IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard
RD
post Jan 21 2002, 22:02
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 31



Hasr anyone ever found a .wav that actually sounded better when encoded with --alt-preset standard than when encoded with --alt-preset fast extreme?

I am curious if it is possible that --alt-preset fast extreme could in some case perform worse than --alt-preset standard... my guess is that 99.9% of the time this will never happen and -- alt-preset fast extreme should win in such contests... though maybe I'm just dead wrong...

thanks,
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Jan 21 2002, 22:21
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



I haven't. Maybe about same level of distortion, but not so that standard is clearly better.
I haven't compared those against each other almost at all though...

I would say it's possible that fast extreme is worse in some cases. Heck, anything is possible..


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Jan 21 2002, 22:55
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



Hi all,

my opinion is:
if somebody wants high bitrates and best quality, why should he use fast extreme ?
Of course it is a little bit faster than normal extreme.
But the guaranted quality over fast extreme should it be worth to take the time to encode with normal extreme, not with fast extreme.


Short question:

Is it safe, sure or tested, proven, that alt extreme is at least equal or better compared to alt standard ?
No known cases where alt standard is better than alt extreme ?


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RD
post Jan 21 2002, 23:46
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 31



JohnV wrote:

QUOTE
Maybe about same level of distortion, but not so that standard is clearly better...


JohnV, what do you mean by the same level of distortion?

I thought the only thing limiting (quality-wise) the fast modes was the vbr-mtrh... surely the extra bits that fast extreme will have over non-fast standard should more than compensate and give fast extreme less distortion, or am I wrong?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Jan 22 2002, 00:02
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



Somehow the presets add some kind of distortion to some samples.
I call it sandpaper noise but JohnV is correct calling it added distortion.

If you want to experiment, try this.

http://www.halke.net/files/Birds.zip

In all 4 vbr presets distortion is added, mostly with the "e" when she sings become.

aps adds a bit distortion
ape surprisingly adds small plops (or how should i call it?) but less distortion

apfs + apfe are adding both the most distortion

Wombat
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Jan 22 2002, 00:12
Post #6


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



I'd say that perhaps something like this is possible, but very highly unlikely. The way the encoder works is not absolutely precise in some areas, so when changing certain parameters which should allow higher quality (such as changing the way the quantization loop works), in a freak occurance it could result in lower quality or perhaps a different artifact that might sound more annoying but with overall less distortion. However, in the vast majority of cases this isn't going to be an issue.

It's certainly not something I'd worry about because for that one case where standard might be better, there are probably hundreds where extreme is better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 02:56