IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!


- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.


- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Closed TopicStart new topic
Congratulations, you found your lowest transparent setting! Now wh, Do you choose for fidelity, efficiency, or a compromise?
Your lowest transparent setting in <insert favourite lossy codec here> is quality N. At what setting will you encode your music?
For use at home:
The same quality N, because I want things to sound the same as on the CD but I don't want to waste more space than necessary. [ 8 ] ** [22.86%]
The next higher quality setting (e.g. -q N+1 for Vorbis, -V N-1 for LAME, etc.), because I want to take a safe margin. After all I didn't check all music in the world. [ 11 ] ** [31.43%]
Even higher quality than the previous option, because I'm paranoid or because I want to accomodate for people with better ears (please post: how much higher?). [ 6 ] ** [17.14%]
The next lower-quality setting than from my tests (e.g. -V N+1 for LAME, -q N-1 for Vorbis, etc.), because the few audible differences I hear at that setting don't annoy me and I like to shave off 16-32kbps. [ 1 ] ** [2.86%]
Even lower quality than the previous option, because I find efficiency more important than perceived quality (please post: how far down would you go?). [ 1 ] ** [2.86%]
My choice is not listed above (please post). [ 8 ] ** [22.86%]
For portable use:
The same setting as I'd use at home, because I don't want to convert everything twice (please choose this option over the others if applicable). [ 18 ] ** [51.43%]
Higher than quality N from my tests: please explain your reasons in a reply. [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Quality N, just in case I end up spending some time in a quiet place. [ 6 ] ** [17.14%]
The next lower quality setting than quality N, because it should be more than good enough in most situations. [ 5 ] ** [14.29%]
Even lower then the previous option: usually I can't hear my music very well because of the traffic. [ 3 ] ** [8.57%]
I would switch to another codec that is specifically meant for efficiency, like Opus or HE-AAC. [ 1 ] ** [2.86%]
My choice is not listed above (please post). [ 2 ] ** [5.71%]
Total Votes: 57
  
Jplus
post Feb 13 2013, 17:31
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



Quoting myself from the end of the thread:
QUOTE (db1989 @ Feb 15 2013, 16:16) *
Jplus has posted the new version.

I’m going to lock this to avoid any more votes being placed here instead of in the revised poll. If anyone has any more to say about subjects from this thread, I think everything should be OK to post in the new location.

[original post below]


I assume the poll to be self-explanatory. Please feel welcome to discuss, even if the option of your choice doesn't explicitly ask for it!

For the first poll I have a hard time choosing between -V N and -V (N-1). I find it reassuring that -V N will sound excellent to my ears, even in quiet environments. On the other hand -V (N-1) won't sound any worse than a casette tape or a slightly dusty vinyl record (perhaps better, in a way), and back in those days I never had a problem listening to tape or vinyl. Then again, back in those days I had never done an ABX test. By searching for transparency I've sensitized my ears to hear problems that I was never aware of before.

For the second poll my choice is much easier because I'll use the same setting as for home use. While I carry my portable music almost everywhere, I tend to listen to it in reasonably quiet environments only so I see no reason to make a separate version.

I'm not asking for advice, just wondering how other people make their choice. I'm looking forward to your reactions!

This post has been edited by db1989: Feb 15 2013, 17:51
Reason for edit: as per posts #9, #12, and #13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Feb 13 2013, 17:42
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3372
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I use lossless because I am too lazy to find my transparent setting, and storage is so cheap (just ordered a 2.5 TB external drive for $70).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 13 2013, 17:46
Post #3


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5058
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



I have no idea where my general transparency limit is, though there are tracks I can ABX at -V2, and there are tracks I cannot ABX at -V5.

lossless at home, V3 on portable (which sometimes gets connected to a stereo).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Feb 13 2013, 17:59
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1029
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



I feel safe with -V63 (AAC TVBR with qaac), I transcode to -V73. My vote goes to -V (N+1) and same for portable use.

I didn't fully get the first one though, home use is lossless really. <- I didn't realize "My choice is not listed above (please post)." meant Lossless as well. Can someone please change my vote (again) from "-V (N+1)"? Thanks.

