IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

23 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv, Question for Aoyumi
Kef
post Sep 6 2008, 12:41
Post #151





Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 2-December 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 26157



QUOTE (john33 @ Sep 6 2008, 00:18) *
OK, oggenc2 compiles:

Generic: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...5.6-generic.zip

P3: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...oTuVb5.6-P3.zip

P4: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...oTuVb5.6-P4.zip

I'll not post these 'officially' at Rarewares until libvorbis 1.2.1 is officially released.


Great!!! Thanks a lot! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selindos
post Sep 6 2008, 16:25
Post #152





Group: Banned
Posts: 26
Joined: 22-August 08
Member No.: 57382



Thank you Aoyumi great, your contribution to the development Vorbis priceless: P
I want you to ask.
Is it possible to deactivate (optional) Point-Stereo?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aoyumi
post Sep 7 2008, 08:17
Post #153





Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 14-January 04
From: Kanto, Japan
Member No.: 11215



QUOTE (Selindos @ Sep 7 2008, 00:25) *
Is it possible to deactivate (optional) Point-Stereo?

It's impossible now. I don't add the interface of that purpose.

This post has been edited by Aoyumi: Sep 7 2008, 08:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex_nasa
post Sep 10 2008, 13:26
Post #154





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 27-May 04
Member No.: 14361



QUOTE (Kef @ Sep 6 2008, 03:41) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Sep 6 2008, 00:18) *

OK, oggenc2 compiles:

Generic: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...5.6-generic.zip

P3: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...oTuVb5.6-P3.zip

P4: http://www.rarewares.org/files/ogg/oggenc2...oTuVb5.6-P4.zip

I'll not post these 'officially' at Rarewares until libvorbis 1.2.1 is officially released.


Great!!! Thanks a lot! smile.gif

I can't get these encoders to work, I just get a failure in Foobar2000, tried the P3 and generic versions:

Source: "F:\Incoming\Talkingmakesnosense\Cloudcroft Mirror\01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.flac"
An error occured while writing to file (The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1; please re-check parameters) : "C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\Talkingmakesnosense\Cloudcroft Mirror\01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.ogg"
Additional information:
Encoder stream format: 44100Hz / 2ch / 16bps
Command line: "C:\Program Files\foobar2000 new\oggenc2.exe" -q5 - "01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.ogg"
Working folder: C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\Talkingmakesnosense\Cloudcroft Mirror\

Conversion failed: The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1; please re-check parameters

This post has been edited by lex_nasa: Sep 10 2008, 13:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Sep 10 2008, 13:57
Post #155


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



Do you not need to rename oggenc2.exe to oggenc.exe? Works fine here. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
madoka@ex-sounds
post Sep 10 2008, 15:34
Post #156





Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 23-February 04
From: tokyo, japan
Member No.: 12207



QUOTE (lex_nasa @ Sep 10 2008, 04:26) *
Command line: "C:\Program Files\foobar2000 new\oggenc2.exe" -q5 - "01 - Cloudcroft Mirror.ogg"


probably, you need "-o" option smile.gif
parameters for fb2k custum setting (eg): --quality 5.00 --quiet - -o %d


--------------------
<name>madoka</name>
<uri>http://codecs.ex-sounds.net/</uri>
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex_nasa
post Sep 11 2008, 12:21
Post #157





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 27-May 04
Member No.: 14361



hurrah! thanks, i'd kept the settings for venc.exe and had forgotten that i'd had to change them... all AOK
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nicos
post Sep 11 2008, 14:23
Post #158





Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 17-October 07
From: Cyprus
Member No.: 47932



Aoyumi

I was reading some posts about testing aoTuV 5.5 with Lame and some other codecs and few people mention that .ogg vorbis cannot be compared with its rival codecs anymore.

Whether i dont know if this is truth, what are the main progressions of the aoTuV beta5.6 Pre Release compare to the previous one? In what fields will u be focusing on more and what about the pre-echo problems mentioned by other people at q5? (I'm asking because im mostly using q5 for ripping CDs).

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex_nasa
post Sep 12 2008, 06:28
Post #159





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 27-May 04
Member No.: 14361



QUOTE (Nicos @ Sep 11 2008, 05:23) *
I was reading some posts about testing aoTuV 5.5 with Lame and some other codecs and few people mention that .ogg vorbis cannot be compared with its rival codecs anymore.

