IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Recommended Encoder Versions and Settings
QuantumKnot
post Sep 5 2003, 06:39
Post #1





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



Recommended Ogg Vorbis Encoders


Please check the more frequently updated wiki for recommended Ogg Vorbis encoders.

This post has been edited by QuantumKnot: Jul 19 2007, 13:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Nov 9 2003, 01:00
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



You should consider adding links to Garf's site and original compile. I already did that for ReplayGain. Some people are a bit cautious about ICL compiles so it's always good to have alternatives available.

Another link you might want to add is Case's excellent guide and encoder component for foobar2000: foo_vorbisenc_gt3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mekon21
post Nov 10 2003, 13:26
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-April 03
Member No.: 5791



@ QuantumKnot

Thanks for the effort, this has been long overdue.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jaleel
post Nov 26 2003, 17:36
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 26-November 03
Member No.: 10043



What are the recommended Vorbis setting for 16k Vocal song? no music instrument, just voice.

Sample mp3 file for new encoding with Ogg

I want to encode the source of above mp3 to be Ogg for online stream & downloadable.

I know realplayer have this feature, i doubt Ogg has it but let me ask anyway. Can i have 1 Ogg Vorbis file which stream to user at their selected bitrate?

for example with real audio file we can encode it and tell it to support 16k 24k 56k etc and we have only 1 file for that. cool.gif very cool.

Configurable SureStream™ Encoding — Cool Real Audio feature

This post has been edited by Jaleel: Nov 26 2003, 17:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Nov 27 2003, 03:19
Post #5





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



It should also be noted that with the GT3b1 encoder, quality settings between 4.01 and 4.99 (inclusive) will give incremental increases in bitrate above what the 1.0.1 version would generate.

GT3b1 currently uses a nominal bitrate 20kbps higher for each quality level of 5 and above, but anything over -q 4 begins getting an increase as well. A quality setting between 4 and 5 with GT3b1 will use a "portion" of the tuning enhancements, but not the "full effect" of those enhancements until you get to -q 5 or higher.

This can be noted, for instance, by encoding a track at -q 4.25 with v1.0.1, and the same track at -q 4.25 with GT3b1.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinu
post Nov 29 2003, 02:19
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20-February 03
From: India
Member No.: 5080



QuantumKnot's "Recommended Encoder Versions and Settings" is a good attempt at giving newbies to Vorbis like myself an idea of what encoder to use. But there is no mention on what quality setting to actually use for transparency.

For example, what -q setting should I use in oggenc GT3b1 to get a quality equivalent to lame --alt-preset standard, for example?

Are there any recommended -q settings on this forum for the various versions of oggenc which give quality equivalent to the various --alt-preset settings in lame?

Adding this information to QuantumKnot's FAQ, if it exists, would go a long way to helping new Vorbis users not burn their fingers by encoding at too low or too high quality settings during their early migration days.

Regards,
Vinu.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Nov 29 2003, 02:24
Post #7





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



QUOTE (vinu @ Nov 29 2003, 11:19 AM)
QuantumKnot's "Recommended Encoder Versions and Settings" is a good attempt at giving newbies to Vorbis like myself an idea of what encoder to use. But there is no mention on what quality setting to actually use for transparency.

For example, what -q setting should I use in oggenc GT3b1 to get a quality equivalent to lame --alt-preset standard, for example?

Are there any recommended -q settings on this forum for the various versions of oggenc which give quality equivalent to the various --alt-preset settings in lame?

Adding this information to QuantumKnot's FAQ, if it exists, would go a long way to helping new Vorbis users not burn their fingers by encoding at too low or too high quality settings during their early migration days.

Regards,
Vinu.

The problem is that 'transparency' is a very subjective thing and different people have different 'ears'. For some who arent sensitive to pre-echo and stereo separation, -q 1 is 'transparent. For' me, -q 4 may be 'transparent' while to others who are sensitive to the HF boost, -q 9 or 10 is still NOT 'transparent'.

Garf has recommended that you start at -q 5 in GT3b1 and if ABXing shows that its not transparent, continue moving up. Personally, I use -q 5 when using GT3b1 and that's the lowest you can go to get the full benefits of his tunings.

This post has been edited by QuantumKnot: Nov 29 2003, 02:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soren
post Dec 10 2003, 18:55
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 141
Joined: 10-May 02
From: Quebec
Member No.: 2015



Time to update for the merged ogg encoder (GTb2 based on 1.0.1) ?

