Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: --alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard (Read 9071 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard

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,

--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard

Reply #1 –
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

--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard

Reply #2 –
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 ?

--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard

Reply #3 –
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?

--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard

Reply #4 –
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
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

--alt-preset fast extreme vs. --alt-preset standard

Reply #5 –
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.