IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ogg -q4 transparent to you?
Be Positive
post Dec 26 2006, 11:32
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 9-October 06
Member No.: 36148



Hi,

I just started transcoding my FLAC albums (I'll save them) to Ogg. I first tested q 5, q 6 and then q 4 and I can't tell any difference between them.

But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent? I know it's very subjective, but I wanted to ask you if it's also transparent to you or if you hear any artifacts?

Greets

Edit: I use AoTuV beta 5

This post has been edited by Be Positive: Dec 26 2006, 11:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ImAlive
post Dec 26 2006, 11:53
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 29-March 05
From: Southern Germany
Member No.: 21036



Yes, especially with aoTuV b5, it is transparent to me. I guess even lower q might be transparent (I just barely ABXed q1 right without good headphones and just one sampe), but then again... biggrin.gif I know what you are talking about. We need to get out of this 7 year old mindset that 128k BLADE mp3s sound crappy (they didn't, to me, back then (computer speakers) - but now they do =)). Modern encoders really rock, and it is not 'god given' that 128k=crap.

I am ripping my old CDs right now, and for most pop samplers and electronica q4 should be absolutely sufficient. For my more 'valuable' and metal CDs I use q5 however... not that it would make much of a (audible) difference, if any at all, but here I want a little greater 'safety margin'.

In terms of frequency, I've still (bleh, I'm 22 tongue.gif ) got a rather good hearing (~19kHz), and that is just the lowpass at q4 - wonderful.

BTW: with the new b5, I can see (by no way hear) low-level noise in the spectrum at about 20kHz (with 1kHz bandwidth) when using q5 that did not appear when encoding to q5 with aoTuV r1. What is the cause of this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Dec 26 2006, 12:03
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



-q2 is transparent to me in casual listening. Maybe I could ABX it, but it sure sounds great to me either way. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by Firon: Dec 26 2006, 12:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mercurio
post Dec 26 2006, 13:13
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 5-November 03
Member No.: 9669



-q3 was too hard for me to abx, so I didn't try to test -q4 ^^ at all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hanky
post Dec 26 2006, 13:23
Post #5





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 531
Joined: 18-November 01
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 481



I use Ogg Vorbis aoTuV -q 3.5 (estimated 120 kbps) to encode my music for portable listening on my Cowon iAudio G3. I did not notice any annoying artefact till now, quality is amazingly good for such a bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Be Positive
post Dec 26 2006, 13:38
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 9-October 06
Member No.: 36148



QUOTE (ImAlive @ Dec 26 2006, 11:53) *
BTW: with the new b5, I can see (by no way hear) low-level noise in the spectrum at about 20kHz (with 1kHz bandwidth) when using q5 that did not appear when encoding to q5 with aoTuV r1. What is the cause of this?


That makes me worry a bit.. Is the r1 a stable final release? Should I better use this version than the beta 5?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Dec 26 2006, 14:06
Post #7


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



At q4, I can ABX some rare tracks. I failed all tracks proposed in multiformat ABC/HR tests.
At q5, I can ABX 3 killer samples.
At q6, I can ABX 1 killer sample.
At q7, everything is transparent to my ears.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ImAlive
post Dec 26 2006, 14:07
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 29-March 05
From: Southern Germany
Member No.: 21036



QUOTE (Be Positive @ Dec 26 2006, 13:38) *
That makes me worry a bit.. Is the r1 a stable final release? Should I better use this version than the beta 5?
r1 is a stable release (rebranded b4.51), yes. b5 is IIRC mainly tuned for lower bitrate improvement. However, as I stated, bandlimited, low-level noise at 20 kHz cannot be heard, so don't worry - I'll rather have this AND the newest tunings. I just wondered why this was there (noise shaping? new algorithm?), as this only seems to appear with q5 and not with q4.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorsol
post Dec 26 2006, 15:46
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 7-March 05
From: Managua
Member No.: 20434



When I start using vorbis, in 2002 (v1.0), I encode my files using -q2, because it sound fine to me... then I swith to -q4 because I ABX -q2 and found that is hard but posible that I hear artifact and because the listening test showing that vorbis at 128kbps is just great... but I swith mostly because the placebo effect that if I hardly hear artifacts at -q2, then -q4 will be the perfect balance.

