IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
freeformat at 640 kbps and foobar2000, possibilities?
Wintershade
post Nov 15 2005, 22:33
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 138
Joined: 27-July 04
Member No.: 15817



Is it possible to play freeformat mp3 at 640 kbps in foobar? If yes, how? If not, why?

I don't actually intend to use something like this, I'm just collecting some information for my college project.

Many thanks.

This post has been edited by Wintershade: Nov 15 2005, 22:35


--------------------
Only the best is good enough.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kalmark
post Nov 15 2005, 22:34
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 599
Joined: 9-October 03
From: ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
Member No.: 9230



Yes, IIRC. foo_mad, IIRC.

Edit: Garf probably knows better rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by kalmark: Nov 16 2005, 10:46


--------------------
Life is Real...
(But not in audio :) )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Nov 15 2005, 23:11
Post #3


Server Admin


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



Not possible.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Nov 28 2006, 06:17
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



QUOTE (Wintershade @ Nov 15 2005, 16:33) *
Is it possible to play freeformat mp3 at 640 kbps in foobar? If yes, how? If not, why?

I don't actually intend to use something like this, I'm just collecting some information for my college project.

Many thanks.


Yes it is possible using Winamp and the MAD plugin. There is an updated MAD plugin thread someplace here. Don't have the URL for the thread.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Nov 28 2006, 06:32
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



At 640kbps, there is no sensible reason to use MP3. Lossless is trivially larger here, and much less lossy.

Freeformat is a non-standard encoding for MP3. There is no reason that I've read to use it. At all. Other encodings are more space-efficient, and other encodings have freeformat capability as part of the specification.

The only reason to use MP3 is for backwards compatibility, and freeformat breaks that.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Nov 28 2006, 06:56
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



I just compared 320k and 640k from an LPCM 16-bit DvD audio rip and the sound difference is not great at all. Not worth the roughly double size. besides, the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10 about 1/2 the size and it will sound better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
digital
post Nov 28 2006, 08:36
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: 29-July 06
Member No.: 33427



QUOTE (JWolf @ Nov 28 2006, 00:56) *
I just compared 320k and 640k from an LPCM 16-bit DvD audio rip and the sound difference is not great at all. Not worth the roughly double size. besides, the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10 about 1/2 the size and it will sound better.


JWolf:

can you please point me to an explanation of the following:

the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10

Is "-q 10" a setting thats similar to selecting a bitrate with standard MP3 files?

Appreciate it.

Andrew D.
cdnav.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hlloyge
post Nov 28 2006, 08:53
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 701
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



QUOTE (JWolf @ Nov 28 2006, 07:56) *
I just compared 320k and 640k from an LPCM 16-bit DvD audio rip and the sound difference is not great at all. Not worth the roughly double size. besides, the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10 about 1/2 the size and it will sound better.


You hear sound difference between 320kbit and 640kbit mp3? Care to ABX it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gabriel
post Nov 28 2006, 10:23
Post #9


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



QUOTE (Canar @ Nov 28 2006, 06:32) *
Freeformat is a non-standard encoding for MP3.

Small correction: freeformat IS COMPLIANT with the mp3 standard. Decoders are required to be able to decode it up to 320kbps, but decoding higher bitrate freeformat streams is not mandatory.

Practically, it means that higher than 320kbps, only a few decoders support it. But in no way this is not compliant with the standard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HbG
post Nov 28 2006, 13:01
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 12-May 03
From: The Hague
Member No.: 6555



If it is compliant, does that mean it is in theory possible to get higher quality with freeformat VBR because there is no longer a restriction on the bitrate of each frame? And as a bonus a good multithreaded encoding speedup because the reservoir is no longer needed, or am i talking nonsense now?


--------------------
Veni Vidi Vorbis.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Nov 28 2006, 13:24
Post #11


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 788
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 5



Freeformat is CBR by nature.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Klyith
post Nov 28 2006, 18:17
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 352
Joined: 10-July 04
From: Albany NY USA
Member No.: 15259



QUOTE (HbG @ Nov 28 2006, 07:01) *
If it is compliant, does that mean it is in theory possible to get higher quality with freeformat VBR because there is no longer a restriction on the bitrate of each frame? And as a bonus a good multithreaded encoding speedup because the reservoir is no longer needed, or am i talking nonsense now?

