IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Closed TopicStart new topic
What is your instance regarding Musepack SV8 switches?
lucpes
post Jun 4 2002, 22:19
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 517
Joined: 9-October 01
Member No.: 254



And here's my new command line:

mppenc --quality 7.33 --maxbitrate 320 --minbitrate 128 --stereoquality 10 --bandwithquality 10 --temporalquality 10

So there's nothing new under the sun... I already know that I wouldn't be able to abx it against --quality 5 but it will sound better for transcoding... I just know it smile.gif --kidding

perhaps it would be better to stick just to --quality?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Uosdwis R. Dewoh
post Jun 4 2002, 22:22
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 70



Indeed - great job! Looking forward to putting it to use! Puts that other thread in a new perspective, too.

/ Uosdwis
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NickSD
post Jun 4 2002, 23:09
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 20-December 01
Member No.: 702



I think this poll should be closed... Since we have the q-scale now, everyone seems to be happy. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Jun 4 2002, 23:17
Post #54


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by NickSD
I think this poll should be closed... Since we have the q-scale now, everyone seems to be happy. smile.gif


Agreed. Poll closed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy2kxp
post Jun 5 2002, 00:38
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 16-January 02
From: In your mind
Member No.: 1043



I say make 1 encoder for that has the quality scale and another encoder with the tweakable switches for people who enjoy tweaking or want to debug the current quality scale.


--------------------
-Andy
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Jun 5 2002, 00:46
Post #56


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by lucpes
And here's my new command line:

mppenc --quality 7.33  --maxbitrate 320 --minbitrate 128  --stereoquality  10  --bandwithquality 10 --temporalquality 10

So there's nothing new under the sun... I already know that I wouldn't be able to abx it against --quality 5 but it will sound better for transcoding... I just know it smile.gif --kidding


Umm..

Why would you possibly want to limit the upper bitrate with MPC? One of MPC's greatest strengths is that it can go well over 320kbps for short periods if it needs to. It does this quite regularly on some of my music as well.

There should be no need to limit the upper bitrate unless you are planning to stream the files. Given your other switches, it really doesn't make sense either.

QUOTE
[b]
perhaps it would be better to stick just to --quality?


Probably.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ssamadhi97
post Jun 5 2002, 00:57
Post #57





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1203
Joined: 10-February 02
From: Endless Water
Member No.: 1305



QUOTE
Originally posted by lucpes
mppenc --quality 7.33  --maxbitrate 320 --minbitrate 128  --stereoquality  10  --bandwithquality 10 --temporalquality 10

heh, even more - if i understand the new switches correctly, the --stereoquality, --bandwidthquality and --temporalquality are all tradeoff switches - thus you'd push the encoder into one single direction with the above commandline (for example: sacrificing audio quality for stereo imaging quality)


--------------------
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vladimirovich
post Jun 5 2002, 08:01
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 3-January 02
Member No.: 899



Well, I still thinks that q scale is bad idea. There are two reasons:

1) The units of quality scale are unknown.

2) It's limited above by 10, and I still don't understood why. In old encoder version all settings were in db, and the limitation by, for example, 100 db could be explained that -100 db is almost unheareble by any ear. But how could I garantee, that 10 is enough, if I don't know the units?

To my mind all psyhoacoustic tunings should be given in some basic units, like ms, or db, and they should be fully explained.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jun 5 2002, 10:23
Post #59


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE
Originally posted by ssamadhi97

heh, even more - if i understand the new switches correctly, the --stereoquality, --bandwidthquality and --temporalquality are all tradeoff switches - thus you'd push the encoder into one single direction with the above commandline (for example: sacrificing audio quality for stereo imaging quality)


The problem of this naming of switches is that it gives the impression of giving more/higher 'quality' (though it is explained in the comments that they are tradeoffs).

What about

--stereovsquality
--bandwidthvsnoise
--temporalvstmn

Less chance of someone blindly changing them without stopping to think of the consequences.

QUOTE
To my mind all psyhoacoustic tunings should be given in some basic units, like ms, or db, and they should be fully explained.


You are assuming that it is at all possible to give the tuning parameters in simple to understand or explain units. That's won't be the case.

--
GCP
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Jun 5 2002, 11:27
Post #60


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by Garf


The problem of this naming of switches is that it gives the impression of giving more/higher 'quality' (though it is explained in the comments that they are tradeoffs).

