IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

23 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
.Ogg Vorbis aotuv, Question for Aoyumi
The Sheep of DEA...
post Apr 3 2008, 01:08
Post #76





Group: Developer
Posts: 175
Joined: 16-April 06
Member No.: 29596



This makes a fine birthday present. I'm glad you put this together. As an individual and on behalf of the community, I thank you.
CODE
+ The differences from the aoTuV beta 5...
+
+   1.  The frequency domain width of M6 was revised.
+
+   2.  For q-1/-2, a pre-echo reduction code was applied (M3).  In addition,
+   the M3 code was improved.
+
+   3.  The floor setup parameters in the low bit-rate was changed.
+
+   4.  The part including bug of noise normalization was rewritten.
+
+   5.  libvorbis 1.2.0 were merged. Furthermore, a revision of Bug #300 and
+   #1229 was applied.
+
+   6.  The ATH curve of the high frequency area (more than 32kHz) was revised.
+
+ ...and I tune up many parameters.
+
+
+ 2008/03/30
+ Aoyumi


ckjnigel: The impetus to learn Japanese came from Aoyumi-san, eh? That's awesome... XD

You know what else is awesome...? For the first time, I'm unable to consistently abx some of my music at -q0 (lowpass 18).

This post has been edited by The Sheep of DEATH: Apr 3 2008, 05:03


--------------------
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vonbach
post Apr 3 2008, 05:25
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 12-October 07
Member No.: 47795



Are there any noticeable improvements when using q -5 between the previous beta and the current one?

Also, are there noticeable differences between using Auyumi's tuned-up build and Xiph.org's latest build at q -5?

Thanks for your hard work, Auyumi!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nicos
post Apr 3 2008, 12:07
Post #78





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



Im kind of interested about the first question aswell.
Is there anyone who did any advance tests on the new built?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Sheep of DEA...
post Apr 3 2008, 22:59
Post #79





Group: Developer
Posts: 175
Joined: 16-April 06
Member No.: 29596



Audible improvements at q5? If a5 was transparent to you before, there's no "audible improvement" possible, no matter what build you use.


--------------------
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nicos
post Apr 4 2008, 08:42
Post #80





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



But what about the pre-echo problems at high bitrates that some people mention on the previous beta? Is there any pre-echo reduction at q5 on the new beta?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 4 2008, 17:46
Post #81





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



Does anybody else have problems with this beta 5.5 release? I encoded a few albums at -q0 for my portable player (iRiver S10) and even though the files plays in foobar, I only get 2-4 seconds of each song on my portable and then it tries to play the next song which is also about 4 seconds long and so on and so on... It even says the songs are 4 seconds long!

Aoyumi, did you change something in the bit-stream? smile.gif

/Kef
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Apr 4 2008, 19:08
Post #82





Group: Developer
Posts: 3382
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 20:46) *
Does anybody else have problems with this beta 5.5 release? I encoded a few albums at -q0 for my portable player (iRiver S10) and even though the files plays in foobar, I only get 2-4 seconds of each song on my portable and then it tries to play the next song which is also about 4 seconds long and so on and so on... It even says the songs are 4 seconds long!

Aoyumi, did you change something in the bit-stream? smile.gif

/Kef


AFAIK, aoTuV beta5.5 uses official Vorbis 1.2.0 as its base. Previous versions use Vorbis 1.1.x.
Try Vorbis 1.2.0 (Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20070622) and you'll see if this matters.

Anyway, my Samsung YP-U3 plays such files (aoTuV beta 5.5, q0) without problems.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 4 2008, 19:21
Post #83





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



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Apr 4 2008, 20:08) *
QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 20:46) *

Does anybody else have problems with this beta 5.5 release? I encoded a few albums at -q0 for my portable player (iRiver S10) and even though the files plays in foobar, I only get 2-4 seconds of each song on my portable and then it tries to play the next song which is also about 4 seconds long and so on and so on... It even says the songs are 4 seconds long!

Aoyumi, did you change something in the bit-stream? smile.gif

/Kef


AFAIK, aoTuV beta5.5 uses official Vorbis 1.2.0 as its base. Previous versions use Vorbis 1.1.x.
Try Vorbis 1.2.0 (Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20070622) and you'll see if this matters.

Anyway, my Samsung YP-U3 plays such files (aoTuV beta 5.5, q0) without problems.