This post has been edited by eahm: Feb 13 2013, 18:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jplus
post Feb 13 2013, 18:10
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



QUOTE (eahm @ Feb 13 2013, 17:59) *
I feel safe with -V63 (AAC TVBR with qaac), I transcode to -V73. My vote goes to -V (N+1) and same for portable use.

I didn't fully get the first one though, home use is lossless really. <- I didn't realize "My choice is not listed above (please post)." meant Lossless. Can someone please change my vote from "-V (N+1)" (again)? Thanks.

At first I included the lossless option, but I decided to remove it because I realized most people probably do that and I thought it might be more interesting to know what people would do (hypothetically) if they were to use lossy instead. Perhaps that was a mistake. rolleyes.gif

Either way, thanks for sharing!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Feb 13 2013, 18:34
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2424
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Oops, I didn't read carefully enough: I voted for -V N in both cases, but the reason for -V N in the portable case is that I don't want to encode twice which was an extra choice as I saw right now but after voting.
Can my vote be put there, please?

This post has been edited by halb27: Feb 13 2013, 18:35


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FreaqyFrequency
post Feb 13 2013, 18:36
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 4-October 11
From: VA Beach, VA
Member No.: 94145



I use FLAC -0 + lossyWAV xtraportable on portable devices due to the reasonable bitrates (generally well below 400kbps) and ridiculous decoding efficiency. I also have yet to encounter an artifact using lWAV, and so while I keep certain albums archived losslessly, I have no qualms about processing other albums which I'm not planning to use for sample testing right out of the starting gate. The processed tracks also seem to hold up just as well as the lossless originals when transcoding to a further lossy codec (be it Vorbis, mp3, Opus, or anything else.)

Opus is on my watchlist, but it uses far more resources to decode than does my setup with FLAC + lWAV, and storage space is not a concern for me at the moment. I'd use Opus for applications such as audiobook encoding, most likely - lower complexity decoding, and higher resilience to audible artifacts.

This post has been edited by FreaqyFrequency: Feb 13 2013, 18:37


--------------------
FLAC -2 w/ lossyWAV 1.3.0i -q X -i
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jplus
post Feb 13 2013, 18:51
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



FreaqyFrequency: that's an interesting choice, thanks for sharing. What makes decoding efficiency such an important consideration for you, if I may ask?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 13 2013, 19:09
Post #9





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



Before anyone else votes, can I ask: Many people may think, due to the terminology used, that this is geared specifically towards LAME, so do you realise that your pluses and minuses are the wrong way around in terms of how that encoder presents its settings? Some others use the same type of scheme, too.

Put another way, if I determined my threshold of transparency with LAME to generally be -V3 (I just made this up; I don’t worry enough to test it) but wanted a bit of extra peace of mind, I would choose -V2, i.e. N minus 1; if I wanted to take a risk and save some space, I would use -V4, which is N plus 1.

The distinction between plus and minus in terms of quality vs. the actual setting could do with being made crystal-clear in the poll itself. I acknowledge people already requesting changes, but before I do anything, I need to make sure that future voters are certain of what they’re selecting, too. I acknowledge that the wording in the options provides context, but it’d be nice to clarify slightly just in case.

This post has been edited by db1989: Feb 13 2013, 19:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FreaqyFrequency
post Feb 13 2013, 19:19
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 4-October 11
From: VA Beach, VA
Member No.: 94145



Improved battery life, and the personal satisfaction I get from the fact that -0 on FLAC rather often compresses more effectively than -8 when encoding/decoding lWAV-processed content while simultaneously being the fastest/lightest setting for the processor. I feel like I'm cheating entropy every time I process/encode a new file. laugh.gif

This post has been edited by FreaqyFrequency: Feb 13 2013, 19:23


--------------------
FLAC -2 w/ lossyWAV 1.3.0i -q X -i
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Feb 13 2013, 19:33
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 13 2013, 09:46) *
I have no idea where my general transparency limit is


QUOTE (db1989 @ Feb 13 2013, 11:09) *
Put another way, if I determined my threshold of transparency with LAME to generally be -V3 (I just made this up; I don’t worry enough to test it)


+1

I don't know, don't care and don't worry enough to bother testing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jplus
post Feb 13 2013, 19:46
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



QUOTE (db1989 @ Feb 13 2013, 19:09) *
Before anyone else votes, can I ask: Many people may think, due to the terminology used, that this is geared specifically towards LAME, so do you realise that your pluses and minuses are the wrong way around in terms of how that encoder presents its settings? Some others use the same type of scheme, too.