Because vorbis is better?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nicos
post Sep 12 2008, 19:29
Post #160





Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 17-October 07
From: Cyprus
Member No.: 47932



No lex_nasa

What i read about it, is that vorbis cannot be as competitive as it used to be in the past. Many people believe that lame had done quality improvements that vorbis couldnt follow.

Thats why id like aoyumi's opinion (but not only, people who have an opinion about vorbis quality Vs lame or .mpc id like to know it) and what are the improvements that we will see of the new release of aoTuV beta5.6

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JasonQ
post Sep 13 2008, 03:26
Post #161





Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 12-October 07
Member No.: 47794



This comment might be about the advantages of MP3 for compatability. The argument goes that since LAME is so good, why would one use Vorbis? I have never seen the argument recently that LAME has been shown to be superior to Vorbis in a blind test between 128-192 kbps.

- Jason
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selindos
post Sep 13 2008, 12:48
Post #162





Group: Banned
Posts: 26
Joined: 22-August 08
Member No.: 57382



What do you want?
Vorbis develops one person!

That's if LAME helped in the development Vorbis cool.gif
P.S.
Besides Vorbis more interesting than mp3 rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LigH
post Sep 13 2008, 13:37
Post #163





Group: Members
Posts: 157
Joined: 20-November 01
Member No.: 503



All the psycho-acoustic lossy compression algorithms have disadvantages in different ranges. No lossy codec is perfect.

According to my own subjective tests with very low to medium bitrates, I found that the artefacts left by Ogg Vorbis in general "sound less annoying" to me than those in MP3s, but that was already years ago...

Thanks to a great tuning by aoTuV, quality level 0 was already quite satisfying for some "Do you recognise this?" kind of listening samples.

For my mobile audio device, I found quality level 3 in general satisfying, except for very few distinct songs with rather complex effects. As MP3s, I would possibly have used at least 160 kbps and VBR, a size rate of about 3/4 for Vorbis vs. MP3 with similar subjective quality.

"Archiving quality" is a different topic. I am curious about the high-quality potential of the codecs, the amount of quality loss even at some "transparency" quality range. Here I thought that MP3 is more limited than the modern competitors, but I couldn't proove this feeling.


--------------------
http://forum.gleitz.info - das deutsche doom9/Gleitz-Forum
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aoyumi
post Sep 13 2008, 15:11
Post #164





Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 14-January 04
From: Kanto, Japan
Member No.: 11215



QUOTE (Nicos @ Sep 11 2008, 22:23) *
I was reading some posts about testing aoTuV 5.5 with Lame and some other codecs and few people mention that .ogg vorbis cannot be compared with its rival codecs anymore.
I generally think that there is not the dominant difference between codec in a bit rate of q4(128kbps).

QUOTE
Whether i dont know if this is truth, what are the main progressions of the aoTuV beta5.6 Pre Release compare to the previous one? In what fields will u be focusing on more and what about the pre-echo problems mentioned by other people at q5? (I'm asking because im mostly using q5 for ripping CDs).
About beta5.6, I am aimed for small revisions in the low bit rate and unification with libvorbis1.2.1. It does not have the difference with beta5.5 in q5(44.1kHz).

About the issue of pre-echo, will you show the sample which is interested in you? 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nicos
post Sep 14 2008, 02:28
Post #165





Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 17-October 07
From: Cyprus
Member No.: 47932



Aoyumi

To be honest about the pre-echo issue is something that many people, as i read in various articles, claim that vorbis suffers in bitrates above 128. Personally i cannot hear anything. I was just curious if this is true and if you have any plans working on it. Thats why i asked.

Thanks for your reply anyway and above all thanks for your interest to keep working and developing ogg vorbis codec.

Im supporting vorbis since 2002 and i never had thoughts of changing my music into a different format. I just want it to be always competitive as the other codecs hopping to see its support spreading even more.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JasonQ
post Sep 14 2008, 07:00
Post #166





Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 12-October 07
Member No.: 47794



"To be honest about the pre-echo issue is something that many people, as i read in various articles, claim that vorbis suffers in bitrates above 128. Personally i cannot hear anything. I was just curious if this is true and if you have any plans working on it. Thats why i asked."

I remember hearing this years ago before I started encoding Vorbis files. I have never detected any problem in the last few years that I have used this encoder. The AOTUV Vorbis encoder has been a winner for a while now. Outstanding in multiple blind tests in the 128-192 range on this site. Users vouch for it consistently as a solution for even lower bit rates. The only complaint I see is an unfortunate lack of hardware support. This argument has merit.

The argument against AOTUV Vorbis is not that Lame is better than Vorbis, it is that LAME is as good or almost as good.