AFAIK listening tests by people here on high bitrate mp3 suggest that if the encoder produces artifacts at 320, it's going to have artifacts at any bitrate. There are deficiencies in the technology of mp3 that are not solved by throwing more bits at them. Freeformat at > 320 is pointless because not only does it break compatibility, but it doesn't actually get you any useful return.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Nov 29 2006, 00:51
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



Thanks for the correction, Gabriel. smile.gif


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Dec 1 2006, 02:07
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



QUOTE (hlloyge @ Nov 28 2006, 02:53) *
QUOTE (JWolf @ Nov 28 2006, 07:56) *

I just compared 320k and 640k from an LPCM 16-bit DVD audio rip and the sound difference is not great at all. Not worth the roughly double size. besides, the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10 about 1/2 the size and it will sound better.


You hear sound difference between 320kbit and 640kbit mp3? Care to ABX it?

I forgot to mention I did blind testing. I put Winamp on shuffle and repeat and minimized it so I would not know which track it's playing. I also have my taskbar hidden so I cannot see that and know which was which. I used Phish Live in Brooklyn and the track Sample in a Jar as the test track. I was able to pick out the 640k track about 75% (rough estimate) of the time. As I see it, going to 640K is not worth the extra in file size. The format just doesn't handle it well. Unless of course, the MAD plugin is at fault.

This post has been edited by JWolf: Dec 1 2006, 02:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Dec 1 2006, 02:20
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



QUOTE (digital @ Nov 28 2006, 02:36) *
QUOTE (JWolf @ Nov 28 2006, 00:56) *

I just compared 320k and 640k from an LPCM 16-bit DvD audio rip and the sound difference is not great at all. Not worth the roughly double size. besides, the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10 about 1/2 the size and it will sound better.


JWolf:

can you please point me to an explanation of the following:

the latest oggenc will encode at -q 10

Is "-q 10" a setting thats similar to selecting a bitrate with standard MP3 files?

Appreciate it.

Andrew D.
cdnav.com

The following is a quote from the vorbis.com FAQ

QUOTE
For now, quality 0 is roughly equivalent to 64kbps average, 5 is roughly 160kbps, and 10 gives about 400kbps. Most people seeking very-near-CD-quality audio encode at a quality of 5 or, for lossless stereo coupling, 6. The default setting is quality 3, which at approximately 110kbps gives a smaller filesize and significantly better fidelity than .mp3 compression at 128kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hlloyge
post Dec 1 2006, 08:53
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 701
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



QUOTE (JWolf @ Dec 1 2006, 03:07) *
I forgot to mention I did blind testing. I put Winamp on shuffle and repeat and minimized it so I would not know which track it's playing. I also have my taskbar hidden so I cannot see that and know which was which. I used Phish Live in Brooklyn and the track Sample in a Jar as the test track. I was able to pick out the 640k track about 75% (rough estimate) of the time. As I see it, going to 640K is not worth the extra in file size. The format just doesn't handle it well. Unless of course, the MAD plugin is at fault.


That's not ABXing, and there is no proof except your word. Please, do ABX testing, I think there is howto on wiki, also you can use Foobar2000, it has ABX capabilities.
I find it very hard to believe you could differentiate original from 320kbit, not to mention 640 vs 320.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Dec 1 2006, 20:52
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



QUOTE (hlloyge @ Dec 1 2006, 02:53) *
QUOTE (JWolf @ Dec 1 2006, 03:07) *

I forgot to mention I did blind testing. I put Winamp on shuffle and repeat and minimized it so I would not know which track it's playing. I also have my taskbar hidden so I cannot see that and know which was which. I used Phish Live in Brooklyn and the track Sample in a Jar as the test track. I was able to pick out the 640k track about 75% (rough estimate) of the time. As I see it, going to 640K is not worth the extra in file size. The format just doesn't handle it well. Unless of course, the MAD plugin is at fault.


That's not ABXing, and there is no proof except your word. Please, do ABX testing, I think there is howto on wiki, also you can use Foobar2000, it has ABX capabilities.
I find it very hard to believe you could differentiate original from 320kbit, not to mention 640 vs 320.


I can't use foobar. It won't handle 640k mp3.

Please tell me how to do a proper ABX using Winamp which is all I have that will play a 640k mp3 file.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
evereux
post Dec 1 2006, 21:35
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 907
Joined: 9-February 02
From: Cheshire, UK
Member No.: 1296



QUOTE (JWolf @ Dec 1 2006, 19:52) *
I can't use foobar. It won't handle 640k mp3.

Please tell me how to do a proper ABX using Winamp which is all I have that will play a 640k mp3 file.

