IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Recommended Encoder Versions and Settings
QuantumKnot
post Nov 30 2004, 05:44
Post #76





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



That's interesting, when considering that AMD32's only support SSE. I should test out oggenc on our AMD64's, which are running 64-bit linux smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yong
post Dec 3 2004, 11:58
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Malaysia
Member No.: 15210



Mimicking GT3b2 with 1.1

CODE
from QuantumKnot's post
--advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-10 --advanced-encode-option impulse_trigger_profile=5.2

I've read several post about mimicking GT3b2 with 1.1, but i'm not so understand it(i'm stupid tongue.gif ),
I assume that :
-q 6 --advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-10 --advanced-encode-option impulse_trigger_profile=5.2
is same as GT3b2 q6?

Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks!


--------------------
http://foobar2000.xrea.jp/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Dec 4 2004, 00:12
Post #78





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (yong @ Dec 3 2004, 08:58 PM)
Mimicking GT3b2 with 1.1

CODE
from QuantumKnot's post
--advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-10 --advanced-encode-option impulse_trigger_profile=5.2

I've read several post about mimicking GT3b2 with 1.1, but i'm not so understand it(i'm stupid tongue.gif ),
I assume that :
-q 6 --advanced-encode-option impulse_noisetune=-10 --advanced-encode-option impulse_trigger_profile=5.2
is same as GT3b2 q6?

Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks!
*


Yes, it is a good approximation of it, though not exactly the same. Try comparing this setting with GT3b1 on some files. smile.gif I haven't tried this setting myself but only derived it by looking at the psychoacoustic values of both. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yong
post Dec 4 2004, 14:36
Post #79





Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Malaysia
Member No.: 15210



@QuantumKnot:
Thanks for the reply, but why try comparing the setting with GT3b1, not the GT3b2?


--------------------
http://foobar2000.xrea.jp/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Dec 4 2004, 15:16
Post #80





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (yong @ Dec 4 2004, 11:36 PM)
@QuantumKnot:
Thanks for the reply, but why try comparing the setting with GT3b1, not the GT3b2?
*


Mainly because GT3b1 is essentially the same as GT3b2, except that the former was based on Vorbis 1.0 while the latter was based on Vorbis 1.0.1. But the important tunings are the same. So you can compare with either of them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zEn
post Dec 29 2004, 17:26
Post #81





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 21-September 04
Member No.: 17188



is there a special oggenc version (with P4 optimization) to include in foobar?
I just copied the aotuv dlls in my foobar directory and use the standart oggenc, because oggenc2 does not work.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TobWen
post Dec 30 2004, 03:03
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 29-May 02
Member No.: 2150



Hi there,

I've been off this site for about a year.
I've already read many threads and after reading this sticky, I'm really confused.

QuantumKnot is recommending "Xiph.Org's Vorbis 1.1" at all quality levels.
His post was edited last time Nov 23 2004.

Many people on this board like the aoTuV-builds.
I'm interesting in -q5 to -q7 ... which way should I go?

Best regards,
Tobias
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
music_man_mpc
post Dec 30 2004, 03:27
Post #83





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 707
Joined: 20-July 03
From: Canada
Member No.: 7895



QUOTE (TobWen @ Dec 29 2004, 06:03 PM)
Hi there,

I've been off this site for about a year.
I've already read many threads and after reading this sticky, I'm really confused.

QuantumKnot is recommending "Xiph.Org's Vorbis 1.1" at all quality levels.
His post was edited last time Nov 23 2004.

Many people on this board like the aoTuV-builds.
I'm interesting in -q5 to -q7 ... which way should I go?

Best regards,
Tobias
*

Welcome to Hydrogenaudio Tobias.

The reason why Vorbis 1.1 is recommended over any of the aoTuV builds is that, for all intents and purposes, it is aoTuV beta2 with a few extra bugfixes. Very few reliable tests have been conducted so far between aoTuV beta 3 and beta 2/Vorbis 1.1; thus Vorbis 1.1 is still the recommended version, but if even a few reliable tests come back in favor of aoTuV beta3 I think that QuantumKnot will probably change it.


--------------------
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Dec 30 2004, 03:28
Post #84





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



Vorbis 1.1 is based on aoTuV beta 2. The recent aoTuV beta 3 is currently experimental and there haven't been any substantial listening tests done to show that it is better than Vorbis 1.1 in most genres (yet).

