IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Upload forum rules

- No over 30 sec clips of copyrighted music. Cite properly and never more than necessary for the discussion.


- No copyrighted software without permission.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nightwish - Angels Fall First
shadowking
post Jun 4 2007, 17:11
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Serious problems for LAME mp3 , similar issues with AAC.

This post has been edited by shadowking: Jun 4 2007, 17:23


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Jun 4 2007, 17:18
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



Please add version, parameters etc.

I had no problem with 3.97@V5


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jun 4 2007, 17:26
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



I first spotted it with 3.97 ages ago. Tested 3.98 --vbr-new. -V5~V3 [very bad, I can't handle it]. No need to abx even V2. -V1 is closer but not hard to abx.

This post has been edited by shadowking: Jun 4 2007, 17:28


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 4 2007, 17:35
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10023
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I'm not sure I could ABX at -V3, but at -V4 distinguishing the two was not a problem (Lame 3.97).

The high open E has (what I guess is) a ringing problem.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 4 2007, 17:38


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jun 4 2007, 19:52
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2439
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Tried 3.97V5 on it. I couldn't hear the problem.
Then I tried 3.98b3V5 and could hear the problem easily. Pretty much the same thing I call a 'tremolo problem' on other samples.
Now that I've heard it I can also spot it with 3.97. But 3.97 is better on this sample for me.

This post has been edited by halb27: Jun 4 2007, 20:03


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LANjackal
post Jun 5 2007, 06:53
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 731
Joined: 26-October 05
From: Various networks
Member No.: 25371



For what it's worth, I couldn't ABX it at V0, but I guess that's expected. Just had to check wink.gif


--------------------
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stigc
post Jun 5 2007, 11:11
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 142
Joined: 13-December 04
Member No.: 18660



It's funny, Vorbis (aoTuVb5) have no 'tremolo problem' even at very low bitrates. Does anyone have a killer sample for aoTuVb5?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jillian
post Jun 5 2007, 11:26
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 29-April 06
From: Thailand
Member No.: 30166



Out Of Topic. mad.gif
I'm very disappoint Anette, new lead vocal of Nightwish.
Her sound is very similar to a thousand of Grade-B Pop Singer.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robert
post Jun 7 2007, 14:26
Post #9


LAME developer


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



@shadowking: nice sample, but I think we cannot fix it for 3.98 release version as it would require a deeper change in LAME's PSY model with re-tuning the preset levels.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Jun 8 2007, 00:18
Post #10


Moderator


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



QUOTE (stigc @ Jun 5 2007, 12:11) *
Does anyone have a killer sample for aoTuVb5?


Badvilbel, from ff123's page.

ABX 16/16 at -q6 with aotuv beta 5.
Ok at -q 7.

The same with beta 4.51 / release 1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jun 10 2007, 04:33
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



QUOTE (halb27 @ Jun 5 2007, 04:52) *
Tried 3.97V5 on it. I couldn't hear the problem.
Then I tried 3.98b3V5 and could hear the problem easily. Pretty much the same thing I call a 'tremolo problem' on other samples.
Now that I've heard it I can also spot it with 3.97. But 3.97 is better on this sample for me.


3.97 vbr new is terrible. I can hear it casually through hi-fi speakers even on -v2 . abxing was easy even with speakers on a stormy night: 8/8 -v2, 7/8 -v1, 7/8 -v0....-v1 slightly better than -v2, -v0 worse than -v1

This post has been edited by shadowking: Jun 10 2007, 04:39


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LANjackal
post Jun 10 2007, 18:43
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 731
Joined: 26-October 05
From: Various networks
Member No.: 25371



QUOTE (shadowking @ Jun 9 2007, 23:33) *
QUOTE (halb27 @ Jun 5 2007, 04:52) *
Tried 3.97V5 on it. I couldn't hear the problem.
Then I tried 3.98b3V5 and could hear the problem easily. Pretty much the same thing I call a 'tremolo problem' on other samples.
Now that I've heard it I can also spot it with 3.97. But 3.97 is better on this sample for me.


3.97 vbr new is terrible. I can hear it casually through hi-fi speakers even on -v2 . abxing was easy even with speakers on a stormy night: 8/8 -v2, 7/8 -v1, 7/8 -v0....-v1 slightly better than -v2, -v0 worse than -v1
Props for that. I can't tell any difference using -V0 vbr new on this end. Could you do me a small favor and tell me if you can still abx it using 3.97 at -b320 (highest quality setting, IIRC)? I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks smile.gif.