Ah, good catch, that might be it... I'll check
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 4 2008, 20:00
Post #84





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



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 20:21) *
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Apr 4 2008, 20:08) *

QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 20:46) *

Does anybody else have problems with this beta 5.5 release? I encoded a few albums at -q0 for my portable player (iRiver S10) and even though the files plays in foobar, I only get 2-4 seconds of each song on my portable and then it tries to play the next song which is also about 4 seconds long and so on and so on... It even says the songs are 4 seconds long!

Aoyumi, did you change something in the bit-stream? smile.gif

/Kef


AFAIK, aoTuV beta5.5 uses official Vorbis 1.2.0 as its base. Previous versions use Vorbis 1.1.x.
Try Vorbis 1.2.0 (Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20070622) and you'll see if this matters.

Anyway, my Samsung YP-U3 plays such files (aoTuV beta 5.5, q0) without problems.


Ah, good catch, that might be it... I'll check


You where right, it's not aoTuV beta5.5, it is Vorbis 1.2.0 that causes the problem.

Good catch. Thanks! (off to iRiver to ask for a firmware-update)

/Kef

But that's not the whole story though... oggdrop works just fine with both beta5.5 and Vorbis 1.2.0, but not with foobar and either command line encoder... Strange!

This post has been edited by Kef: Apr 4 2008, 20:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Apr 4 2008, 20:13
Post #85


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 19:00) *
But that's not the whole story though... oggdrop works just fine with both beta5.5 and Vorbis 1.2.0, but not with foobar and either command line encoder... Strange!

Which command line encoders are you referring to? oggenc2 output should match oggdropXPd output and if there is some fatal difference, I need to look into it. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 4 2008, 20:28
Post #86





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



QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 4 2008, 21:13) *
QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 19:00) *

But that's not the whole story though... oggdrop works just fine with both beta5.5 and Vorbis 1.2.0, but not with foobar and either command line encoder... Strange!

Which command line encoders are you referring to? oggenc2 output should match oggdropXPd output and if there is some fatal difference, I need to look into it. wink.gif


I'm referring to oggenc2. wink.gif

QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 21:26) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 4 2008, 21:13) *

QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 4 2008, 19:00) *

But that's not the whole story though... oggdrop works just fine with both beta5.5 and Vorbis 1.2.0, but not with foobar and either command line encoder... Strange!

Which command line encoders are you referring to? oggenc2 output should match oggdropXPd output and if there is some fatal difference, I need to look into it. wink.gif


I'm referring to oggenc2. wink.gif


I can send you the files, if you like, but ... I would probably be the next target of RIAA... wink.gif

This post has been edited by Kef: Apr 4 2008, 20:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Apr 4 2008, 21:14
Post #87


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



What command line are you using from foobar and what options are you specifying in oggdropXPd? Sorry to be a pain, but I need to know whether foobar is doing something different. wink.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 5 2008, 04:29
Post #88





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



QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 4 2008, 22:14) *
What command line are you using from foobar and what options are you specifying in oggdropXPd? Sorry to be a pain, but I need to know whether foobar is doing something different. wink.gif


I'm just using default settings and -q0.

oggenc2 and oggdropXPd downloaded from rarewares

This post has been edited by Kef: Apr 5 2008, 07:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Apr 5 2008, 09:23
Post #89


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 03:29) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 4 2008, 22:14) *

What command line are you using from foobar and what options are you specifying in oggdropXPd? Sorry to be a pain, but I need to know whether foobar is doing something different. wink.gif


I'm just using default settings and -q0.

oggenc2 and oggdropXPd downloaded from rarewares

No tagging at all?


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 5 2008, 09:44
Post #90





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



QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 5 2008, 10:23) *
QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 03:29) *

QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 4 2008, 22:14) *

What command line are you using from foobar and what options are you specifying in oggdropXPd? Sorry to be a pain, but I need to know whether foobar is doing something different. wink.gif


I'm just using default settings and -q0.

oggenc2 and oggdropXPd downloaded from rarewares

No tagging at all?


Ehum... I usually don't use tags but I checked the source (reference libFLAC 1.1.2 20050205) files and yes they are tagged.

QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 10:43) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 5 2008, 10:23) *

QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 03:29) *

QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 4 2008, 22:14) *

What command line are you using from foobar and what options are you specifying in oggdropXPd? Sorry to be a pain, but I need to know whether foobar is doing something different. wink.gif


I'm just using default settings and -q0.

oggenc2 and oggdropXPd downloaded from rarewares

No tagging at all?