Put another way, if I determined my threshold of transparency with LAME to generally be -V3 (I just made this up; I don’t worry enough to test it) but wanted a bit of extra peace of mind, I would choose -V2, i.e. N minus 1; if I wanted to take a risk and save some space, I would use -V4, which is N plus 1.

The distinction between plus and minus in terms of quality vs. the actual setting could do with being made crystal-clear in the poll itself. I acknowledge people already requesting changes, but before I do anything, I need to make sure that future voters are certain of what they’re selecting, too. I acknowledge that the wording in the options provides context, but it’d be nice to clarify slightly just in case.

I know LAME does things the other way round but I didn't realise it might pose a problem. I'm fine with some additional clarification in the poll. I'd suggest the following: change

"For home use:"

(question field for the first poll) into this:

"For home use (greater N means better quality at larger file size):"

Thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by Jplus: Feb 13 2013, 20:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 13 2013, 20:51
Post #13





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



No problem. I chose to replace all mentions of “-V N” with a generic “Quality N” and all plus/minus comparatives with more precise references to higher or lower quality.

I have reallocated the two votes as requested earlier in the thread.

Editing votes in polls is never easy, especially when one must check constantly in another tab to see whether anyone else has voted… so these edits are to the best of my ability and knowledge, without promises. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jensend
post Feb 13 2013, 22:28
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 21-May 05
Member No.: 22191



I really think the "I use the same settings" and "I use a different codec" options should be split from the question about portable use. Whether they use the same settings as on the desktop or not, whether they use a different codec or not, we want to find out how whatever setting they do use for portable compares to their transparency threshhold, and leaving out the settings from those who chose those two options makes the answers useless by biasing the remaining data.

It would make make more sense to ask two separate questions: for portable use, do you use the same settings as for home use, lower settings with the same codec, or a different codec? How does your portable setting compare to your transparency threshhold?

FreaqyFrequency, I really don't think FLAC -0 will increase your battery life; quite the contrary. Increased storage accesses cost quite a bit of time and power. Your FLAC -0 battery life may be better than 320kbps MP3s, but 190kbps MP3s would be considerably better on most platforms. For instance, on a Rockbox'd Clip Plus, with volume etc the same, battery life was as follows: 320kbps MP3 10h50m, FLAC -5 11h50m, 192kbps MP3 16h15m.

Even just switching to higher FLAC compression levels would probably save you a slight amount of battery life. (Just not -8, which greatly increases the max LPC order and thus has an impact on decode time, but has only a vanishingly small effect on compressed size.)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jplus
post Feb 13 2013, 23:25
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



QUOTE (jensend @ Feb 13 2013, 22:28) *
I really think the "I use the same settings" and "I use a different codec" options should be split from the question about portable use. Whether they use the same settings as on the desktop or not, whether they use a different codec or not, we want to find out how whatever setting they do use for portable compares to their transparency threshhold, and leaving out the settings from those who chose those two options makes the answers useless by biasing the remaining data.

I don't agree about the "I switch to a different codec" option because I think the way it's formulated already implies that you switch to a setting that is (significantly) lower than your transparency treshold, for reasons of efficiency.

However, I'm afraid that you're right about the "Same settings as for home use" option. It would not be a problem if we could assume that the distribution of home use poll choices of the people who select that option conforms to that of the total population, but unfortunately we can't assume that.

