8O

then .....you all are mad! :rotf:

Ok, so I think Nero's AAC encoder and Vorbis are the top of the crop :)
All other Codecs are dust in the wind :!:
Now let's do some 40Kbps tests with some complex music, and see how they both stack up ;)

-kwag

I have not played it with winamp until now... well, I don't know what AAC decoder winamp is using, and even if my winamp is showing it as 44KHz (what version is your winamp?... 5.05 is out already), foobar sound quality is much better. 8)

Check what is the version of your nero aac encoder... my "aacenc32.dll" is v2.5.1.2.
And when you encode with it (at that low bitrate), select HE-AAC and enable PNS.
(use this settings only with low bitrate)

yes it's true....but my Winamp 5.05 show:
mpeg-4, 30.402 secs, 40Kbps, 44100 Hz <--- from file information!

but no matter... the sound is horrible! :corky:

hey, is 44,1K than it's worse cos we are thinking that was 22k ! 8O

Does Ogg Vorbis sound better than MP3?
judge this for yourself... http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp#sound

lots of samples and tests:
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/listen.html

It's strange to quote my self :screwy:, but now I remember that winamp build in aac decoder is crap... at least with HE-AAC. It can't reproduce the high efficiency model of aac. It will just ignore the HE and will not play the file correctly. If you really want to use winamp with AAC, then use this aac input plugin: in_mp4.zip

It's not possible jorel. :? Are you really using foobar to do the test :?:
Here they are VERY VERY close in quality.
Try to ABX them in foobar... it's possible, but not an easy task.
Are you using any graphical frequency analyzer to judge this, or are you using just your ears? :D

edit: even the 32kbps is quite impressive :!: -> test-nero-aac-32kbps.mp4

I wouldn't trust any listening tests/samples provided by any participant of the test. Thus the tests xiph.org or vorbis.com provides are really useless.

ok Boulder, i can understand what you mean. :wink:
but what can we do? how can we trust in the results?
doing our tests, right? ok.....send me wave samples or i send to you and we do our own test and post the results...cool? :)
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.
:arrow: for what reason i want to know what's better using crap 128?
no matter the results, for my is a trash! all my mp3 have 192 in minimal or 256....lots of people want to put billions of musics in a simple media with crap sound, but i don't need more than 100 titles with extreme quality(mp3). but here is different...we can trust in our own results and i will get all tests but i never will encode at low bitrates for my backups,no matter how that low bitrates can seems good at first sign.
:arrow: i'm searching the best to encode in high bitrates. our tests will show it, we can trust in our tests(mine,yours and from our friends here)...we're searching quality.....like kvcd give to images, we're doing the same for sound! :wink:

off topic in: i did lots of tests and posted links to show pictures in scripts forum and i'm still waiting everybody to send impression about it at 2 days...nobody post a simple "cool or lame"....what can i do?...i'm doing my part...i'm still waiting for all there and don't want to to tests for "nobody" here too....do you know what i mean? off topic out!


@ all
anyone have space where i can post waves samples ? (~30 seconds)

@ muaddib
i'm with the last winamp to do tests.
i will follow your hints to listen the samples. thanks for that advices! :wink:

thank you all!

I don't think it's a bad idea they have done tests with 128kbps, because that is the point in which the differences can still be heard. To my ears, an MPC file with avg bitrate of 128kbps sounds as least as good as an MP3 with an avg bitrate of 160kbps. If both are at avg 160kbps, it gets really hard to distinguish between the two different encoders. That's my point..and I also like to listen to the music instead of picking all the faults encoding has created :wink: If you want music without any artifacts, you'll have to go for Monkey's Audio for example.

You have your needs, other people have their needs. It's vital that we don't forget that.

@ Boulder
first you wrote:
ok , you don't trust in any listening tests/samples provided by any participant of the test..but later...
then...why you trust in hidrogenaudio tests and not in the tests of xiph.org or vorbis.com provides ?..... :?

8O but you wrote that don't trust in any listening tests/samples provided by any participant of the test.

who did that tests? how and why can i trust if you don't trust? ...or better,do you trust or not trust!?!?..this is the question! :lol:
:arrow: I'm kiddin! :wink:

@ all
:encore: i'm not alone.....Boulder it mad TOO! :cid: :rotf:

jorel,

you did not understand what I said. I already said I do not trust any tests done by any participant (that is, a developer of any of the programs in the test) of the test.