Soren
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest_sramov_*
post Feb 16 2004, 14:09
Post #9





Guests






Can anyone update dll's for the CDex into GT3b2 (recommended for all quality levels)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Feb 16 2004, 23:40
Post #10





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



QUOTE (sramov @ Feb 16 2004, 11:09 PM)
Can anyone update dll's for the CDex into GT3b2 (recommended for all quality levels)?

John33 will be doing those very soon. Keep checking. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Feb 16 2004, 23:53
Post #11


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



I'll post links for these as I am still without ftp access to Rarewares!! blink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Feb 16 2004, 23:59
Post #12


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



OK, I've made all the GT3b2 compiles that I've done so far available at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/gt3b2/

Nothing fancy!! Just a list of files. The names should be reasonably self-explanatory. I'll get these up to Rarewares just as soon as I can.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Feb 17 2004, 00:03
Post #13





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



I'm assuming the CDex dll's is the one named 'oggvorbis-dllsGT3b2.zip'? smile.gif

*goes and downloads them*
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Feb 17 2004, 00:08
Post #14


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3760
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (QuantumKnot @ Feb 16 2004, 11:03 PM)
I'm assuming the CDex dll's is the one named 'oggvorbis-dllsGT3b2.zip'? smile.gif

*goes and downloads them*

Yep!! wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest_OggZealot_*
post Feb 17 2004, 03:37
Post #15





Guests






It's great to see the 3 month after I asked it:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=15274&
the Vorbis sticky FAQ/Help is at last updated ...

I just wanna add my personnal feeling about it, I have a 150gig experience in Vorbis now & I just wanna tell that I disagree with pointing total ogg newbie to GT3B2 instead of pointing them to the last official version first.

GT3B2 is absolutly NOT the standard in Vorbis in the wild ... it is an advanced HA user toy ...

on 4000 vorbis rip in the wild ... you will found : 1 Garf tuned rip at best ...

so if you are a total Ogg Vorbis newbie try last official Monty version first ... & see if the quality is enough for you ... & there is many chance (95% I would say) that it will be enought for you ...

my "convert MPC/MP3 user to Vorbis" experience learn me that:
1: most Lame APS users switch to Vorbis V1.01 Q5 (95%)
2: most MPC Q5 (or HA readers) users switch to Vorbis GT3B2 Q6 (5%)

(Note: Lame users are very easy to convert while MPC users are very hard ...)

... so if you can't ABX audio artefacts, it is most likely that you will stick with V1.01 ...
I know more than 25 Ogg Vorbis ripper friends & several Vorbis networks ...

NONE of them is using neither GT3B1 nor GT3B2 ...

I don't say that Garf, QuantumKnot, aoTuVa maker & John33 work is bad ... it is GREAT indeed ... but it will only be usefull in two case IMVHO:
1: Monty include the tweak to the official version without the damn 20Kbps bitrate jump.
2: They fork & create their real own encoder tuned for 64to128==>movie & 128to256==> music which will have an harmonized bitrate jump & willl cover all the audio/video bitrate range ... if they would do so ... they should reduce the quality setting mapping to keep the parity with the official version ... then we will have the equivalent of what is Lame versus official MP3 ...

In the wild estimation:

Versions:
pre-RC3: 4%
RC3: 15%
V1.00: 70%
V1.01: 10%
post CSV: 1%
GT3B: 0%

Settings:
Q4: 5%
Q5: 65%
Q6: 20%
Q7: 2%
Q8: 2%
Other: 6%

... so the Ogg Vorbis Standard is clearly V1.01 Q5 ... & that is what I recommend to Ogg Vorbis newbies ...

Hope it Helps ... Thks QK
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Feb 17 2004, 10:39
Post #16





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



Point taken. I'll include the official encoder as well for completeness. However, there is no golden rule which says the 'standard' version has to be the recommended one or the best one.

The purpose of this page is to let everyone know what is currently the best quality Vorbis encoder out there (whether it be for listening tests, archiving, etc.) and judging from the opinions of most people in the GT3b1 thread, Garf's tunings were superior to the official version.

The biggest factor in determining popularity is the amount of coverage. Hence you see the Xiph.Org version everywhere since its got its own page on Vorbis.com while GT3b1, as you point out, is only known by the few who visit HA.org. And for those newbies who do visit HA.org, they probably already have some experience with the Vorbis at Xiph.org, so informing them of Garf's version can only expand their impression of Vorbis as a codec of potential.