So ideally the question "Do you use the same settings for portable and home use" should be moved to a third poll. Unfortunately I have no idea what to do with all votes that have already been cast on the "Same settings" option sofar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jensend
post Feb 14 2013, 01:14
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 21-May 05
Member No.: 22191



QUOTE (Jplus @ Feb 13 2013, 15:25) *
I don't agree about the "I switch to a different codec" option because I think the way it's formulated already implies that you switch to a setting that is (significantly) lower than your transparency treshold, for reasons of efficiency.
Well, you make it sound as though switching to a different codec is just like the "Even lower than [one step less than transparent]: usually I can't hear my music very well" answer, only even more so; kinda a "three steps down." But someone could, for instance, decide that they find 112kbps AAC and 96kbps Opus to both be transparent, use 96kbps Opus on their portable, but use 160kbps AAC at home because with the looser space constraints they prefer to use a less experimental encoder and allow plenty of room for paranoia/safety/&c. They're "switching to a codec that is specifically meant for efficiency" on their portable player, but it's not at all like "three steps down from transparency."

There could of course be reasons besides efficiency to switch codecs for portable use, e.g. portable player format compatibility. You might want to consider how you'd want such people to respond. Also, while those who only listen to lossless have no reason to participate in this poll, I think a fair number of people simply use their lossless copy at home ("I have the FLACs saved here for archival anyways, might as well use them") and use lossy encoders for portable. One way to address this would be to give lossless its own option in the "home use" poll.

QUOTE
Unfortunately I have no idea what to do with all votes that have already been cast on the "Same settings" option sofar.
Well, rather few of us have voted so far, and I think most of those who have voted would happily vote again in a revised poll if you decided to push the reset button.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FreaqyFrequency
post Feb 14 2013, 01:25
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 4-October 11
From: VA Beach, VA
Member No.: 94145



QUOTE (jensend @ Feb 13 2013, 16:28) *
I really don't think FLAC -0 will increase your battery life; quite the contrary. Increased storage accesses cost quite a bit of time and power. Your FLAC -0 battery life may be better than 320kbps MP3s, but 190kbps MP3s would be considerably better on most platforms. For instance, on a Rockbox'd Clip Plus, with volume etc the same, battery life was as follows: 320kbps MP3 10h50m, FLAC -5 11h50m, 192kbps MP3 16h15m.


Interesting, thanks for the data on that. However, you should know that a number of these files have a bitrate lower than 320 by the time lWAV is through with them, so the files which are being retrieved from storage actually aren't terribly huge. This in conjunction with the ridiculous decode efficiency would probably gain an edge over even the 192CBR mp3 time you quote (though I would need to do some of my own testing to see precisely how much that would be.)

QUOTE (jensend @ Feb 13 2013, 16:28) *
Even just switching to higher FLAC compression levels would probably save you a slight amount of battery life. (Just not -8, which greatly increases the max LPC order and thus has an impact on decode time, but has only a vanishingly small effect on compressed size.)


This may well surprise you, but as I mentioned earlier, -0 often achieves phenomenal, and even occasionally the best compression on a number of these samples. FLAC behaves in a highly nonlinear fashion with respect to compression modes here.

For example: Paul Simon's "Father and Daughter" produces the following after being processed with lWAV, syntax -q X -i :

WAV 43,083kB
FLAC -0 10,723kB
-1 11,107kB
-2 9,428kB
-3 12,150kB
-4 12,235kB
-5 10,895kB
-6 10,891kB
-7 10,782kB
-8 10,764kB

Nothing else about the codec's behavior (encode/decode time for each level of compression, etc.) is anomalous like this. Clearly -2 is the best for this sample, but that isn't always the case. -0 still beats out -8 here, and this is not atypical for the files I've processed thus far.

Anyway, I'm happy to move this discussion into a sidethread and to conduct further investigation if we'd like the conversation to continue.

This post has been edited by FreaqyFrequency: Feb 14 2013, 01:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jplus
post Feb 14 2013, 02:10
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



QUOTE (jensend @ Feb 14 2013, 01:14) *
QUOTE (Jplus @ Feb 13 2013, 15:25) *
I don't agree about the "I switch to a different codec" option because I think the way it's formulated already implies that you switch to a setting that is (significantly) lower than your transparency treshold, for reasons of efficiency.
Well, you make it sound as though switching to a different codec is just like the "Even lower than [one step less than transparent]: usually I can't hear my music very well" answer, only even more so; kinda a "three steps down." But someone could, for instance, decide that they find 112kbps AAC and 96kbps Opus to both be transparent, use 96kbps Opus on their portable, but use 160kbps AAC at home because with the looser space constraints they prefer to use a less experimental encoder and allow plenty of room for paranoia/safety/&c. They're "switching to a codec that is specifically meant for efficiency" on their portable player, but it's not at all like "three steps down from transparency."