Decode the file to .wav with winamp and use Foobar2000 for the ABX test.

This post has been edited by evereux: Dec 1 2006, 21:35


--------------------
daefeatures.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Dec 16 2006, 20:29
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



QUOTE (evereux @ Dec 1 2006, 15:35) *
QUOTE (JWolf @ Dec 1 2006, 19:52) *

I can't use foobar. It won't handle 640k mp3.

Please tell me how to do a proper ABX using Winamp which is all I have that will play a 640k mp3 file.

Decode the file to .wav with winamp and use Foobar2000 for the ABX test.

Good idea. Lame should be able to decode it. I could have Lame decode both just to be fair and then use Foobar2000 to ABX.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Dec 16 2006, 21:47
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



640k mp3 vs. 320k mp3 round 1

QUOTE
foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.2
2006/12/16 14:58:12

File A: M:\Work\Heart - Heart (MFSL) - 320. These Dreams.wav
File B: M:\Work\Heart - Heart (MFSL) - 640. These Dreams.wav

14:58:12 : Test started.
14:59:29 : 01/01 50.0%
15:00:04 : Trial reset.
15:00:06 : Trial reset.
15:00:06 : Trial reset.
15:00:44 : 01/01 50.0%
15:01:16 : 02/02 25.0%
15:02:01 : 02/03 50.0%
15:03:10 : 02/04 68.8%
15:03:18 : Trial reset.
15:03:47 : 00/01 100.0%
15:03:52 : Trial reset.
15:04:30 : 00/01 100.0%
15:04:35 : Trial reset.
15:05:18 : 00/01 100.0%
15:05:23 : Trial reset.
15:05:41 : 01/01 50.0%
15:05:56 : 02/02 25.0%
15:06:29 : 02/03 50.0%
15:06:40 : 03/04 31.3%
15:06:55 : 03/05 50.0%
15:13:49 : 03/06 65.6%
15:14:11 : 04/07 50.0%
15:14:51 : 04/08 63.7%
15:15:28 : 05/09 50.0%
15:38:11 : 06/10 37.7%
15:38:26 : 06/11 50.0%
15:39:09 : 06/12 61.3%
15:39:27 : 06/13 70.9%
15:39:52 : 06/14 78.8%
15:40:07 : 06/15 84.9%
15:40:12 : 07/16 77.3%
15:40:29 : 08/17 68.5%
15:40:43 : 08/18 76.0%
15:41:21 : 08/19 82.0%
15:41:28 : 09/20 74.8%
15:41:39 : 10/21 66.8%
15:42:27 : 10/22 73.8%
15:42:39 : 11/23 66.1%
15:42:52 : 12/24 58.1%
15:43:03 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/32 (70.2%)


As you can see, I got it wrong enough with this one track to show that the difference between 640k mp3 and 320k mp3 is not that great to really hear a difference that I can easily pick out one or the other. I compressed both tracks from the lossless FLAC to 320k and 640k mp3 using LAME 3.97. I then used LAME to decompress both tracks back into wav so foobar2000 could play them both for the ABXing. I'll try other types of music to see how it come out. But on this one track, it was conclusive that I was unable to identify the differences often enough to make 640k worth while.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Dec 16 2006, 21:50
Post #21





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



The correct way to interpret that is that you were not able to identify it at all. Not that you got it "some of the time."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Dec 17 2006, 00:17
Post #22





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Firon's right. Not many people are going to claim that 320kbps does not offer transparency for average material. Anyway, while I don't see much use in that test, I agree with you that such a bitrate for MP3 is overkill; in fact, I'd say that it is so for any lossy format and recommend lossless instead.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JWolf
post Dec 18 2006, 12:20
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



QUOTE (dv1989 @ Dec 16 2006, 18:17) *
Firon's right. Not many people are going to claim that 320kbps does not offer transparency for average material. Anyway, while I don't see much use in that test, I agree with you that such a bitrate for MP3 is overkill; in fact, I'd say that it is so for any lossy format and recommend lossless instead.

The use I see is that it proves that 640k mp3 is not going to be a viable format as a standard. The filesize is way too larger for that you get vs 320k. The differences are not that great as to be able to 100% say oh yes, 640k is better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Dec 18 2006, 12:48
Post #24





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



As far as I know, ABX testing is intended to prove that audible difference(s) do exist - not the opposite. Thus, your test may not carry much weight.

This post has been edited by dv1989: Dec 18 2006, 12:50
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: 27th November 2014 - 09:21