IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Is this r3mix.net?
JohnV
post Aug 15 2002, 23:25
Post #26





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim
Sorry, Dors, but you won't find tolerance here. I gave up searching long ago.
I disagree. IMO it shows great tolerance that this site covers many different formats, different bitrates, people using many different software are adviced here, without bigger flamewars (except maybe very rarely). IMO what is not tolerated is false info, spamming, and unjustified claims.
Every opinion is tolerated here, but if it's a wild claim without proofs, that's a different thing.


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IveyLeaguer
post Aug 15 2002, 23:41
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 11-June 02
From: Dahlonega, GA
Member No.: 2277



This from a newbie who has just completed 5 months of hard research into audio compression:
QUOTE
Originally posted by cmyden
I just wrote an e-mail to satcp begging him to update the info.

Here, Here. SatCP's tutorial was invaluable to me, especially the links, but needs updating.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom

R3mix.net is not about quality.  It's not about objectivity.  And despite it's banners which say the opposite, it's not about the search for the truth.

These 'banners' retarded my search for a while. As I posted somewhere yesterday, the reason I am a member here is because I trust the information to be accurate. And quality really matters.
QUOTE
Originally posted by dors

I still recommend it to newbies, as I feel that HA is a bit too techie sometimes.

How could you do that, and not in the same breath send people here? Had I been sent here sooner it would saved me at least a month and a half - and I would probably be 90 days ahead of where I am now. It's dangerous to put people in a box.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom

So, you can go ahead and still point newbies to r3mix.net if you please.  I think you're doing them a disservice though, because it's starting them off on the wrong foot.  Additionally, they'll also not be exposed to any of the latest developments in the audio encoding community, or to any of the significantly better alternatives to mp3 (Ogg Vorbis, MPC, or AAC), even when using the --alt-presets.

Indeed.
Well said.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
layer3maniac
post Aug 16 2002, 00:39
Post #28





Group: Banned
Posts: 529
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 37



QUOTE
Originally posted by Garf
That's the problem...a lot of newbies do exactly that.
??? I just don't get it. WHY is it a "problem"? If my neighbor thinks that Blade, Xing, or r3mix is CD quality, why should that be a problem? It's his music - not mine. Are we hinting around about getting inferior pirated encodes? :eek:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Aug 16 2002, 01:08
Post #29


Moderator


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



I don't mean to start any flaming, just archiving every link I can find in order to answer more quickly and more accurately when the question is asked.

Is there already somewhere a test result showing that --alt-preset 160 or 170, something like that, is better than --r3mix ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nebuchadnezzar
post Aug 16 2002, 01:52
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 10-July 02
Member No.: 2546



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
??? I just don't get it. WHY is it a "problem"? If my neighbor thinks that Blade, Xing, or r3mix is CD quality, why should that be a problem? It's his music - not mine. Are we hinting around about getting inferior pirated encodes? :eek:


It's a problem cuz a newbie like me reads it, it seems definitive and we start encoding away at r3mix, and then later found out we wasted our time cuz there's a better way.

I know it's my problem for not researching more, but purposely leaving up false or inaccurate info is not cool.


--------------------
----------------------
Nebuchadnezzar

Tools I've found useful in my MP3 quest:

- Exact Audio Copy (www.exactaudiocopy.de)
- Lame (www.mp3dev.org)
- Andromeda (www.turnstyle.com)
- Helium 2 (www.helium2.com)
- WinAmp (www.winamp.com)
- Stereo Link (www.stereo-link.com)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Aug 16 2002, 02:07
Post #31


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by nebuchadnezzar
It's a problem cuz a newbie like me reads it, it seems definitive and we start encoding away at r3mix, and then later found out we wasted our time cuz there's a better way.


Well, if you already think 128kbps is transparent, I see no sense in restarting encoding because someone else said there is a better way. If you always goes with what someone else says, you won't ever finish encoding your CD collection.

What I mean: If you have all your encodings in --r3mix and you are satisfied with that, why reencode with --aps? There will be no difference for you.


--------------------
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
SometimesWarrior
post Aug 16 2002, 05:05
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 671
Joined: 21-November 01
From: California, US
Member No.: 514



QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim
Well, if you already think 128kbps is transparent, I see no sense in restarting encoding because someone else said there is a better way. If you always goes with what someone else says, you won't ever finish encoding your CD collection.

What I mean: If you have all your encodings in --r3mix and you are satisfied with that, why reencode with --aps? There will be no difference for you.
It's that whole thing about learning how to hear artifacts. I used to encode all my mp3's using l3enc at 128kbps, and I was perfectly happy with them. Now, a good deal of 160kbps cbr mp3's have enough artifacts to irritate me.

There's no reason to tolerate screechy 128kbps MP3's when you can have >99% transparency without much more trouble. Even r3mix doesn't have to be "tolerated". I've only successfully ABX'ed a couple of my 100-or-so r3mix MP3's (perhaps a critical listening test could flush out some more, but frankly I don't care that much, and I'd rather not face the fact that I probably couldn't hear more of a difference anyway wink.gif). On one hand, the music mostly sounds perfect, so who cares if a couple are slightly flawed? On the other, I could have used the --alt-presets and gained a little more fidelity at about the same bitrate.