What about

--stereovsquality
--bandwidthvsnoise
--temporalvstmn

Less chance of someone blindly changing them without stopping to think of the consequences.


I like this idea myself. Anything with the words "quality" on it will send people straight to tweaking whether they understand what they are doing and recognize the possible consequences or not.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smg
post Jun 5 2002, 13:08
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 200
Joined: 9-May 02
Member No.: 2006



QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom


I like this idea myself.  Anything with the words "quality" on it will send people straight to tweaking whether they understand what they are doing and recognize the possible consequences or not.


I won't respond to that comment
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Jun 5 2002, 13:51
Post #62


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by smg


I won't respond to that comment


You just did.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
David Nordin
post Jun 5 2002, 14:32
Post #63





Group: Members
Posts: 751
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Falkenberg
Member No.: 3810



QUOTE
Originally posted by Garf


The problem of this naming of switches is that it gives the impression of giving more/higher 'quality' (though it is explained in the comments that they are tradeoffs).

What about

--stereovsquality
--bandwidthvsnoise
--temporalvstmn

Less chance of someone blindly changing them without stopping to think of the consequences.



You are assuming that it is at all possible to give the tuning parameters in simple to understand or explain units. That's won't be the case.

-- 
GCP


I support this, makes sense and explains at the same time.


--------------------
http://davidnordin.wordpress.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Volcano
post Jun 5 2002, 15:12
Post #64





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 916
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Berlin, Germany
Member No.: 112



QUOTE
Originally posted by andy2kxp
I say make 1 encoder for that has the quality scale and another encoder with the tweakable switches for people who enjoy tweaking or want to debug the current quality scale.

I second that. An encoder that has only the --quality scale (and maybe a few "utility" switches, like delete input file etc.) would be absolutely idiot-proof. You'd just have to promote it heavily to keep the clever-cloggs types away from the advanced encoder.

@ Frank: Do those --quality values have corresponding nominal bitrates, as in Vorbis?

CU

Dominic
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Jun 5 2002, 16:35
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 922
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE
Originally posted by Volcano
I second that. An encoder that has [b]only the --quality scale (and maybe a few "utility" switches, like delete input file etc.) would be absolutely idiot-proof.


Maintaining two version would be contraproductive and cause confusion among the users. Almost everybody would want the "expert" version anyway smile.gif
--
Ge Someone

edit: contra


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Volcano
post Jun 5 2002, 16:47
Post #66





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 916
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Berlin, Germany
Member No.: 112



QUOTE
Maintaining two version would be contraproductive

Why? They'd be built from the same source (the only difference being the front end, which I guess is stored in one separate file anyway), and my idea is that the advanced encoder gets updated as usual, whereas the "easy" encoder is only updated if a beta or final version comes out. That shouldn't be too big a problem, shouldn't it?

Ach, forget it, someone will come up with a much better idea anyway wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
R.A.F.
post Sep 12 2003, 20:26
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 4-August 02
From: Nuremberg/Bavaria
Member No.: 2924



Please, no, oh, no. No switches at all. I speak from experience. Because once I feeled like being a good codec-tweaker ...and some here still do. - But now Iīm clean.
Edit:
Ohhh.... I just noticed that the last thread before mine was nearly before WWII. I was just wondering, why this "SV8"-thing became so actual again, as i thought it would be already dead & buried.

This post has been edited by R.A.F.: Sep 12 2003, 20:31


--------------------
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 12 2003, 21:59
Post #68


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



I wonder how did you find this thread to start with laugh.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
R.A.F.
post Sep 12 2003, 22:36
Post #69





Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 4-August 02
From: Nuremberg/Bavaria
Member No.: 2924



And imagine! I even didnīt vote for this poll out of WWII !! Okay, maybe it was simply because I was not yet born these days. rolleyes.gif No, seriously: I wanted to start a poll (which isnīt possible here for normalos like me; but I didnīt know) and so I discovered this one.....
BTW: You still can vote for my poll, itīs under "Off topic". There itīs allowed. Concerning upstream-speed of your internet-line. - Really interesting topic, I think. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by R.A.F.: Sep 12 2003, 22:36


--------------------
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Closed TopicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th December 2014 - 21:12