--------------------
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alter4
post Sep 4 2012, 11:05
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 14-September 04
From: Belarus, Vitebsk
Member No.: 16992



I was able to abx even lame 3.99.5 with -b320 -q0 settings

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/09/04 12:57:21

File A: D:\2\Nightwish\05 - Angels Fall First.wav
File B: D:\2\Nightwish\05 - Angels Fall First.mp3

12:57:21 : Test started.
12:57:42 : 01/01  50.0%
12:57:55 : 02/02  25.0%
12:58:03 : 03/03  12.5%
12:58:17 : 04/04  6.3%
12:58:48 : 05/05  3.1%
12:58:57 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/5 (3.1%)


It is really killer sample ohmy.gif
--
Used Yamaha RX-V671 + Audio-Technica ATH-M50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Sep 4 2012, 16:47
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



I missed this thread in 2007, but now I'm interested in hearing this... Since the original sample is no longer available, could someone please tell me which part of the song one might find the problem? Thanks.


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Sep 4 2012, 18:15
Post #15





Group: Developer
Posts: 3411
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.flac was (re)uploaded here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=665542
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Sep 5 2012, 19:38
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



Hm, I can't hear it... I've tried -V 6 to -V 0 and -b 320... maybe someone can tell me more specific where to look in those 30 seconds? smile.gif
Could be that my hearing just isn't that good anymore...


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mixminus1
post Sep 5 2012, 20:13
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 688
Joined: 23-February 05
Member No.: 20097



A ringing/fluttering in the right-channel guitar, most noticeable (to me, anyway) on the first note that really rings out (exactly at 1s).

It happens again a few more times on that same note, but the first one is the worst. I don't hear any other kind of distinct artifact(s) in that clip.

I can hear it very clearly with 3.99.5 -V2 (3.98.4 and 3.97b3 are both slightly better, FWIW), but I can no longer detect it at -V0 or -b320.


--------------------
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Sep 6 2012, 11:33
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



Thanks, mixminus1.

I will try it again tonight. But I think I will not "find" it, because that's where I was looking for before. wink.gif


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
psycho
post Sep 6 2012, 17:19
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 14-October 05
Member No.: 25099



Aha! Now I took time, put my headphones on and ABX-ed it at -V 4, lame 3.99.5.

I could hear it at -V 4 and at -V 1, but not at -V 0.

Results:




-V 4:
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.5
2012/09/06 18:09:20

File A: C:\Users\Goran\Downloads\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.flac
File B: C:\Users\Goran\Downloads\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.mp3

18:09:20 : Test started.
18:11:47 : 01/01 50.0%
18:12:06 : 02/02 25.0%
18:12:28 : 03/03 12.5%
18:12:52 : 04/04 6.3%
18:13:09 : 05/05 3.1%
18:13:27 : 06/06 1.6%
18:13:47 : 07/07 0.8%
18:14:01 : 08/08 0.4%
18:14:18 : 09/09 0.2%
18:14:36 : 10/10 0.1%
18:15:01 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)



-V 1:
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.5
2012/09/06 18:24:53

File A: C:\Users\Goran\Downloads\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.flac
File B: C:\Users\Goran\Downloads\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.mp3

18:24:53 : Test started.
18:26:22 : 01/01 50.0%
18:26:55 : 02/02 25.0%
18:27:08 : 03/03 12.5%
18:27:47 : 04/04 6.3%
18:27:57 : 05/05 3.1%
18:28:12 : 06/06 1.6%
18:28:57 : 07/07 0.8%
18:29:17 : 08/08 0.4%
18:29:33 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


This post has been edited by psycho: Sep 6 2012, 17:30


--------------------
lame -V 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dynamic
post Sep 6 2012, 18:59
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 17-September 06
Member No.: 35307



I wanted to try out the VBR+ mode (-V n+) of halb27's lame3.99.5y version compared to normal VBR mode, so unlike psycho, I didn't try just going for a higher quality -V n VBR mode.

Using foobar2000's ABX tool with start time 0.9s and end time 1.9 s I found a slight wavering of the sustained right-panned guitar note by encoding using lame3.99.5y using plain -V 5 encoding option - not a high bitrate setting. After a bit of relaxing and comparing of A and B, this became easy to spot, resulting in 10/10 ABX.

If anything I'd say it seems to waver in pitch or loudness every time a picking sound was heard, e.g. on the other strings of the arpeggiated chord, making it a regular time interval.

This seems to tie in with halb27's notion that when short blocks are triggered (e.g. for the picking noise transients), in order to maintain frequency resolution in the simultaneous tonal signals requires an awful lot of bits to be thrown at those short blocks. For this reason he made the lame3.99.5y test version to allow the + version of the VBR modes, which reserves lots of bit reservoir and when short blocks are triggered, it increases the bitrate as much as possible to code with maximum accuracy in those blocks. I noticed 320kbps frames rise from 4/1154 to 141/1154 (though that's without using mp3packer to tidy up the wasted bit-reservoir filled with padding).

