbps :puke: ).

And here are the results of the 128kbps test. OGG Vorbis :!: (aoTuV encoder) was the winner. :wink:
Followed by MPC in a close second place.

Hehe, now I know what a newbie feels like :lol: I don't understand how the search didn't find that page even though I used the words dial-up bitrate listening test in it 8O

:rotf:

marillion samples from muaddib

q0- loose extreme trebles and show simbilances

q4- encrease the middles and add "air" in trebles(a little artificial)

q7- really better(not perfect but good)...loose extreme trebles(just a few)

alt-preset_192- loose basses...hey, i love basses..no more comments for this sample!

alt-preset_standard- losse basses too....no comments!

source- of course, better general atmosphere!

about basses-we can listen more harmonics if the basses stay "proud" then in that parameter all oggs are better than mp3 ...for my taste of course!

ok.....using the source is good to compare...the general results are great, i only wrote my bored opinion! :oops:
maybe i change my username to Bore-L :roll:

thanks muaddib, great samples! :wink: i could "see the music in the sky" too! can you send the full wave? :lol:

@ Kwag
i will send my samples, they have more details in bass-mid-treble!

AAC Low Bitrate Test
 

I really don't know what weed those who did the test (AAC) at Hydrogen audio were smoking, but my results are EXTREMELY different :!:

I can't encode at 32Kbps with Ogg, because the command line encoder only lets me encode at 40Kbps minimum.
So I decided to encode a test clip, at 40Kbps, both with Nero's AAC encoder and with Ogg encoder.

I don't think this is a subjective comparison, because ANYONE can clearly hear the worse cip.

Hear for yourself:

The original, which is the same WAV I previously uploaded is this:
http://www.kvcd.net/test-uncompressed.wav

AAC sample: http://www.kvcd.net/test-aac-40kbps.mp4

Ogg sample: http://www.kvcd.net/test-ogg-40kbps.ogg

Now, if anybody says that the AAC sounds better than the Ogg, please let me know, because it means I must see a doctor

8O :?

-kwag

@ Kwag

you (we) don't need a doctor,
without doubts, ogg is much better in your samples :!:

Unless I did something wrong, but I think I didn't :!:
It's plain and simple thing.
I just went to Nero, clicked on Extras/File Encoding/Add file and then selected the output file format to be "MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding" and selected constant bitrate of 40Kbps, Encoder quality = HIGH and GO :!:

-kwag

Hi Karl,
I downloaded the files and heard them.
You don't need to book an appointment with your doctor :lol:
Anyway, watch out :arrow: the AAC file is not 44khz :!:
Can you check that?
Cheers

8O true!

hey Kwag, do it again and do it right or you'll get an strike! :hihi:

Why the hell dir Nero downsample :?: :x
There's NO option to do that :!:
I'm going to encode the AAC sample with FAAC and with PsyTel encoders.

Stay tunned ...

-kwag

Here we go:

http://www.kvcd.net/test-faac.aac
http://www.kvcd.net/test-psytel.aac

And again (same as in prevoius posts) the ogg file:
http://www.kvcd.net/test-ogg-40kbps.ogg

And the original (same as in previous posts) uncompressed WAV file:
http://www.kvcd.net/test-uncompressed.wav

I made sure the AAC files were encoded at 44.1Khz this time.

Tha FAAC is total crap at low bitrates :!:
The PsyTel is very good, but missing WAY too many of the high frequency spectrum frequencies.

-kwag

Hi big K :)
Totally agree with your Psytel and FAAC remarks.
But the question will remain: how would Nero perform if there was a way of configuring it NOT to downsample...
Anyway, I don't think it would overcome Ogg quality.
Indeed Ogg is too damn close to MP3 at the present time.
I've been very quiet about this, but I am also very much interested in music compression.
I always keep my eyes in Hydrogenaudio forums too.
But Ogg compatibility is still an issue.
Let me put it this way: Ogg would stand in the MPEG-4 place as MP3 would stand in KVCD place.
Much more compatibility with KVCD than with MPEG-4 at the moment being right ;-)
So I'll stick with MP3 :arrow: for now :!: :)
As soon as it comes up in every "box" I can buy at (what's the name? Radioshack?), then I'll move over to Ogg.
I won't be doing the same with MPEG-4 vs KVCD, 'cause I moved on to something much better :arrow: KDVD :lol:
Cheers

sorry...i can't download that file http://www.kvcd.net/test-faac.aac
trying at 15 minutes and he don't came! :(

Sorry jorel :oops:
Wrong file name :?
Try it again :!:

-kwag

@Rui,

Here's a list of current hardware players with vorbis support :)
http://www.ogghelp.com/ogg/hardware.cfm

-kwag

8O true? wrong file name?....ok now i got! came faster!

@ Correia
:lol: you still with mp3?
you're a liar!!!! :rotf: (kiddin)
:arrow: how did you test the file if was with wrong name and nobody could download it? :hihi:

:oops: :roll: I did clicked to download both files but since the forum is sooo sloooow I just got the psytel encode.
And I accidentally opened the older test-aac-40kbps.mp4 thinking that it was the FAAC file.
Dear me, my desktop looks like my trashcan... :(
Sorry about the mistake :oops:
I'll give it a try now.
And yes, I still think MP3 is the way to go until I can find as many Ogg compatible players as MP3 players.
But I really like the "agudos" (only know the word in Portuguese) in Ogg in LBR :D.

@Karl
Thanks for the link :D
I'll check what babies I could buy me with Ogg support.
Maybe my wife would present me with a Ogg player for Christmas :lol:
Cheers all

Oh man, the FAAC version is disgusting :!:
My sister's-in-law cat sounds better than that.
And believe the cat DOES sound BAD :lol:
I'll stick with MP3 for now and I'll play a bit with Ogg once in a while.
At least until Ahead fixes the AAC encoding engine, right?
Then maybe we can do a match against them again.
Cheers guys

i was kidding...you know! :lol: :wink:
i saw that you need 10 seconds to open one page in another thread.....seems good cos for me need 30 seconds to 1 minute(when open) 8O sometimes posting answers i loose everything and have to write all again......seems local problems(in my city)! :(

But Jorel, Karl says the problem is with the new ISP.

@Karl
This one seems better :) http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisHardware

Yeah :!: :D

oh yeah but here is slow then.......seems here! :lol:

thanks for the link!

my opinion:

test-faac: all underwater 8O (glub,glub) ... or my file is corrupt?

test-psytel: horrible! :corky:

test-ogg-40kb : winner ! really better. :wink:

Wow kwag... I don't know what you did wrong, but all AAC that you posted are really :puke: :puke: :puke:

Here is a properly encoded AAC (from that wav) @ 40kbps: test-nero-aac-40kbps.mp4

thanks muaddib! :wink:

my impression from muaddib's sample "test-nero-aac-40kb.mp4" : horrible !

the Kwag's sample "test-ogg-40kb.ogg" : still winner !

Hi muaddib,

Look at your file, and you'll see that it's encoded at 22Khz :)
Same thing happened to me :!:
And there are no high frequency details on that AAC file, compared to the Vorbis sample, which is rich in high frequency details.

Edit:

WinAmp plays it at 22Khz, but foobar2000 does identify it as 44.1Khz 8O
Play it again jorel, it does sound good under foobar2000 :!:

-kwag