There could of course be reasons besides efficiency to switch codecs for portable use, e.g. portable player format compatibility. You might want to consider how you'd want such people to respond. Also, while those who only listen to lossless have no reason to participate in this poll, I think a fair number of people simply use their lossless copy at home ("I have the FLACs saved here for archival anyways, might as well use them") and use lossy encoders for portable. One way to address this would be to give lossless its own option in the "home use" poll.

QUOTE
Unfortunately I have no idea what to do with all votes that have already been cast on the "Same settings" option sofar.
Well, rather few of us have voted so far, and I think most of those who have voted would happily vote again in a revised poll if you decided to push the reset button.

There's such a thing as a reset button? That's interesting. Maybe I'd want to press that. But only if the mods agree of course.

If I were to do the poll all over I'd change the options to this (of course I'd describe the options much more elaborately than this, mostly in the same way as they're formulated now):

Poll 1 - home
lossless
q(>N+1)
q(N+1)
qN
q(N-1)
q(<N-1)
other, please specify

Poll 2 - portable
lossless
q(>N)
qN
q(N-1)
q(<N-1)
other, please specify

Poll 3 - formats
same format and same setting for both home use and portable
same lossy format but lower q for portable than for home
lossless at home and a different lossless format or setting for portable
lossless at home and lossy for portable
lossy at home and a different lossy format for portable (e.g. higher efficiency)

Mods, are you hating me already? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cyberdux
post Feb 14 2013, 07:05
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-February 06
Member No.: 27723



I found useful transparency around 128kbps on ABX but encode FLAC for Archive and 256 kbps for music server and ipod because I'm paranoid. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Feb 14 2013, 09:50
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



FLAC at home, Vorbis -q2 for portable and LAME -V5 for uPnP to XBox360


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vietwoojagig
post Feb 14 2013, 11:10
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 28-November 02
From: Germany, Trier
Member No.: 3916



I always rip lossless (ALAC).
For portable, iTunes transcodes everything to 128kbps, otherwise my iPod would be full already.
I don't know where my transparent settings are. I assume around 128-160 kbps from tests I did several years ago.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Feb 14 2013, 11:35
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Is this thread the Hydrogenaudio version of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wi-au14YdE ? tongue.gif


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 14 2013, 17:09
Post #23





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



QUOTE (Jplus @ Feb 14 2013, 01:10) *
QUOTE (jensend @ Feb 14 2013, 01:14) *
QUOTE (Jplus @ Feb 13 2013, 15:25) *
Unfortunately I have no idea what to do with all votes that have already been cast on the "Same settings" option sofar.
Well, rather few of us have voted so far, and I think most of those who have voted would happily vote again in a revised poll if you decided to push the reset button.
There's such a thing as a reset button? That's interesting. Maybe I'd want to press that. But only if the mods agree of course.

If I were to do the poll all over I'd change the options to this […] Mods, are you hating me already? smile.gif

There’s not literally a reset button! You are, of course, free to create a new poll to replace this if you want. The first post could be edited to redirect users to the new poll. There’s no reason for any staff to dislike you for this, unless you wanted us to type it all for you. wink.gif On which note, I would recommend sticking with my revised ‘higher/lower quality than in your transparent test’ naming scheme, so none of us will have to do extra typing due to possible confusion about the differing numerical directions of various encoders. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jplus
post Feb 15 2013, 11:23
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-February 13
Member No.: 106471



All right, will do that later today!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 15 2013, 17:16
Post #25





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



Jplus has posted the new version.

I’m going to lock this to avoid any more votes being placed here instead of in the revised poll. If anyone has any more to say about subjects from this thread, I think everything should be OK to post in the new location.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Closed 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: 24th July 2014 - 06:31