I then tried lame3.99.5y using option -V 5+ on the commandline and found it practically impossible to spot. (6/10, though I identified it by a sort of subtle pitch difference - sharpness - on the -V5+ version, but failed, giving up on 2/4)

I will mention that I'm not very good at spotting these artifacts and my listening environment isn't great, though I wouldn't imagine my cheap Philips Extra Bass earbuds would matter much compared to the background noises.

A = original, B = 3.99.5y -V5 (normal VBR mode) SUCCESSFUL ABX
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.2
2012/09/06 17:22:13

File A: C:\Users\Dynamic\Music\Test signals\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.flac
File B: C:\Users\Dynamic\Music\Test signals\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.wav.v5normal.mp3

17:22:13 : Test started.
17:23:55 : Trial reset.
17:24:22 : 01/01 50.0%
17:24:33 : 02/02 25.0%
17:24:47 : 03/03 12.5%
17:24:56 : 04/04 6.3%
17:25:13 : 05/05 3.1%
17:25:25 : 06/06 1.6%
17:26:10 : 07/07 0.8%
17:26:28 : 08/08 0.4%
17:26:48 : 09/09 0.2%
17:27:05 : 10/10 0.1%
17:27:08 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)


A = original, B = 3.99.5y -V5+ (halb27's VBR-plus mode) FAILED ABX
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.2
2012/09/06 17:28:36

File A: C:\Users\Dynamic\Music\Test signals\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.flac
File B: C:\Users\Dynamic\Music\Test signals\05___Angels_Fall_First_ringing.wav.v5plus.mp3

17:28:36 : Test started.
17:30:30 : 01/01 50.0%
17:30:44 : 01/02 75.0%
17:31:30 : 01/03 87.5%
17:33:28 : 02/04 68.8%
17:33:47 : 02/05 81.3%
17:44:01 : 03/06 65.6%
17:45:01 : 04/07 50.0%
17:45:21 : 05/08 36.3%
17:45:44 : 05/09 50.0%
17:45:56 : 06/10 37.7%
17:46:15 : Trial reset.
17:46:34 : 01/01 50.0%
17:46:53 : 01/02 75.0%
17:47:50 : 02/03 50.0%
17:48:49 : 02/04 68.8%
17:49:03 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/14 (39.5%)


In short, though I don't think I'm good at spotting this sort of artifact and don't find it annoying in this case, I must commend Horst for his work on the -V n+ modes. I wasn't for sure expecting -V 5+ to do it - think it maybe needed -V 0+ instead - but it actually worked (for my ears) without increasing the VBR setting, just adding + to it.



This VBR -V n+ mode seems to be a notable exception to the often reasonable rule-of-thumb of many codecs, not just MP3/LAME, which states that many artifacts get better only gradually because the extra bits are not applied exclusively to the right area but tend to get spread thinly when the encoder's psymodel doesn't know what the right area is. 3.995y -V n+ seems to narrow down the area where the bits are needed a lot better than most, probably because most of LAME's other artifacts are already fixed (and have been for many years).

An analogy is to think of a square tray of plant pots, where you want to bury each seed under at least 1cm of soil. If a single seed is exposed by a gust of wind from one side blowing the soil from above it and you know where that was, you can apply a little extra soil (say 4cm³) just to the correct area of the correct plant pot, but if you don't know where the seed is (e.g. you're blindfolded or there's no light) or you are only able to add soil over the whole tray (e.g. you have restricted access from a great height), you have to add a lot more soil (e.g 1000cm³), only some of which contributes to covering over the exposed seed before it is sufficiently covered.

To explain the analogy:
exposed seeds = audible artifacts;
soil = bits or bitrate;
ability to see the location of exposed seeds = psychoacoustic model matching human hearing;
soil placement accuracy = limitations of format (e.g. short/long block features allowed).


As I understand how -V n+ mode works, which halb27 can correct me on if I'm wrong, whenever a short block is triggered by the normal -V0 psymodel, -V0+ tries to ensure that the maximum possible number of bits are made available to represent it as perfectly as MP3 allows, via the use of maximum bit reservoir and maximum (320kbps) frame size to reduce both pre-echo hiss and improve tonal accuracy during short blocks as much as possible within the normal MP3 format.

I applaud Horst for coming up with a different approach that seems to work so well. In this way, because short blocks aren't too frequently used in most music and because it uses a sensible lowpass, it is one of the few techniques that really does apply a lot of the extra bits to the right areas.

Using my seeds in a tray of plant pots analogy again, as I understand it, -V n+ is rather like knowing that statistically, exposed seeds are nearly all in the wind-facing half of the first row of plant pots on the side the wind was blowing from (analogy => most artifacts are in short blocks), so you can apply extra soil to only half of the pots on the windward side (=extra bits in short blocks) without wasting soil over the whole tray, and maybe use for example 100cm³ of extra soil, which is far better than the even-spreading approach which uses ten times more soil, but not quite as good as having the visibility of the exposed seeds and placing accuracy that tells you exactly where to deposit something more like 4cm³ of soil and lets you do so accurately.