- Jason

This post has been edited by JasonQ: Sep 14 2008, 07:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nicos
post Sep 14 2008, 11:20
Post #167





Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 17-October 07
From: Cyprus
Member No.: 47932



"The argument against AOTUV Vorbis is not that Lame is better than Vorbis, it is that LAME is as good or almost as good".

- Jason


I guess you got a point. I would tend to agree with that sentence you wrote.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PatchWorKs
post Sep 16 2008, 18:17
Post #168





Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 2-October 01
Member No.: 168



QUOTE (JasonQ @ Sep 14 2008, 08:00) *
The argument against AOTUV Vorbis is not that Lame is better than Vorbis, it is that LAME is as good or almost as good.


Anyway LAME is not (royalties) free.

This post has been edited by PatchWorKs: Sep 16 2008, 18:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sprockkets
post Sep 17 2008, 08:27
Post #169





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 15-August 08
Member No.: 57112



A cd encoded with vorbis -q3 with aotuv will yield ~112kbps. For a LAME mp3 to match this would require around 160-192kbps. There is no comparison. Some music may sound just as good with -q1 at ~80kbps as an 128-160kbps mp3.

The mp3 format is a dinosaur and had its day. The only other format that comes close and perhaps beats vorbis is he-aacv2, but that's only because they added the mp3pro tech to aac. Think aac patents plus about 10 more of them due to that.

Want some samples? I can post some up too.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bjossi
post Sep 22 2008, 22:48
Post #170





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17-September 08
From: Iceland
Member No.: 58352



Hey there, Aoyumi. I wanted to say that you are doing a fantastic job with your aoTuV ogg vorbis project. This is my preferred codec for music. I don't have the space for flacs so I archive my music with 500k oggs using aoTuV b5.5.

By the way, I was wondering if some of you command-liners could help me out with a problem. I create batch files to automatically encode wave files of an album with venc and then tag the resulting files with the Tag program that comes with the Flac package.

The problem lies in foreign characters. I got quite a bit of Icelandic music, so many filenames and titles will include Icelandic characters. These characters will go to hell during batch processing, the characters get replaced by something completely different.

Does anyone here know a way around this? Like a command-line switch or an argument that will enable batch processing to correctly recognize the foreign characters?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Harris
post Sep 24 2008, 01:29
Post #171





Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 17-October 01
Member No.: 310



QUOTE (Bjossi @ Sep 22 2008, 17:48) *
Does anyone here know a way around this? Like a command-line switch or an argument that will enable batch processing to correctly recognize the foreign characters?


Which OS are you using? What encoding are the characters in?

If the characters are UTF8, Take a look at the --raw switch on vorbiscomment. That's what abcde uses. (Also, some unofficial versions of oggenc have a --utf8 flag; the next official version of oggenc will have the --utf8 flag too)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kjoonlee
post Sep 24 2008, 02:48
Post #172





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



I think he means command-line encoders on Windows can't handle something like this:

oggenc.exe "Se cyning metež žone biscop.wav"

AFAIK you can't fix this on Windows without adding code to handle characters outside your codepage.



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=48131


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bjossi
post Sep 24 2008, 03:53
Post #173





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17-September 08
From: Iceland
Member No.: 58352



Thanks for the replies guys. It is a bummer how difficult it is to use unicode in Windows for batch processing. I guess the easiest workaround would be to drop all special characters and correct it once the batch file has finished its job.

Well, unless that script in the Flac thread can be used with venc.exe somehow.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Harris
post Sep 24 2008, 14:05
Post #174





Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 17-October 01
Member No.: 310



QUOTE (kjoonlee @ Sep 23 2008, 21:48) *
I think he means command-line encoders on Windows can't handle something like this:

oggenc.exe "Se cyning metež žone biscop.wav"

AFAIK you can't fix this on Windows without adding code to handle characters outside your codepage.


True. You do have to add code to handle UTF16.

The versions of oggenc available from RareWares have had something like that for a few years.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bjossi
post Sep 24 2008, 17:00
Post #175





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17-September 08
From: Iceland
Member No.: 58352



Oggenc2 does its job well if I write the command-line text into cmd manually and execute, but if I use a batch file I face the same unicode problem as before; files with foreign characters cannot be located and tags with foreign characters get screwed up.

Ugh, what do Microsoft have against other languages than English?

This post has been edited by Bjossi: Sep 24 2008, 17:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

23 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
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: 18th September 2014 - 09:56