Ehum... I usually don't use tags but I checked the source (reference libFLAC 1.1.2 20050205) files and yes they are tagged.


Maybe it would be a good idea to use wav's to eliminate any tagging problem?

<edit>
I tested with a wav file and it worked perfectly, when I use the flac file it doesn't (using foobar2000 for both). Seems like some tagging problem to me.
</edit>

<edit2>
I removed the tags from the ogg file and still no luck
</edit2>

This post has been edited by Kef: Apr 5 2008, 10:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Apr 5 2008, 10:17
Post #91


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 08:44) *
......

Maybe it would be a good idea to use wav's to eliminate any tagging problem?

<edit>
I tested with a wav file and it worked perfectly, when I use the flac file it doesn't (using foobar2000 for both). Seems like some tagging problem to me.
</edit>

<edit2>
I removed the tags from the ogg file and still no luck
</edit2>

So, if I understand this correctly, the ogg files created from the FLAC files using foobar, with tags copied from the FLAC files, fail in your portable.

The ogg files created from the FLAC files using oggdropXPd are read fine in the portable, but do they contain tags, or not?

The fact that removing the tags from the ogg files doesn't solve the problem may suggest that the tagging routines in foobar are behaving in a way that is not quite standard, or if the oggdropXPd generated files aren't created with tags, then there is something about tagging that the iRiver doesn't like.

Edit: Sorry, thinking about it, the comment about foobar tagging routines is probably complete nonsense since it will presumably just feed the tagging routines in oggenc2!

This post has been edited by john33: Apr 5 2008, 10:32


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 5 2008, 10:37
Post #92





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



QUOTE
So, if I understand this correctly, the ogg files created from the FLAC files using foobar, with tags copied from the FLAC files, fail in your portable.

Correct
QUOTE
The ogg files created from the FLAC files using oggdropXPd are read fine in the portable, but do they contain tags, or not?

They don't contain any tags.
QUOTE
The fact that removing the tags from the ogg files doesn't solve the problem may suggest that the tagging routines in foobar are behaving in a way that is not quite standard, or if the oggdropXPd generated files aren't created with tags, then there is something about tagging that the iRiver doesn't like.


Yeah, that's the question isn't it? smile.gif

Anyway, I'm glad to find out it probably isn't a bit-stream problem. This is the first time I have encountered this problem and I have done a lot of conversions with both foobar and oggdropXPd. But as a previous poster suggested, it might have something to do with the new 1.2.0 libvorbis. I haven't used 1.2.0 until now (there was no reason to) and since aoTuVb5.5 is using 1.2.0 that might indeed be the problem. Luckily, there are workarounds for me. wink.gif

<edit>
I'll test with libvorbis 1.2.0 later today and let you know if the problem is still there.
</edit>

This post has been edited by Kef: Apr 5 2008, 10:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Apr 5 2008, 10:53
Post #93





Group: Developer
Posts: 3382
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 5 2008, 13:17) *
Edit: Sorry, thinking about it, the comment about foobar tagging routines is probably complete nonsense since it will presumably just feed the tagging routines in oggenc2!


foobar2000 calls oggenc.exe with commandline like that:
CODE
"C:\Program Files\foobar2000_09\oggenc.exe" -s 38500796 -Q -q5,500000 - -o "temp-76C393E9766F3169AEED5705EBD7EA3B.ogg"

So fb2k don't rely on codecs when tagging.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Apr 5 2008, 10:54
Post #94


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



Try a conversion using oggdropXPd and set the option to copy the FLAC tags. If that causes a problem, then the tags would seem to be the problem.

Slightly more confusing is that the tagging routines in the library appear unchanged relative to the previous version. unsure.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Apr 5 2008, 11:06
Post #95





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



QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 5 2008, 11:54) *
Try a conversion using oggdropXPd and set the option to copy the FLAC tags. If that causes a problem, then the tags would seem to be the problem.

Slightly more confusing is that the tagging routines in the library appear unchanged relative to the previous version. unsure.gif


I did convert using oggdropXpd and copying the tags. It worked perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Apr 5 2008, 11:35
Post #96


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


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



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 10:06) *
QUOTE (john33 @ Apr 5 2008, 11:54) *

Try a conversion using oggdropXPd and set the option to copy the FLAC tags. If that causes a problem, then the tags would seem to be the problem.