The actual relative volumes of soil are only for illustration, but get the picture across of how inefficiently extra bits normally deal with the problem, and how, if my understanding is approximately correct, lame 3.99.5y -V n+ deals with it much better.

Perhaps the LAME psymodel can eventually be improved to detect situations where, let's say, strong tonal signals coinciding with transients in short blocks demand additional bitrate to ensure that both conflicting demands are met, and perhaps if it needs to LAME could step back a few frames and rearrange the data (stored in a buffer before being written out) to build up sufficient bit reservoir in advance of the need to exceed 320kbps local bitrate as much as required or as much as possible for these circumstances.

The restrictions of the MP3 format definition clearly prevent clever and precise solutions such as in Opus/CELT where short-blocks or long-blocks can be chosen per frequency band so that a tonal signal and its main harmonics in a few bands can benefit from the frequency resolution of a long block at the expense of time resolution while a transient typically spread across many other bands can benefit from the time-resolution of a short block at the expense of frequency resolution. Brute force high bitrate allocation at selected instants seems to be the best approach permissible for MP3.

If it's possible to derive a method for good detection of where these problems arise then many normal short blocks that don't contain tonal signals can retain the normal bitrate, within the limitations of mp3, perhaps it's equivalent to using 20cm³ of soil to hide each such artifact (seed)and little more to cover false positives mistaken for would-be artifacts, whereas, maybe an Opus CELT VBR encoder with a really great psymodel might need an additional 5cm³ of soil because it has the placement accuracy to deploy the bits in the best places.

Anyway, enough analogies for today!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 6 2012, 20:17
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 2439
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Thank you for applauding 3.99.5y, but I'm afraid something has gone wrong.
3.99.5y restricts its functional extension to only -V0+.
Did you use 3.99.5x instead? However 3.99.5x -V5+ doesn't help (for me), it takes an additional --adbr_min 200 to make this sample transparent to me (didn't try lower --adbr_min values).

To me this is not a pre-echo issue but a sample where Lame's psy model isn't quite right, but this flaw is overcome here by original Lame's top quality settings. With 3.99.5y problems like these are tackled by the internal --adbr_min feature which always keeps audio data bitrate above a certain threshold.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 6 2012, 20:29
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 2439
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (alter4 @ Sep 4 2012, 12:05) *
I was able to abx even lame 3.99.5 with -b320 -q0 settings ...

You used just 5 trials, which is a bit low for ABXing. 8 trials should be done at least.
Anyway, according to your results there is a high chance that you can succesfully abx CBR 320 8/8.
Would you mind to try, and also try -V0? It would be great if you could also try Lame 3.99.5y -V0+ in case you can abx -V0.

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 6 2012, 20:32


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 7 2012, 21:49
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 2439
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



I tried various 3.99.5 -Vn settings with this interesting sample. I can ABX it up to -V1, but not at -V0.
I also tried my version 3.99.5x because of its possibility to hold up audio data bitrate above an adjustable level when using moderate quality levels. Using -V4+ --adbr_min 160 I can't ABX the issue.
Guess my decision to only support -V0+ with 3.99.5y wasn't well done, and the minimum bitrate feature is helpful even with moderate minimum bitrate. Will go back to work to fix this.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Sep 8 2012, 04:13
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1577
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (halb27 @ Sep 6 2012, 16:29) *
You used just 5 trials, which is a bit low for ABXing. 8 trials should be done at least.

p = 0.03... for 5 trials
p = 0.0039... for 8 trials.

I don't think that a confidence interval of 96.875% (5 trials) is any worse than one of 99.609375% (8 trials) for real life scenarios. +2.73%
Especially for such ambiguous case like ranking of audio quality.
All You get is a fatigue, early quit at very first samples and an incompleteness.

5 is more than enough.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alter4
post Sep 8 2012, 11:14
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 14-September 04
From: Belarus, Vitebsk
Member No.: 16992



QUOTE (halb27 @ Sep 6 2012, 22:29) *
QUOTE (alter4 @ Sep 4 2012, 12:05) *
I was able to abx even lame 3.99.5 with -b320 -q0 settings ...

Would you mind to try, and also try -V0? It would be great if you could also try Lame 3.99.5y -V0+ in case you can abx -V0.


I did ABX -V0 very easily, that was exactly the case why I started to ABX pure 320kpbs sample. Sorry pal, I don't want to start ABX it again, just believe me I was able to do it. But nothing special with my ears, just quite good sound equipment. I think for real life listening V0 is transparent, because V0 doesn't sound bad (for example, V5 sounds ugly & could hinder you enjoy the track), it just sounds slightly different from the original.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 20th October 2014 - 20:05