IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
[USELESS] Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44, transparent for you?
Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 transparent for you?
Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 transparent for you?
ALWAYS (100% of my music is transparent) [ 14 ] ** [38.89%]
ALMOST (only few killer samples known in my music) [ 10 ] ** [27.78%]
SOMETIMES (I can see difference almost always ...) [ 8 ] ** [22.22%]
NEVER (I always hear difference) [ 4 ] ** [11.11%]
Total Votes: 85
  
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 20:18
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 transparent for you?

I mean YOUR music, not special killer samples. If it is not transparent, please tell me in what?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Jul 11 2004, 20:20
Post #2


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



Why q 4,44?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 20:23
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jul 11 2004, 10:20 PM)
Why q 4,44?
*


Well, I have to choose - codec itself is not transparent or not transparent - we can choose option in such poll only for certain bitrate.

PLEASE SELECT CLOSEST ANSWER - so if you use Q=5 and it is transparent, select first option etc.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Jul 11 2004, 20:56
Post #4


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jul 11 2004, 10:20 PM)
Why q 4,44?
*


Well, I have to choose - codec itself is not transparent or not transparent - we can choose option in such poll only for certain bitrate.

PLEASE SELECT CLOSEST ANSWER - so if you use Q=5 and it is transparent, select first option etc.
*



Umm.. if this is for yourself, why don't you do your own listening tests and determine that?

It doesn't seem to make much sense to ask this kind of question, especially if you're asking people to listen "with their own music and not killer samples."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 21:02
Post #5





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2004, 10:56 PM)
QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jul 11 2004, 10:20 PM)
Why q 4,44?
*


Well, I have to choose - codec itself is not transparent or not transparent - we can choose option in such poll only for certain bitrate.

PLEASE SELECT CLOSEST ANSWER - so if you use Q=5 and it is transparent, select first option etc.
*



Umm.. if this is for yourself, why don't you do your own listening tests and determine that?

It doesn't seem to make much sense to ask this kind of question, especially if you're asking people to listen "with their own music and not killer samples."
*



I mean not "labolatory" environment, but how Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 do its job in normal, everyday purposes. My music on my sennheiser headphones is transparent for me, no need to make "listening test" with killer samples - question is how it works for each user in his music.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Jul 11 2004, 21:06
Post #6





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



I suppose aoTuV b2 at 4.44 would be transparent enough (odd quality setting though) but I've always used -q6 and currently am using Megamix. Feels comfortable to me.

Side note: Megamix -q6 on my iHP-120 is a very good thing smile.gif

This post has been edited by DreamTactix291: Jul 11 2004, 21:11


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analogy
post Jul 11 2004, 21:08
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 306
Joined: 18-April 04
Member No.: 13571



For portable use, I'll encode at Q0 to save space. While I could certainly ABX it, there aren't any actual annoying artifacts. The music still sounds good, just slightly lower-fi.

Q4 is pretty much transparent for me, though. I don't have bat ears, I can't ABX it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Jul 11 2004, 21:14
Post #8


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



What bitrate does q 4,44 represent?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Jul 11 2004, 21:15
Post #9





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



Nominal of 142.1kbps.


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 21:17
Post #10





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



QUOTE (DreamTactix291 @ Jul 11 2004, 11:15 PM)
Nominal of 142.1kbps.
*

150.9 for megamix...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Jul 11 2004, 21:21
Post #11


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



Why q 4.44 why not 4, 4.5 or 5?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 21:28
Post #12





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jul 11 2004, 11:21 PM)
Why q 4.44 why not 4, 4.5 or 5?
*

Well, don`t know, just selected 4.44...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frank Bicking
post Jul 11 2004, 21:32
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1827
Joined: 24-July 02
Member No.: 2776



8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DeeZi
post Jul 11 2004, 21:33
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 17-February 03
Member No.: 5044



A few preecho optimations should be done.
Like in Megamix but with less bitrate increasing
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jul 11 2004, 21:35
Post #15





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 09:32 PM)
I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.
*


Seven. I've voted for "never transparent".
The results of a listening test including Megamix on "usual" samples will follow in the next hours. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 21:56
Post #16





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 11:32 PM)
8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.
*