For the q range you are interested in, I suspect there isn't much difference. But you should do your own listening test with the music you listen to the most to verify.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TobWen
post Dec 30 2004, 03:42
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 29-May 02
Member No.: 2150



thanks for your fast and professional help!
According to this, I've got another question:
I'm using "Cool Edit Pro 1.2" for editing my music.
Is"Cool Vorbis Filter using libVorbis v1.1.0" from RareWares the recommended build?

I'm really confused about the sorting on RareWares :-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Dec 30 2004, 03:45
Post #86





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (TobWen @ Dec 30 2004, 12:42 PM)
thanks for your fast and professional help!
According to this, I've got another question:
I'm using "Cool Edit Pro 1.2" for editing my music.
Is"Cool Vorbis Filter using libVorbis v1.1.0" from RareWares the recommended build?

I'm really confused about the sorting on RareWares :-)
*


Yep, since it uses libvorbis 1.1 smile.gif

I think they need to clean up their page at Rarewares laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LiTEMaTTeR
post Jan 4 2005, 08:56
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 8-April 04
Member No.: 13327



hmmm... AO; aoTuV b2 [20040420] (based on Xiph.Org's 1.0.1) => aoTuV beta 2

Thats what I'm using with a foobar2000 encoder. I'm noticing something though. Using -q 5 which Im told is the min for transparency with this encoder, the bitrates seem to be lower than I get with 3.90.3 LAME's APS. I also did MPC for fun and found those to tend to be somewhere between OGG and MP3 at its stand setting.

Anyways, Ive tried to ABX a few tracks and I seem to not be able to tell that q5 sounds bad at all compared to the original. I used alot of tracks off FF123's problem sample FLACs and a few random wav's I had on my pc (mostly pop and urban style music). Its extremely hard for me to even hear any differences.

Im very excited about the lower bitrates but good quality still. But I don't wanna get my hopes up really fast just yet.

I have a few more questions about OGG as a format compared to mp3:

1) do u *have* to compare only pure bitrates i.e 192 ogg vs mp3 192. I'd really like to think OGG is giving me higher/equal(probably more accurate) quality at lower bitrates. Generally, speaking of course.

2) could one say q5 (ogg) = lame-aps (mp3) in terms of quality?

3) since ogg doesn't have alot of the same limitations mp3 has. I assume its encoding even the high freq content fine?

4) any GUI (like encospot) apps for OGG?

EDIT: moved from previous thread
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Jan 6 2005, 01:09
Post #88





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (LiTEMaTTeR @ Jan 4 2005, 05:56 PM)
Anyways, Ive tried to ABX a few tracks and I seem to not be able to tell that q5 sounds bad at all compared to the original. I used alot of tracks off FF123's problem sample FLACs and a few random wav's I had on my pc (mostly pop and urban style music). Its extremely hard for me to even hear any differences.


Transparency is subjective and is different to different people. I find it hard to hear artifacts at q 4 most of the time while some people can hear the the faintest of artifacts at q 7 or more. So it is dependent on your equipment as well as your hearing.

QUOTE
1) do u *have* to compare only pure bitrates i.e 192 ogg vs mp3 192. I'd really like to think OGG is giving me higher/equal(probably more accurate) quality at lower bitrates. Generally, speaking of course.


This has been the bone of contention for a while....how to compare VBR codecs. The usual practice has been to compare codecs which have similar average bitrates on most genres of music. So what that means is gathering lots and lots of music of different genres, and twiddling the VBR settings of both codecs until they achieve the same average bitrate (adding up all the bitrates and taking an average) on this material.

QUOTE
2) could one say q5 (ogg) = lame-aps (mp3) in terms of quality?


Only a listening test can answer that, and it will be dependent on different people. Have a search around the forums to see if someone has done a test comparing q 5 ogg vorbis with lame aps.

QUOTE
3) since ogg doesn't have alot of the same limitations mp3 has. I assume its encoding even the high freq content fine?


Theoretically, ogg vorbis was designed to overcome the limitations of mp3. But whether it has been tuned optimally is the important question. IMO, ogg vorbis has a lot of potential and the current encoder is not as well tuned as say, LAME.

QUOTE
4) any GUI (like encospot) apps for OGG?


