IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Very high bitrate listening test (~320-400kbps), Pre-test discussion & how-to
memomai
post May 29 2007, 14:48
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



would it be possible to do such a test?

I'm very interested in how different codecs behave in very high bitrate encoding. I'd like to compare them in encoding speed, problem samples, artefacts and transcoding efficiency (which will be a problem for all encoders).

For the test I'll need your help. It's my first one. Please give advice to me how to do this test in the best way. Of course you can also add your interests, opinions and other tipps. So at the end I or we will do the test then.

I'd like to test these ones:

- MP3 Lame 3.98b3 @ 320 kbps CBR (maybe for the low anchor?)
- MP2 twoLame @ 384 kbps, newest release
- NeroAAC LC-AAC @ 384/400 (-Q0.90, -Q1.0), newest release; 400 because I'd like to see if there ARE differences
- MPC @ ~350 kbps (--quality 10), newest release
- Ogg aoTuV @ 384 kbps (-q9.2, maybe?)
- WavPack lossy @ 384 kbps (-b384), newest release
- WavPack lossy @ 448 kbps (-b448), newest release (maybe high anchor?)
NOW ADDED:
- WMA 9.2 Standard @ 384 kbps
- OptimFROG Dual Stream lossy @ ~384

The ones which should be tested can be changed of course or someone being added.

Thanks for replies smile.gif

This post has been edited by memomai: May 30 2007, 00:14


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
memomai
post May 29 2007, 23:58
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



QUOTE
I think you missed my point regarding the low anchor. You're suggesting a low anchor that is (probably) indistinguishable from the rest.


Oh, I see now, sorry. But that would also be interesting to see how the maximum setting of MP3 compares to the others.

I found another possible solution for low anchor, maybe the ADPCM codec which is already implemented in MS Windows (gives bitrate of 350 kbps)?

QUOTE
Stupid idea. Why would anyone use ~400 kbps for lossy compression when you can get lossless compression at ~600 kbps? And especially audiophiles would never use lossy anyway...


Wrong. First, like halb27 and porcupine already mentioned, a lossless backup takes in average about 900 kbps, sometimes more sometimes less. Second, there are people (including me ^^) who prefer a lossy choice where you reach archiving quality, meaning from the source converted files where artefacts / problem samples can't be detected anymore. And by reaching that quality status with a filesize that's just the half or even less than a lossless backup is for many people still a more attractive option. This sort of audiophiles exists too, and that's not just a small group, believe me.

This post has been edited by memomai: May 30 2007, 00:10


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Curtor
post May 30 2007, 00:20
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 14-July 04
Member No.: 15437



QUOTE (memomai @ May 29 2007, 16:58) *
Oh, I see now, sorry. But that would also be interesting to see how the maximum setting of MP3 compares to the others. I found another possible solution for low anchor, maybe the ADPCM codec which is already implemented in MS Windows (gives bitrate of 350 kbps)?

As everyone on the board has already pointed out and you seem to not be listening to: The codecs are transparent by 224kb/s at the most. All the other more meaningful tests have shown that transparency typically happens well below that. You could not hold your listening test because it's way past the point where people can tell a difference. There is no point to picking a low anchor because everything will sound the same as the original wave... including your anchor! A 320-400kb/s listening test has no practical purpose in the world as it would not be able to establish anything, therefore there's nothing to be learned from it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- memomai   Very high bitrate listening test (~320-400kbps)   May 29 2007, 14:48
- - pest   QUOTE I'm very interested in how different cod...   May 29 2007, 14:54
|- - mickywicky   QUOTE (pest @ May 29 2007, 14:54) QUOTE ...   May 29 2007, 15:23
- - DigitalDictator   Lame @ 320 kbps as a low anchor? How does that add...   May 29 2007, 15:13
- - shadowking   From a perceptual only point of view such measure ...   May 29 2007, 15:21
- - shadowking   Transparent can also be extended to transcoding , ...   May 29 2007, 15:34
- - Squeller   Well, 400 kbps+ is what I often achieve when encod...   May 29 2007, 16:58
|- - xmixahlx   QUOTE (Squeller @ May 29 2007, 08:58) Wel...   May 29 2007, 17:13
- - bubka   you are not going to get any statistical differenc...   May 29 2007, 17:59
- - LANjackal   I'd suggest you scrap this test idea... 1 - Y...   May 29 2007, 18:23
- - memomai   QUOTE Transparent can also be extended to transcod...   May 29 2007, 19:40
- - DigitalDictator   I think you missed my point regarding the low anch...   May 29 2007, 21:25
- - halb27   I welcome the idea cause I'd like to see how f...   May 29 2007, 22:28
- - odyssey   Stupid idea. Why would anyone use ~400 kbps for lo...   May 29 2007, 22:39
|- - bryant   QUOTE (odyssey @ May 29 2007, 14:39) Stup...   May 29 2007, 23:10
|- - Porcupine   odyssey, lossless compression requires 1000 kbps, ...   May 29 2007, 23:28
- - halb27   With classical and other music with a lot of rathe...   May 29 2007, 23:12
- - memomai   QUOTE I think you missed my point regarding the lo...   May 29 2007, 23:58
|- - Curtor   QUOTE (memomai @ May 29 2007, 16:58) Oh, ...   May 30 2007, 00:20
|- - Porcupine   No, that is totally wrong. As I wrote in my previ...   May 30 2007, 00:29
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (Porcupine @ May 30 2007, 00:29) As...   May 30 2007, 15:39
- - HisInfernalMajesty   Do y'all think it would be a good idea to try ...   May 30 2007, 00:20
- - Light-Fire   It would be obviously a meaningless test. The best...   May 30 2007, 00:59
- - memomai   QUOTE As everyone on the board has already pointed...   May 30 2007, 01:00
- - 2Bdecided   If you were going to do a straight listening test ...   May 30 2007, 09:56
- - kennedyb4   It seems to me that there are more pressing issues...   May 30 2007, 12:15
- - rjamorim   Waste of time, effort and resources. QUOTE (memom...   May 30 2007, 14:04
- - Cygnus X1   Don't forget that any difference between codec...   May 30 2007, 16:30
- - rjamorim   It's all explained in my canned response, real...   May 31 2007, 02:32
|- - Porcupine   memomai, eig.wv is floating around on these hydrog...   May 31 2007, 03:07
- - memomai   And I thought the definition of transparency means...   May 31 2007, 12:25
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (memomai @ May 31 2007, 08:25) And ...   May 31 2007, 15:26
- - halb27   A collection of known bad samples for various code...   May 31 2007, 13:29
- - 2Bdecided   To be fair, ff123 still hosts a collection of samp...   May 31 2007, 14:57
- - digital   . Out of curiosity: the other day I posted both 32...   Oct 14 2007, 03:14
|- - digital   Does anyone 'out there' know of a [statist...   Oct 15 2007, 09:00
- - Lyx   A listening test above 320kbit would be interestin...   Oct 15 2007, 11:25


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: 23rd August 2014 - 18:50