A. Hydrogenaudio.org, and especially rjamorim, who has lead most of the listening tests there, does not develop any of the programs and is devoted to all things audio. Therefore, they should not be biased and can be trusted.

B. xiph.org and vorbis.com are sites devoted to Ogg Vorbis, and probably are run by the Ogg team. Do you think they would publish any tests that would not promote their format? They would be very stupid (or soon unemployed) if they did.

Monkey's Audio is lossless, therefore there should be no differences to the original WAV file. Of course, there could be rounding or similar differences, but they are definitely not audible. They can only be found by doing a binary compare. I thought you were into audio, you should know these things :wink:

You are quoting me out of context. I said that we should let people test 128kbps if they like - and my reason to it is that at that bitrate the differences are big enough to measure well. Over that point everything starts to sound the same. Some people need 128kbps files, you need something over that. That's why I said "You have your needs, other people have their needs. It's vital that we don't forget that."

all right Boulder, then we have to do our tests here! :wink:
in our results we can trust, right? (and i was kiddin in some details,ok?)

@ all
i still need a place to send my wave samples...anyone knows where i can do it? if you know, tell me where (and how) please!
thanks!

Hi Boulder,

Why can't you trust the samples provided by vorbis :?:
They provide the original uncompressed WAV for all samples :!:
Then for every sample, they provide the .ogg, .wma and .mp3 for comparison.
I think that's pretty fair, just because they do provide the original source (WAV), and as a matter of fact, I used the same WAV they provided to encode my own MP3s and WMAs, and I got identical results :)
So there's nothing hidden there.

-kwag

That I didn't know, I only saw that the domains hosting the comparisons were xiph.org and vorbis.com. However, I prefer a blind test with a large number of people participating in the test to make the random factor smaller. I do know that Vorbis sounds good at lower bitrates :wink: Too bad that the OGM container seems to be yesterday's tech and abandoned.

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. :eeks: ..(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? :?

:arrow: hey, i'm using my ears to listen without any graphical frequency analyzer or something like that to judge this!

You mean the Ogg :?:
But its only a container, and there's already the Theora video project, that is also wrapped in Ogg :)
http://www.theora.org/
And:
http://www.speex.org/
It seems to me Ogg is going very strong :!:

-kwag

Even if the WAVs are provided, different types of music samples can produce drastically different results with the same encoder. I'm not telling xiph/vorbis has done that, but one can pick the samples that will produce perfect results and discard the samples that would produce not so good results for a particular encoder.

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.

:arrow: 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)
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/09/3.gif
---> just kiddin :roll: :lol:

"....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."
:arrow: 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,
:arrow: i only wrote here why i don't post my opinions there ! :wink:
best regards muADdib!

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 :wink: 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. 8)


That's the way it should be! :wink:

Foobar2000 is really the bomb 8O
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

That can't be LSD - Syd Barrett's already been replaced by David Gilmour :lol: 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 ! :x

.........

testing FooBar *( fuba? ) now! :wink:

* in portuguese the "foobar" pronunciation seems "fubá" (maize flour,corn meal)

all right boys see what i did.
like i posted before i change the in_mp4.dll to use winamp see here:

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:

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

doubts:
we're still doing our own tests in kvcd forum? anyone have samples or tests?
:?

@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

hi all :D

i'm still testing...anyone more?

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

thanks! :wink:

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 :evil:
Maybe I'll try that other version Karl recommended :)
Cheers

Hi Guys,

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

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 :lol:, 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

bahahaha :blabla: ....without samples we can't trust! :rotf:

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

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 :) 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

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 :roll: )
BTW, are you sure that “--altpreset standard” does not go down to 32kbps?
Well, I’ll check that too. :wink:

PS: What LAME version are you using?

Me too :mrgreen: Yep. For sure. It's limited to 128Kbps min 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

And with the --vbr-new option, you can use q=0 without any huge performance hit, getting the best out of the encoder :D

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

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 :cool:
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

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 :D

Great :D

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

-kwag

hey,thank you all.you're too fast to post ! 8)