Why recommend the standard, just because it is the standard, when there is something claimed to be better, is compatible, and ifree to use? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
prozak
post Apr 1 2004, 02:17
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 13154



Whatever is done, I think fixing the documentation and distributions of audio rippers is most important.

The conversion path for someone from MP3 -> OGG is hampered by misinformation, contradictory information, and most of all, PATHETIC documentation on the CDex and Audiograbber sites.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post Apr 2 2004, 00:35
Post #18





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



QUOTE (prozak @ Apr 1 2004, 11:17 AM)
Whatever is done, I think fixing the documentation and distributions of audio rippers is most important.

The conversion path for someone from MP3 -> OGG is hampered by misinformation, contradictory information, and most of all, PATHETIC documentation on the CDex and Audiograbber sites.

Perhaps an e-mail to the respective maintainers of those audio rippers would be useful.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Apr 2 2004, 00:57
Post #19


Rarewares admin


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



Update your links, dude.

Everything is still pointing to rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org tongue.gif

Just remove the hydrogenaudio from the link and it should work smile.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
QuantumKnot
post Apr 2 2004, 01:48
Post #20





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



Done smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tang
post May 10 2004, 01:58
Post #21





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 158
Joined: 27-January 04
Member No.: 11536



Hi QuantumKnot,
I wanted to complain a little bit about the "GT3b2" confusion... The same dénomination (Gt3b2 for an older Garf tuned version and for the John33 merge between original Gt3b1 and 1.0.1) isn't very newbiefriendly...
Of course your "Ogg history" should put away any confusion but maybe this issue should be solved by a new denomination...
However my purpose wasn't to complain, i respect your great tuning work (and others coder one) for the ogg codec and i would like to see Xiph taking care about your worl...
Please apologise if the GT3b2 denomination issue has been discussed yet (it's quite probable...)...

Best regards,
Tanguy

PS: I've well understood tht the actual GT3b2 version is the John33 merge between 1.01 and GT3b1 and so i'm aware thats GT3b2 IS the recommanded version...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
QuantumKnot
post May 10 2004, 02:13
Post #22





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



This GT3b2 should be exactly the same as the one John33 did so we decided to keep it consistent there. At the time John33 did the merging, I think Garf wanted the merge to be called GT3b2, despite another GT3b2 existing which wasn't any good. I didn't realise that the old and mostly forgotten GT3b2 was still known smile.gif

Anyway, I'm all for a change to GT3b3. Any feedback on this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tang
post May 11 2004, 03:08
Post #23





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 158
Joined: 27-January 04
Member No.: 11536



QUOTE (QuantumKnot @ May 9 2004, 05:13 PM)
This GT3b2 should be exactly the same as the one John33 did so we decided to keep it consistent there.  At the time John33 did the merging, I think Garf wanted the merge to be called GT3b2, despite another GT3b2 existing which wasn't any good.  I didn't realise that the old and mostly forgotten GT3b2 was still known smile.gif

Anyway, I'm all for a change to GT3b3.  Any feedback on this?

Hi QuantumKnot,
Indeed i'm a little bit paleolithic... laugh.gif
No in fact maybe i've remembered some very old things about GT3b2 due to my status of very casual HA user... wink.gif

So if i'm just the only one who thinks that the GT3b2 could make some confusion there is no need to inaugurate Gt3b3 name...
Maybe you should keep it for an AoTuV/GT3b2 merge if there is such a project... smile.gif (in case the dénomination change should increase confusion...)
But why not let the HA ogg community give it's advice about this... I'm not a specialist afterall...
regards,
Tanguy
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Prodoc
post May 24 2004, 23:54
Post #24





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



QUOTE (QuantumKnot)
From the Vorbis listening test and the recent 128 kbps multiformat test, Aoyumi's aoTuV Vorbis tuning was determined to be the best Vorbis encoder and hence it is now the recommended encoder.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding things a bit but shouldn't it state that aoTuV is recommended for lower bitrates and GT3b2 is recommended for higher bitrates?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eagleray
post May 25 2004, 00:09
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 10452



@QN

From the way you did the headings it looks like no encoder is recommended from q 4.01 through q 4.99.

Quite a wake up call that AOTV blew off the pack.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this 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: 30th August 2014 - 19:55