IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Ogg Vorbis encoder would you like to see in a listening test?, oggdropXPd 1.9.0 vs. oggenc2.85 (Either libVorbis v1.2.3 aoTuVb5.7)
ezlez
post Feb 23 2010, 08:02
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 24-October 09
From: California, US
Member No.: 74271



I'm going to conduct a multi-format listening test very soon, and I need only one encoder per format. I'm deciding between oggdropXPd 1.9.0 vs. oggenc2.85 (Either libVorbis v1.2.3 aoTuVb5.7), and I wanted on what your thoughts are, since I don't have much experience with Ogg Vorbis. All the encoders are coming from Rarewares.org.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Feb 23 2010, 11:28
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 3468
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
I'm deciding between oggdropXPd 1.9.0 vs. oggenc2.85

That doesn't matter.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stigc
post Feb 23 2010, 12:51
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 142
Joined: 13-December 04
Member No.: 18660



Hi ezlez. When og with what software? What bitrate?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Feb 23 2010, 13:06
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



I vote for libvorbis 1.2.3

Because it is newer and for me it sounds better than aotuvb5.7 at ~150 kbps.

Which bitrate you have choosen for test?

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Feb 23 2010, 13:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Feb 23 2010, 13:18
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 3468
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



libvorbis 1.2.3 uses aoTuV b2 tweaks. So w.r.t. audio quality it is much older than aoTuV b5.7.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xanikseo
post Feb 23 2010, 21:32
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68951



As long as you use aoTuV b5.7 it's fine. So yh oggdropXPd 1.9.0 using aoTuV b5.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
timcupery
post Feb 23 2010, 22:04
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 780
Joined: 19-December 01
From: Tar Heel country
Member No.: 683



as lvqcl said, oggdropXPd vs. oggenc doesn't matter, that's simply an issue of frontend.
what does matter is which encoder. and it sounds like aoTuV b5.7 is the newer encoder (and more recently optimized, and thus likely but not guaranteed to be better)


--------------------
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Feb 23 2010, 22:24
Post #8


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3765
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



Just my 2 cents - as already said, the question relates to frontends and not to encoding library. Since the results should be identical, it should be a matter of personal choice and have zero influence over the test result.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dsimcha
post Mar 25 2010, 18:28
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 2-November 04
Member No.: 17953



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Feb 23 2010, 08:06) *
I vote for libvorbis 1.2.3

Because it is newer and for me it sounds better than aotuvb5.7 at ~150 kbps.

Which bitrate you have choosen for test?


Have you ever ABX'd this? Either one should usually be completely transparent at such a high bitrate. AoTuv Beta 5.7 is widely considered to be mostly transparent (except on a few killer samples) at -q3 or -q4, which correspond to nominal bitrates of 112 and 128 kbps respectively. Even -q2 (nominal bitrate 96 kbps) seldom produces severe artifacts that are noticable in casual listening. I can ABX LAME at ~128 kbps on a lot more samples than I can ABX Vorbis at ~96 kbps.

This post has been edited by dsimcha: Mar 25 2010, 18:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NullC
post Jun 1 2010, 20:07
Post #10





Group: Developer
Posts: 200
Joined: 8-July 03
Member No.: 7653




If someone wants to do some adventurous testing. Try out FFvorbis which is the vorbis encoder internal to ffmpeg. It generally produces horrific results[1]. It is suddenly interesting because a lot of people will be using ffmpeg to transcode into webm and some people seem to have a hard time believing that the ffmpeg encoder sounds worse than libvorbis or aoTuV. Some independent results might go a long way towards saving the world from billions of files encoded with that encoder.



[1] No blind testing is really required, for example: http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/fffail/new01/ and http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/fffail/new02/

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AshenTech
post Jun 12 2010, 07:46
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 62144



the ffmpeg guys lost my respect a while back due to how they treated the creator of mediacoder, Love some of the results of their products, but at least their groups mouth peices are a bunch of arseholes, dosnt surprise me at all that ffmpeg's encoder sucks, their theora encoder was HORRIBLE(if you can even get it to actually work.....)

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 28th December 2014 - 05:19