I made a test to abx 128kbps and found that to my ears is almost imposible to tell the diference. All of this using old encoders (maybe aotuv b2), and with AoTuV Beta 5 this will be just the best choice for a nice balance.

In synthesis, -q4 for me sound just perfect. I posibly can ABX it and hear some diferences but... if I only listen music in my computer then I hardly can said that there is a diference.

In plain English.... yes is transparent to me.


--------------------
JorSol
aoTuVb5 -q4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Dec 26 2006, 18:25
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Tip from experience: Don't worry about transparency. Worry about music quality. Especially since you have the FLACs.

I encode, and transcode (aaaaah! the horror! oh humanity!) my music collection to -q 1 using aoTuV b5... and I never regret it. Except for classical music. guruboolez scared me enough to do them at -q 3.

Annnd if you see the music in my PDA... you may scream outright: None is higher than -q 0. Most (i.e. nearly all) is -q -0.5, and some even made it to -q -0.75 biggrin.gif ... and these with aoTuV R1 (too lazy to re-transcode using aoTuV b5 laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by pepoluan: Dec 26 2006, 18:27


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Junon
post Dec 26 2006, 19:07
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Germany
Member No.: 34518



I recently encoded my complete CD collection to FLAC 1.1.3 beta 2 and aoTuV beta 5 at -q 2. I've been making a few ABX tests shortly after the beta 5's release, and I must admit that I already had a troublesome time ABXing many -q 0 samples, causing this bitrate to have become the one I use for my flash-based portable player. At -q 1 I entirely failed distinguishing the Vorbis files from the FLAC ones; since I tested only a few samples I moved one more quality step up to make sure that the whole audio collection sounds transparent to me. Hence I can't even see any need to use the -q 4 setting you asked for. Of course I'm talking about my own hearing here, you don't have to agree with my statement that -q 2 would be transparent. With this subjective claim I'm risking being snubbed due to TOS #8 anyway, because I neither have the ABX logs anymore nor do I have the nerve to do a test at the moment.

QUOTE
But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent?


Well, we're talking about a modern codec here, therefore you shouldn't compare its bitrates to the ones that are usually used to reach transparency with the good old MP3 format. If we kept encoding to the same bitrates as we always did there wouldn't be any reason to use anything besides LAME, since it features the best possible compatibility and even many modern codecs' features, like VBR encoding and gapless playback.

Edit: Small addendum.

This post has been edited by Junon: Dec 26 2006, 19:30
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
senab
post Dec 27 2006, 18:04
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690



I don't encode to a certain level, it depends on the CD or source really. The highest i'll go is-q 6 for the fact of the lossless stereo coupling. The lowest i'll go is -q 4. I'm not saying I can ABX below -q 4, it's just I use these files on a lot of different systems (car, 5.1 amp, iPod, etc) and like the safety margin of having at least ~128kbps tracks. Even so, i'm probably being overkill.

Small Edit...

This post has been edited by senab: Dec 27 2006, 18:08


--------------------
::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dariju
post Dec 27 2006, 19:27
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 37444



For me it is still hard to encode something lower than q6, even when I'm aware that q2 in most cases is audibly the same...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Primius
post Dec 28 2006, 02:31
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 11-April 06
Member No.: 29419



Did you read about loseless stereo coupling at q6 or why do you choose that quality?
To me, reliable quality means 1 quality value above the setting needed for transparency.
(transparency based on a few test samples)
I hope you never run low on space with this setting.
Not to be able to choose q3 because my portable player only has 512MB
is painfull biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post Dec 28 2006, 13:16
Post #15





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



-q2 is transparent to me in casual listening (home stereo, portable and computer).
When I listen to music I don't try to find flaws all the time like some paranoid freak. IMO on casual listening you don't need to. tongue.gif
I may even go lower to -q1 or -q0 in the future.