I'm not costing myself any more money by using --alt-preset instead of --r3mix, I'm not hurting the environment, and I'm not damning myself to hell. I'm just getting a better MP3. To promote a substandard preset as "the best" is to scam the public.

(Of course, there are benefits to --r3mix, such as a slightly lower bitrate and a faster encoding time. But r3mix.net should just admit that those are the only benefits!)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Aug 16 2002, 05:19
Post #33


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
It's that whole thing about learning how to hear artifacts. I used to encode all my mp3's using l3enc at 128kbps, and I was perfectly happy with them. Now, a good deal of 160kbps cbr mp3's have enough artifacts to irritate me.


OK. And when you learn to hear --aps artifacts? Then what?



1500 posts!


--------------------
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
pantheranddawg
post Aug 16 2002, 05:19
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-July 02
Member No.: 2540



As a newbie who got here only after finding r3mix.net, I agree with IveyLeaguer: I wish I'd found HA first and I'd be disappointed if someone who knew about HA sent me elsewhere because they didn't think this site was newbie-friendly(from a technical standpoint)

QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim


Well, if you already think 128kbps is transparent, I see no sense in restarting encoding because someone else said there is a better way. If you always goes with what someone else says, you won't ever finish encoding your CD collection.

What I mean: If you have all your encodings in --r3mix and you are satisfied with that, why reencode with --aps? There will be no difference for you.


Roberto, I agree that trying to keep up with the Joneses is pointless if you've found a format and quality that works for you. But this is another newbie specific situation....As we start learning what artifacts to listen for and actually being able to pick them out, very quickly some of those formerly "transparent" songs may not sound so great. I'd hate to have several thousand newly created --r3mix files when that happened.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Aug 16 2002, 05:22
Post #35


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by pantheranddawg
What was OK yesterday may sound awful today


QUOTE
.As we start learning what artifacts to listen for and actually being able to pick them out, very quickly some of those formerly "transparent" songs may not sound so great.


Going with that train of thought, the only solution is lossless.


--------------------
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
pantheranddawg
post Aug 16 2002, 05:48
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-July 02
Member No.: 2540



QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim


Going with that train of thought, the only solution is lossless.


I disagree. If I truly start hearing artifacts in more than a few aps files, I wouldn't hesitate to go alt-preset extreme. But going lossless isn't the natural extension of climbing the newbie learning curve and being dissatisfied with something you previously thought was transparent. This doesn't fly in the face of what you said about not bothering with overkill if you're satisfied. My comments are specific to those just learning to recognize artifacts in lossy compressed audio.

That said , I admit that everything I've got is lossless right now biggrin.gif cause 1)I've got the space and 2) I haven't decided on a lossless format and 3)I'm lazy sometimes....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Aug 16 2002, 05:51
Post #37


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by pantheranddawg
That said , I admit that everything I've got is lossless right now biggrin.gif


See? wink.gif

You've already reached the final evolutional step. biggrin.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
dreamliner77
post Aug 16 2002, 05:57
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 2150
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 2427



what is better, --ape or cbr 320?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Aug 16 2002, 06:00
Post #39


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by dreamliner77
what is better, --ape or cbr 320?


--api, that is CBR 320 btw. 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
Guest_ManyFaces_*
post Aug 16 2002, 06:17
Post #40





Guests






QUOTE
Originally posted by pantheranddawg
[As we start learning what artifacts to listen for and actually being able to pick them out, very quickly some of those formerly "transparent" songs may not sound so great.  I'd hate to have several thousand newly created --r3mix files when that happened.


I've found a workaround: *Reencode* 10-20 of ur favourite songs (but of coz don't delete the originals) with vorbis -q-1 and hear those all nights before going to sleep for a week, at least. Voilaa! Your ears restored to the previous (and satisfactorial!) state of not caring atall about artifacts biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Aug 16 2002, 06:58
Post #41


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
??? I just don't get it. WHY is it a "problem"?


This has already been outlined well enough, but I'll reiterate it anyway.

HA is here to help people learn how to work with audio compression. It's here to increase the knowledge base and to provide a place for relatively BS-free quality discussion. It's a place for people to perform objective testing, and share information.

Spreading false truths and misinformation goes completely against the whole idea here. It also goes against what most people want who are trying to learn about this stuff. As mentioned by some previous posters, the fact that r3mix.net masquerades as being some sort of source of factual information is harmful to people trying to get valid information. It wastes their time and gives them the wrong ideas. It promotes poor testing methodology (did you see some of the comments on slashdot and arstechnica about ff123s test?) within the audio community, and eventually, it hampers progress.

Surely you can see this. If you feel that none of the above points are worth anything, and I'm not saying that's what you are implying, but if you don't understand why these are good things and why what r3mix.net stands for is not, then I'm not quite sure what you see in this community as a whole. I don't understand where the desire to participate would stem from.