You could try OggDropXPd. There are quite a few.

btw. Ogg is a file container that can contain video and audio. The actual audio codec is called Vorbis. wink.gif

This post has been edited by QuantumKnot: Jan 6 2005, 01:10
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mono13
post Feb 1 2005, 05:35
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 17-December 03
Member No.: 10514



i find ogg's great in a komputer stg game
only ogg q4 128k/bps,but soundz amazing
than i become a true ogg fans,q4 is enough for the quality u want.
if wanna more safety ,go q5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Buffalo Bill
post Feb 14 2005, 06:27
Post #90





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 28-September 04
Member No.: 17368



Great topic! Answered almost all my questions in one swoop. Anyways, EAC+OGG... I notice the maximum bitrate is 320 KBp/s... will it encode higher? What do I do? Also, will EAC+OGG encode a DTS SACD? Lastly, is EAC still better than CDex, or has CDex outpaced it? I've been outta the loop a while ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Feb 14 2005, 06:35
Post #91





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



I think EAC is still the best ripper for detecting errors, though I find CDex's paranoia ripper to be quite good at 'fixing' scratched CDs. But if you have a CD drive that caches data, then CDex won't be able to detect the errors, so best go with EAC. Luckily, my DVD drive doesn't cache data (according to EAC) smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Buffalo Bill
post Feb 14 2005, 06:44
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 28-September 04
Member No.: 17368



Yeah, but will EAC encode my OGG Vorbis files at 500KBp/s, or will the highest it go be 320?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Feb 15 2005, 06:30
Post #93





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 552
Joined: 9-June 04
From: A place long since forgotten...
Member No.: 14572



If you tell it to call oggenc and encode at -q 10 it'll encode at -q 10. I don't think Ogg Vorbis has an upper ceiling for bitrate but I could be wrong.


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dewey1973
post Feb 17 2005, 18:25
Post #94





Group: Members
Posts: 383
Joined: 31-March 03
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 5771



QUOTE (Buffalo Bill @ Feb 13 2005, 09:44 PM)
Yeah, but will EAC encode my OGG Vorbis files at 500KBp/s, or will the highest it go be 320?
*


The bit rate drop-down does not tell the encoder what bit rate to use. I believe it is only used to estimate the compressed file size that is shown in the main window.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alter4
post Feb 28 2005, 09:55
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 14-September 04
From: Belarus, Vitebsk
Member No.: 16992



It seems new Qk test build is recommended encoder because it based on Vorbis 1.1
and include only the new block switching algorithm.
QUOTE
so it can't do any worse than vanilla Vorbis 1.1, I hope
QuantumKnot


This post has been edited by alter4: Feb 28 2005, 09:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Feb 28 2005, 11:16
Post #96





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (alter4 @ Feb 28 2005, 06:55 PM)
It seems new Qk test build is recommended encoder because it based on Vorbis 1.1
and include only the new block switching algorithm.
QUOTE
so it can't do any worse than vanilla Vorbis 1.1, I hope
QuantumKnot

*



It is much too early to be recommending that. More testing is required to determine any special cases. While it can't do any worse than 1.1 in terms of quality, it can explode and give very high bitrates on some types of music though. I found one particular sample today so I went and fixed it, only to break it for another sample. So yeah, still early days. Plus we got some new aoTuV releases too smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Prodoc
post Mar 3 2005, 12:44
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 16-October 03
Member No.: 9335



Isn't the Oggenc2.4 serie (IMPULSE_TRIGGER_PROFILE, aoTuVb3, etc) recommended yet? It's not updated in this thread but the 2.3 serie isn't even listed on RareWares anymore.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Mar 3 2005, 12:55
Post #98





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (Prodoc @ Mar 3 2005, 09:44 PM)
Isn't the Oggenc2.4 serie (IMPULSE_TRIGGER_PROFILE, aoTuVb3, etc) recommended yet? It's not updated in this thread but the 2.3 serie isn't even listed on RareWares anymore.
*


Thanks for pointing it out. I've updated the links.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
evilchickenking
post Mar 14 2005, 19:59
Post #99





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16821



I have an amd64 processor and i was curious to find out if i was still supposed to use the p3/amd version or if i was supposed to use the p4 version. i've noticed that with other projects with different version that sse2 was the only difference between the two. is this true in this case?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Mar 15 2005, 00:43
Post #100





Group: Developer
Posts: 1245
Joined: 16-December 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 4097



QUOTE (evilchickenking @ Mar 15 2005, 04:59 AM)
I have an amd64 processor and i was curious to find out if i was still supposed to use the p3/amd version or if i was supposed to use the p4 version. i've noticed that with other projects with different version that sse2 was the only difference between the two. is this true in this case?
*


The best way to find out is to actually run the P4 version and see if it works. If it was specifically compiled for P4, you'll get an error message saying this is incompatible. If it works, then that means there aren't any P4-specific instructions used. smile.gif But yeah, amd64 supports SSE2.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 29th July 2014 - 10:15