Slightly more confusing is that the tagging routines in the library appear unchanged relative to the previous version. unsure.gif


I did convert using oggdropXpd and copying the tags. It worked perfectly.

In which case, the problem must lie on the foobar tagging! Which, in the context of lvqcl's post, certainly seems a possibility. Mal-formed tags, I would guess, although somewhat unexpected.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aoyumi
post Apr 5 2008, 11:47
Post #97





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



QUOTE (Kef @ Apr 5 2008, 01:46) *
Does anybody else have problems with this beta 5.5 release? I encoded a few albums at -q0 for my portable player (iRiver S10) and even though the files plays in foobar, I only get 2-4 seconds of each song on my portable and then it tries to play the next song which is also about 4 seconds long and so on and so on... It even says the songs are 4 seconds long!

Aoyumi, did you change something in the bit-stream? smile.gif

/Kef

I don't discover the cause of the problem. However, I know that a problem gets up by the state of the comment header at a low bit rate depending on DAP.

I think that it is not a problem of the library. Because the reason is because the problem does not depend on the version of the library.

I suppose that padding domain of the Vorbis comment or the size of the Vorbis comment domain influences it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LigH
post Apr 5 2008, 11:54
Post #98





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



Are you still interested in material that provokes artefacts, to tune your psycho acoustics further? Or may I possibly add some "Advanced Encoder Options" here to test for you if they improve the result?
__

Listening to Ogg Vorbis audio with a Home Cinema set was in general satisfying for me. Most of my CDs sound well even when compressed with just Quality 3/10.

Some time ago I bought a pocket audio player which supports Ogg Vorbis files (Samsung YP-...), and I am in general satisfied too. Until I heard a remarkable exception. So I compared several oggenc2 versions (usually I prefer the aoTuV variants, the song I heard was encoded with aoTuV-b4), and even with the current b5.5 "release", I still get "twitting" noise at quality 3 with:

The Prodigy: 04. Your Love [Remix] (Experience, 1992)

for the synth percussion at the time 01:12-01:14, and even more at the time 03:29-03:31. I understand that this sound is possibly very provoking, it has sharp attacks and some flat "pappy" noise afterwards.

I can send you some material if required (e.g. short cuts around these positions).

This post has been edited by LigH: Apr 5 2008, 11:54


--------------------
http://forum.gleitz.info - das deutsche doom9/Gleitz-Forum
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aoyumi
post Apr 5 2008, 23:57
Post #99





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



QUOTE (LigH @ Apr 5 2008, 19:54) *
Are you still interested in material that provokes artefacts, to tune your psycho acoustics further? Or may I possibly add some "Advanced Encoder Options" here to test for you if they improve the result?
__

Listening to Ogg Vorbis audio with a Home Cinema set was in general satisfying for me. Most of my CDs sound well even when compressed with just Quality 3/10.

Some time ago I bought a pocket audio player which supports Ogg Vorbis files (Samsung YP-...), and I am in general satisfied too. Until I heard a remarkable exception. So I compared several oggenc2 versions (usually I prefer the aoTuV variants, the song I heard was encoded with aoTuV-b4), and even with the current b5.5 "release", I still get "twitting" noise at quality 3 with:

The Prodigy: 04. Your Love [Remix] (Experience, 1992)

for the synth percussion at the time 01:12-01:14, and even more at the time 03:29-03:31. I understand that this sound is possibly very provoking, it has sharp attacks and some flat "pappy" noise afterwards.

I can send you some material if required (e.g. short cuts around these positions).

I understand the cause of the problem. But, I don't find an efficient solution for the moment. sad.gif
Probably the basic solution is not possible in "Advanced Encoder Options".

...
When somebody finds the good method, I am glad. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moguta
post Apr 6 2008, 01:36
Post #100





Group: Members
Posts: 243
Joined: 26-June 02
Member No.: 2395



Thanks for this new release, Aoyumi! The low bitrates keep getting better and better.

Also, I just asked in the Vorbis 1.2.0 release thread whether they included any of your tunings (beyond what was put in the Vorbis 1.1.0 release). But looking here, I see I don't need to worry, since you already integrated Vorbis 1.2.0 into your latest release. smile.gif

I second making a news thread.

This post has been edited by Moguta: Apr 6 2008, 01:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

23 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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 - 05:15