IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
softrunner
post Jul 19 2012, 19:17
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



Small piece of Fighter Beat track, looped several times. It kills all lossy codecs on all beatrates.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav ( 1.35MB ) Number of downloads: 613
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 19 2012, 19:25
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10339
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



It's not enough to say it, you need to provide ABX logs in order to comply with our terms, especially when making incredible claims like the one you just made.

BTW what's a beatrate? cool.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 19 2012, 19:28


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 19 2012, 20:01
Post #3





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



There was a thread where this track was mentioned: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57783 , posts 10-14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 19 2012, 20:53
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



QUOTE
There was a thread where this track was mentioned: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57783 , posts 10-14

Yes, I know. I just looped the most hard for encoders part of it, so that the difference can be heard more clearly.
QUOTE
It's not enough to say it, you need to provide ABX logs in order to comply with our terms, especially when making incredible claims like the one you just made.

My iRiver player does not support lossless, so I use Vorbis q10, and I can hear the difference between it and Vorbis Q9, Musepack q10 and Nero AAC Q1 (max. bitrate). It looks like converted tracks sounds slightly quieter, almost indistinguishable. Dont know why, but on PC it is harder to hear this difference (maybe because it is AC97?). Probably, I should try test it more strenuously.
Anyway, this sample is the best I could find for testing audio codecs for myself, and I hope people who make listening tests pay attention to it.
QUOTE
BTW what's a beatrate?

LOL, the same as Fighter Bit. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LithosZA
post Jul 19 2012, 21:34
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 203
Joined: 26-February 11
Member No.: 88525



I quickly tested(Not ABX) the sample with Vorbis at 160Kbps and Opus at 160Kbps CVBR.
The Vorbis encode sounds very different from the original. With the Opus encode I don't know if I am actually hearing a difference or not. I probably will have to do an ABX.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 19 2012, 21:37
Post #6





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10339
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I quickly tried both Nero from 7-Feb 2006 using -q 0.3 -lc and Lame 3.98.4 -V3 and do not believe I would be able to pass an ABX test.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 19 2012, 21:38


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Jul 19 2012, 22:53
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 860
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 19 2012, 14:37) *
I quickly tried both Nero from 7-Feb 2006 using -q 0.3 -lc and Lame 3.98.4 -V3 and do not believe I would be able to pass an ABX test.

Same here; files I produced with these parameters all sound alike to me:

Oggenc 2.87/libVorbis 1.3.3 -q 0.5 [same as -b 160]
NeroAAC 1.5.1.0 -q 0.57
LAME 3.99.5 -b 320
Fraunhofer MP3S 1.5/lib4.01.01 -br 320000 -q 1

So yeah, "kills all lossy codecs on all b[i]trates" is an overstatement. I have to question the reports in the aforementioned thread as well.

@softrunner - Please take the time to run ABX tests in foobar2000. In the meantime, I suggest this thread be retitled by an admin to just "Fighter Beat loop" with the subtitle "possible problem sample for Ogg Vorbis encoder; ABX testing needed". Or something along those lines.

This post has been edited by mjb2006: Jul 19 2012, 22:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jul 19 2012, 23:05
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



5/5 first time with both LAME -V4 and Vorbis -q5, both the most recent rarewares releases. I actually got LAME backwards, 0/5, but I could tell the difference. The encode sounded marginally better than the original to me... >_>

This post has been edited by Canar: Jul 19 2012, 23:06


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 20 2012, 14:52
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Never thought that such a regular sample could be that badass. Encoding with lame -V0 gives a bitrate of 314, so it certainly knows it is up against something. I've never seen anything like that.

Some of my highest-bitrate FLACs, do end up between 245 and 255 when lame -0'ed. Including the least-compressible harpsichord piece I have.

In the lossless department: TAK -p4m encodes at 1037. FLAC -8 encodes at 978, that's 5.7% better. WavPack extra high at 837. That's a 14.5 percent better than FLAC -8 and 19 percent better than TAK -p4m. I have never before seen any sample where TAK -p4m is beaten by 200 kb/s.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 20 2012, 23:47
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



Ok, now I've done an ABX test of MP3 on PC, because MP3 is too obviouse to recognize.
Codec is LAME3.99. Original file was converted into MP3 320 kbps (maximum quality) with Foobar2000:


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/07/21 01:31:58

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Fighter_Beat_Loop.mp3

01:31:58 : Test started.
01:37:11 : 01/01 50.0%
01:39:35 : 02/02 25.0%
01:55:14 : 03/03 12.5%
01:57:05 : 04/04 6.3%
01:59:20 : 05/05 3.1%
02:01:50 : 06/06 1.6%
02:04:59 : 07/07 0.8%
02:08:29 : 08/08 0.4%
02:09:40 : 09/09 0.2%
02:13:03 : 10/10 0.1%
02:16:46 : 11/11 0.0%
02:18:15 : 12/12 0.0%
02:19:17 : 13/13 0.0%
02:20:25 : 14/14 0.0%
02:23:11 : 15/15 0.0%
02:23:46 : 16/16 0.0%
02:25:42 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 16/16 (0.0%)



The difference in files is that in the original sample there is a sharp background scratch, and in the mp3 sample it is smoothed so that I just cannot here this information there.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 22 2012, 17:56
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



Here is another test:
Vorbis Q7 (333 kbps)


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/22 20:38:10

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Vorbis q7).ogg

20:38:10 : Test started.
20:38:57 : 00/01 100.0%
20:39:15 : 01/02 75.0%
20:39:57 : 02/03 50.0%
20:40:07 : 03/04 31.3%
20:41:05 : 04/05 18.8%
20:41:44 : 05/06 10.9%
20:42:25 : 06/07 6.3%
20:42:45 : 07/08 3.5%
20:43:44 : 08/09 2.0%
20:45:22 : 09/10 1.1%
20:46:22 : 10/11 0.6%
20:48:02 : 11/12 0.3%
20:48:55 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/12 (0.3%)

The same story: no sharpness in the background noise (right channel).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LithosZA
post Jul 22 2012, 18:02
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 203
Joined: 26-February 11
Member No.: 88525



Have you tried Opus with this sample?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 22 2012, 18:14
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



Vorbis q8 (bitrate 376 kbps):



foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/22 21:01:15

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Vorbis q8).ogg

21:01:15 : Test started.
21:02:51 : 01/01 50.0%
21:03:28 : 02/02 25.0%
21:05:15 : 03/03 12.5%
21:05:52 : 04/04 6.3%
21:06:21 : 05/05 3.1%
21:07:00 : 06/06 1.6%
21:08:19 : 07/07 0.8%
21:08:46 : 08/08 0.4%
21:09:16 : 09/09 0.2%
21:10:01 : 10/10 0.1%
21:10:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)

QUOTE
Have you tried Opus with this sample?

I'll do it later.

This post has been edited by softrunner: Jul 22 2012, 18:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 22 2012, 21:26
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10339
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Provide results for mpc and aac and I think we've got our bases covered.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 23 2012, 00:26
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



Musepack q8 (350 kbps)


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 03:16:51

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Musepack q8).mpc

03:16:51 : Test started.
03:17:42 : 01/01 50.0%
03:18:15 : 02/02 25.0%
03:18:29 : 03/03 12.5%
03:19:18 : 04/04 6.3%
03:19:48 : 05/05 3.1%
03:20:04 : 06/06 1.6%
03:20:40 : 07/07 0.8%
03:21:03 : 08/08 0.4%
03:21:34 : 09/09 0.2%
03:22:03 : 10/10 0.1%
03:22:13 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 23 2012, 01:05
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



Nero AAC q0.9 (374 kbps)


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 03:36:14

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Nero AAC q0.9).m4a

03:36:14 : Test started.
03:37:01 : 01/01 50.0%
03:38:30 : 02/02 25.0%
03:40:04 : 03/03 12.5%
03:41:25 : 04/04 6.3%
03:42:28 : 05/05 3.1%
03:44:08 : 06/06 1.6%
03:45:40 : 07/07 0.8%
03:47:36 : 07/08 3.5%
03:48:16 : 07/09 9.0%
03:48:52 : 08/10 5.5%
03:49:19 : 09/11 3.3%
03:50:36 : 10/12 1.9%
03:52:06 : 11/13 1.1%
03:53:02 : 12/14 0.6%
03:53:29 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/14 (0.6%)

It looks like the amplitude of a saw-like sound in aac sample is lower than in an original one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Jul 23 2012, 02:08
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1019
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (softrunner @ Jul 22 2012, 19:05) *
It looks like the amplitude of a saw-like sound in aac sample is lower than in an original one.


Please reassure me that I'm reading this wrong, or somehow out of context.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jul 23 2012, 02:28
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 5163
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



I couldn't ABX lame -v2. But its a hard sample (for me at least) because its so noise-like.