QUOTE
[b]If my neighbor thinks that Blade, Xing, or r3mix is CD quality, why should that be a problem? It's his music - not mine. Are we hinting around about getting inferior pirated encodes? :eek:


Well again, that's not the problem. The problem is when people put up information which is inaccurate and then play it off as being the absolute truth. This does a disservice to everyone trying to learn about this stuff, especially people who don't know enough to be aware of the fact that the information is false.

Of course, a person can do whatever they want to on their website. They can put up all the false information they like. There's really nothing to stop them. It's not in good spirit though, and so I don't think that fits in with this community, or with what most people learning about this are looking for. It's not cool to deceive people for no reason at all, other than to feed your own ego.

And please don't start making accusations or implications linking this to piracy. It's a flat out insult to do so, and it's completely unfounded. This concern is made in the spirit of providing accurate information and providing a good knowledge base to others so that everyone can benefit. It's kind of sad to think that people couldn't recognize that on it's on merit and must instead think that this notion is selfish and somehow related to the desire for higher quality pirated music sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Aug 16 2002, 07:06
Post #42


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim
Well, if you already think 128kbps is transparent, I see no sense in restarting encoding because someone else said there is a better way. If you always goes with what someone else says, you won't ever finish encoding your CD collection.


Most of the people here have a desire to learn. With that learning comes a higher degree of awareness of many of the issues involved with audio encoding. And with that usually comes a greater ability to detect artifacts in compressed audio. It's only natural, then, that people would also want to find a way to improve the quality of their encodings. There's nothing wrong with this, just as their's nothing wrong with people learning about normal audio quality and eventually graduating to better sound systems, higher quality music, etc. If we all took the "let's bury our head in the sand" approach, there would be no progress at all. We'd all be using Blade. And to provide an example closer to home, AAC wouldn't even exist.

This is really analogous to the whole "Igorance is Bliss thing". Well, I don't buy into that. I don't think most other people who have tasted knowledge do either.

There's always room for learning, and there's always room for improvement. People who aren't interested in that can just kindly step out of the way, because I'm sure as hell not going to wait up for them in my own personal quest towards something better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Aug 16 2002, 07:11
Post #43


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim
OK. And when you learn to hear --aps artifacts? Then what?


Well first of all, --aps will have far fewer artifacts than --r3mix. That alone should not be overlooked simply because it still may not be perfect.

--aps is better than --r3mix, and just because it's not perfect does not lessen this to any degree.

And if someone needs something better than --aps, then luckily there are solutions: MPC, AAC, and in some cases Ogg Vorbis.

Yes, it's possible to always want more, but it's this desire that also drives projects forward and creates progress. If we all just sit idly by and become "satisfied", then nobody will ever provide something better.

Maybe some people could be happy with this, but I'm not one of them. I suspect most of the people at HA are here because they aren't either.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Aug 16 2002, 07:12
Post #44


Founder


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



QUOTE
Originally posted by rjamorim
Going with that train of thought, the only solution is lossless.


That would be the easy way out.

The other solution would be to improve the existing options, or to create something new and even better than before.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gambit
post Aug 16 2002, 09:08
Post #45


Burrrn developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 917
Joined: 25-November 01
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Member No.: 534



Not again... :insane:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jan S.
post Aug 16 2002, 10:53
Post #46





Group: Admin
Posts: 2550
Joined: 26-September 01
From: Denmark
Member No.: 21



r3mix WAS great!
I came there as a newbie and now I know enough to help others.
If it wasn't for the r3mix forum I wouldn't be here and this community evolved with alot of the ppl that used to go there.
Roel did a lot of good; his mistake was not to see when others did better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dreamliner77
post Aug 16 2002, 11:03
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 2150
Joined: 29-June 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 2427



rjamorim,

I understand that --api is cbr 320, but that applies the presets tunings, doesn't it? Would just straight cbr 320 (ie, from the lame dll) offer any advantages or disadvantages?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sachankara
post Aug 16 2002, 12:43
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 336
Joined: 27-December 01
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 780



The problem is "simple"... Remove the --r3mix switch in the next version of Lame and print out a message that recommends --alt-preset standard in case someone tries to use "the old shit"... biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Aug 16 2002, 14:22
Post #49


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



@dreamliner77

Yes, --api does use Dibrom's tuned preset and will provide far better quality than simply using CBR 320. Clearly, there will be no real difference in file size, but Dibrom's tunings will provide much better audio quality.

@Sachankara

It would probably be better to add a note when --r3mix is invoked saying that "The use of this preset is deprecated, the use of the --alt-presets is recommended.":D


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gecko
post Aug 16 2002, 15:39
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 944
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 662



I tried accessing the r3mix.net forum today:

"This Account Has Been Suspended Until Further Notice
Please contact the Xnull billing/support department as soon as possible.

Possible reasons for suspension are usually failure to pay bills, failure to reply to contact attempts, and/or failure to comply to Xnull's Acceptable Use Policy."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 23rd September 2014 - 03:20