Well, read carefully. People select CLOSEST answer. Purpose of this topic is to answer how aoTuV b2 at 4.44 works for normal use, that`s why blind test SHOULD NOT BE USED, i dont ask for results of blind test...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jul 11 2004, 22:00
Post #17





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 11:32 PM)
8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.
*

Well, read carefully. People select CLOSEST answer. Purpose of this topic is to answer how aoTuV b2 at 4.44 works for normal use, that`s why blind test SHOULD NOT BE USED, i dont ask for results of blind test...
*



People answered for "non-transparency". This statement could be questioned. ABX test should prove the validity of that.
People answered for "full-transparency". ABX tests could bring them to reconsider an optimistic feeling (artifacts might be revealed by an attentive comparison, ruining their immediate "transparency" feeling).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 22:06
Post #18





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 12 2004, 12:00 AM)
QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 11:32 PM)
8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.
*

Well, read carefully. People select CLOSEST answer. Purpose of this topic is to answer how aoTuV b2 at 4.44 works for normal use, that`s why blind test SHOULD NOT BE USED, i dont ask for results of blind test...
*



People answered for "non-transparency". This statement could be questioned. ABX test should prove the validity of that.
People answered for "full-transparency". ABX tests could bring them to reconsider an optimistic feeling (artifacts might be revealed by an attentive comparison, ruining their immediate "transparency" feeling).
*



They wote for (non)transparency of their music in everyday use. It is very possible that ABXing will cause to change vote. This poll is not to answer - "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transparent for all?" or "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transparent for each user after ABXing?" but "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transaprent (or not) when people run their foobar/winamp/etc. and play compressed music and hear difference or not... w/o trying to hear these differences"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eagleray
post Jul 11 2004, 22:11
Post #19





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



4.99 would make more sense to me as that is the cut-off point in the recommended settings/codecs list. At 4.99 aotuv is transparent to me as well as the new vorbis 1.1 rc1. Actually, it is hard for me to tell most codecs apart which is why I don't tune codecs and (I don't mean to start a codec war) also why I mostly use Lame. In my case compatibility is the deciding factor, but I definitely think there is room for several formats.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jul 11 2004, 22:15
Post #20





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 10:06 PM)
but "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transaprent (or not) when people run their foobar/winamp/etc. and play compressed music and hear difference or not... w/o trying to hear these differences"

ABX tests are needed, at least for people claiming for an audible difference. For an extreme exemple, I've found people claiming about audible and obvious degradation while playing lossless encoding music (compared to CD). But I never saw from the same people any ABX test proving the validity of their claims...

I wonder: what's the purpose of this poll? Simple curiosity?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 22:30
Post #21





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



Ok, so we advice all people to do ABX smile.gif But poll is about what they think (maybe they are wrong, I don`t care)...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jul 11 2004, 22:34
Post #22





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 10:30 PM)
Ok, so we advice all people to do ABX smile.gif But poll is about what they think (maybe they are wrong, I don`t care)...
*

You don't care maybe, but I remind you that HA is place with some restrictive rules. And one of this rule prevent members to launch rumors and statments on biased impressions or placebo feelings.
There are many places where "feelings" and "opinions" about lossy encoding could be collected. MP3 players dedicated boards are generally fine for that wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Celsus
post Jul 11 2004, 22:51
Post #23





Group: Banned
Posts: 27
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15155



I think that problem is on reader side. If poll is about "what people think" reader should not think that results of such poll give answer which codec IS better etc. but ONLY what people think.

I don`t see anything wrong in checking (in a poll) what people think. Just make good interpretation of poll results...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
indybrett
post Jul 11 2004, 23:26
Post #24





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1350
Joined: 4-March 02
From: Indianapolis, IN
Member No.: 1440



QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 04:51 PM)
I don`t see anything wrong in checking (in a poll) what people think.
*


I think that this poll belongs in the bitbucket...


--------------------
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atlantis
post Jul 12 2004, 07:54
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 250
Joined: 27-December 02
From: ROMA, Italy
Member No.: 4269



QUOTE (indybrett @ Jul 12 2004, 12:26 AM)
QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 04:51 PM)
I don`t see anything wrong in checking (in a poll) what people think.
*


I think that this poll belongs in the bitbucket...
*


Indeed...


--------------------
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed 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: 31st July 2014 - 17:34