Looking at it in the time domain is very interesting though. With the lowpass disabled, the time domain versions of the MP3 and lossless look nearly identical, with just a tiny bit of extra quantization noise in the lossy version. I would have expected the impulses to give the transform more trouble, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hlloyge
post Jul 23 2012, 09:51
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 701
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



I can't do it with AAC at v-5.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 23 2012, 13:31
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



QUOTE
Please reassure me that I'm reading this wrong, or somehow out of context.

This is just the turn of speech. What I meant is that the wavy signal, that sounds like a power-saw, in AAC has less max. volume than in the original sample.

Opus 192 kbps (289 kbps in real) (libopus 0.9.11-119-g1a50ad0-exp_analysis)
(Converted via "opusenc.exe --music --bitrate 192")


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 15:42:38

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Opus 192 kbps).opus

15:42:38 : Test started.
15:43:31 : 01/01 50.0%
15:44:57 : 01/02 75.0%
15:45:39 : 02/03 50.0%
15:46:22 : 03/04 31.3%
15:48:02 : 04/05 18.8%
15:48:25 : 05/06 10.9%
15:48:51 : 06/07 6.3%
15:50:28 : 06/08 14.5%
15:50:56 : 07/09 9.0%
15:51:55 : 08/10 5.5%
15:53:07 : 08/11 11.3%
15:54:06 : 09/12 7.3%
15:56:30 : 10/13 4.6%
15:58:24 : 11/14 2.9%
15:59:46 : 12/15 1.8%
16:03:34 : 13/16 1.1%
16:03:39 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 13/16 (1.1%)

QUOTE
I couldn't ABX lame -v2.

QUOTE
I can't do it with AAC at v-5.

You can focus your eyes on some object, but the most information still comes from peripheral seeing. The same in hearing. Dont try to focus on particular sounds, otherwise you will miss the most information. That's how I do it: just trying to listen via unfocused peripheral hearing, and the sound shows its difference itself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 23 2012, 13:46
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Now I'm getting curious: can you nail down a freeformat@640?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Jul 23 2012, 14:23
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



QUOTE (softrunner @ Jul 23 2012, 13:31) *
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 15:42:38

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Opus 192 kbps).opus


I haven't used Windows in years. But from what I read here, fb2k outputs Opus files at 48000Hz.

So, how does foo_abx handles files with different sample rates?
Or is that irrelevant because the audio reaching the output device is mixed with a certain sample rate supported by the device?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
softrunner
post Jul 23 2012, 17:55
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 19-July 12
Member No.: 101579



QUOTE
can you nail down a freeformat@640?

If you mean "lame.exe --freeformat -b 640 *.wav", I cannot find how to decode it. Anyway, it must be useless.

QUOTE
I haven't used Windows in years. But from what I read here, fb2k outputs Opus files at 48000Hz.

So, how does foo_abx handles files with different sample rates?
Or is that irrelevant because the audio reaching the output device is mixed with a certain sample rate supported by the device?

If you decode it into wav, it will be 44kHz, so I think it is ok.

Musepack q9 (382 kbps)


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 20:17:12

File A: D:\@Portable@\Audio\@Encoders@\test.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\test (Musepack q9.0).mpc

20:17:12 : Test started.
20:19:18 : 01/01 50.0%
20:20:50 : 02/02 25.0%
20:21:50 : 03/03 12.5%
20:23:14 : 04/04 6.3%
20:27:34 : 05/05 3.1%
20:28:29 : 06/06 1.6%
20:29:12 : 07/07 0.8%
20:35:04 : 08/08 0.4%
20:35:52 : 08/09 2.0%
20:37:59 : 09/10 1.1%
20:41:08 : 10/11 0.6%
20:41:12 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

This post has been edited by softrunner: Jul 23 2012, 17:56
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 23 2012, 18:21
Post #24





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



No, Opus will not decode at 44100 Hz by default. 2012 is correct; please actually read what people say, rather than just waving it away.

I presume foo_abx intelligently resamples, probably both files to a common rate (the higher of the two?); I would certainly welcome confirmation.

Anyway: Thanks for all the tests! They make TOS #8 happy. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Jul 23 2012, 18:49
Post #25





Group: Developer
Posts: 1454
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 23 2012, 19:21) *
No, Opus will not decode at 44100 Hz by default. 2012 is correct; please actually read what people say, rather than just waving it away.


Opusdec will decode at 44.1kHz, if the opus file was sourced from a 44.1kHz WAV. Maybe that's what softrunner meant.

This post has been edited by skamp: Jul 23 2012, 18:50


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 26th December 2014 - 04:36