This post has been edited by beto: Dec 28 2006, 13:17


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MedO
post Dec 28 2006, 15:09
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 24-August 05
Member No.: 24095



I encode at -q6, because the second sample I ever encoded with Vorbis happened to be one of the rather rare Vorbis problem samples where the trouble is very audible. The problem went away at -q6 (i.e. probably with lossless stereo coupling), so I chose -q6 as my standard encoding level. Plus, my audio collection grows slower than my disk space, so I'm not worried about the size.

When testing normal rock/pop samples, -q2 is usually transparent to me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Dec 28 2006, 16:31
Post #17





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



I switched to HE-AAC for DAP/mobile listening, but -q2 was transparent to me.


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Dec 28 2006, 19:43
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



-q1 is transparent enough to me. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Caroliano
post Dec 28 2006, 22:01
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 21-December 05
Member No.: 26559



Look at the results of the Public Multiformat Listening test at 128kbps made by HA members. For many people, in many samples, vorbis was transparent. The low-anchor is probabily what you was expecting for a codec in 128kbps. I was the Anon26.

My experiences with older versions of AoTuV vorbis:

In -q4 I can barely hear the diference in some samples when comparing with the original. That, or -q6, is my choice for transparent encoding, depending of how much space I want to spare. When I want very high quality in less space, I use -q2, where I can hear some artfacts in many samples, but nothing anoying, especialy when not comparing with the original.

For simply listenable quality, I go with AACv1/v2 at 64~32kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HE-Dave
post Dec 29 2006, 01:22
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 10-November 06
Member No.: 37411



It's good enough for me usually... when I'm just listening to music... not audio quality. It'll be fine for you.


--------------------
CD -> EAC+LAME V4+WV hybrid 320. Remote hard backup of every CD.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hushypushy
post Dec 29 2006, 08:28
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 16-September 06
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 35237



I ABX'd tons of songs, and found that for the most part, Q2 is transparent, but there were a couple Q3 songs (very rare). I use Q4 because I know it's overkill and there's no way I could ever tell the difference smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TimSee
post Jan 4 2007, 05:37
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 4-January 07
Member No.: 39283



I ABX'd -q1, -q2 and -q4. I basically concluded that for a portable flash player, -q1 is the best bang for the buck.

So...I use Squeezebox and FLAC for my home stereo and Vorbis -q1 for muisc on the go.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goldenratiophi
post Jan 5 2007, 00:31
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-August 06
Member No.: 33967



I have just decided today to delete the q5's from my ipod and encode to q4 today. I could abx q1 and q2. q3 was HARD for me to ABX, but I eventually found Radiohead's "Subterranean Homesick Alien" easy to ABX because of a nosie normalization artifact. q4 doesn't use noise normalization though. I tried to ABX q4 once and gave up because I knew I couldn't do it with my equipment.

But yeah, 128 MP3 and 128 Vorbis aren't comparible; Vorbis is newer and more advanced/complicated. If YOU can't hear the difference, then don't waste the space.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emon
post Jan 14 2007, 07:20
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 20-July 05
Member No.: 23424



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Dec 26 2006, 08:06) *
At q4, I can ABX some rare tracks. I failed all tracks proposed in multiformat ABC/HR tests.
At q5, I can ABX 3 killer samples.
At q6, I can ABX 1 killer sample.
At q7, everything is transparent to my ears.

That's about how it is for me. Even when I can tell the difference, it's usually small. At Q7 I doubt it is physically possible for a human to hear the difference. Maybe in some rare cases. For casual listening, Q4 is good enough.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
michael.conner
post Feb 8 2007, 04:53
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14-February 06
Member No.: 27755



QUOTE (Be Positive @ Dec 26 2006, 04:32) *
Hi,

I just started transcoding my FLAC albums (I'll save them) to Ogg. I first tested q 5, q 6 and then q 4 and I can't tell any difference between them.

But I cant believe that 128kbit files are absolutely transparent? I know it's very subjective, but I wanted to ask you if it's also transparent to you or if you hear any artifacts?

Greets

Edit: I use AoTuV beta 5


I used to use Lame -V 2 --vbr-new. Am perfectly happy with q4 AoTuV. I still shake my head and marvel at how good tracks with an average bitrate of 125k or so sound.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 31st July 2014 - 05:42