I compared quicktime aac and vorbis,i think quicktime aac is better than vorbis at 80Kbps. please tell me if i'm wrong. using command: qtaacenc.exe --tvbr 31 --highest --samplerate keep test.wav qt.m4a oggenc2.exe --raw -q 1.6 test.wav -o vorbis.ogg the version: qtaacenc version 20100725 with QuickTime 7.6.7 OggEnc v2.87 (libvorbis 1.3.1) links: qtaacenc:http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20100905/b82fae89/attachment.htm
Sergei Steshenko
2010-Sep-04 20:57 UTC
[Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new target
--- On Sat, 9/4/10, David.Lin <david.lin619 at gmail.com> wrote: From: David.Lin <david.lin619 at gmail.com> Subject: [Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new target To: vorbis at xiph.org Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 1:31 PM I compared quicktime aac and vorbis,i think quicktime aac is better than vorbis at 80Kbps. please tell me if i'm wrong. using command: qtaacenc.exe --tvbr 31 --highest --samplerate keep test.wav qt.m4a oggenc2.exe --raw -q 1.6 test.wav -o vorbis.ogg the version: qtaacenc version 20100725 with QuickTime 7.6.7 OggEnc v2.87 (libvorbis 1.3.1) links: qtaacenc:http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/ -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Vorbis mailing list Vorbis at xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis Why did you choose "-q 1.6" ? Regards, Sergei.
Sergei Steshenko
2010-Sep-04 21:05 UTC
[Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new target
--- On Sat, 9/4/10, Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh at yahoo.com> wrote:> From: Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh at yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new target > To: vorbis at xiph.org, "David.Lin" <david.lin619 at gmail.com> > Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 1:57 PM > > --- On Sat, 9/4/10, David.Lin <david.lin619 at gmail.com> > wrote: > > From: David.Lin <david.lin619 at gmail.com> > Subject: [Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new > target > To: vorbis at xiph.org > Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 1:31 PM > > I compared quicktime aac and vorbis,i think quicktime aac > is better than vorbis at 80Kbps. > please tell me if i'm wrong. > > using command: > qtaacenc.exe --tvbr 31 --highest --samplerate keep test.wav > qt.m4a > > oggenc2.exe --raw -q 1.6 test.wav -o vorbis.ogg > > the version: > qtaacenc version 20100725 with QuickTime 7.6.7 > OggEnc v2.87 (libvorbis 1.3.1) > > links: > qtaacenc:http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/ > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > Vorbis mailing list > Vorbis at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis > > Why did you choose "-q 1.6" ? > > Regards, > ? Sergei. > >And why did you use "--raw" ? Regards, Sergei.
Stig Christensen
2010-Sep-04 21:07 UTC
[Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new target
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
please try aoTuVb<br>
<a
href="http://www.rarewares.org/ogg-oggdropxpd.php#oggdrop-aotuv">http://www.rarewares.org/ogg-oggdropxpd.php#oggdrop-aotuv</a><br>
<br>
Stig<br>
<br>
<br>
Den 04-09-2010 22:31, David.Lin skrev:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimFdcL5Ky601yTuitcm7Z5hS9pDb+T6qi02C9ay@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I compared quicktime aac and vorbis,i think
quicktime
aac is better than vorbis at 80Kbps.<br>
please tell me if i'm wrong.<br>
<br>
using command:<br>
qtaacenc.exe --tvbr 31 --highest --samplerate keep test.wav
qt.m4a<br>
oggenc2.exe --raw -q 1.6 test.wav -o vorbis.ogg<br>
<br>
the version:<br>
qtaacenc version 20100725 with QuickTime 7.6.7<br>
OggEnc v2.87 (libvorbis 1.3.1)<br>
<br>
links:<br>
qtaacenc:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/">http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/</a><br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Vorbis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Vorbis@xiph.org">Vorbis@xiph.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis">http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Best Regards / Mvh
Stig Christensen
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:stig@stigc.dk">stig@stigc.dk</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.stigc.dk">www.stigc.dk</a> </pre>
</body>
</html>
Gregory Maxwell
2010-Sep-04 21:09 UTC
[Vorbis] I think vorbis codec group have a new target
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David.Lin <david.lin619 at gmail.com> wrote:> I compared quicktime aac and vorbis,i think quicktime aac is better than > vorbis at 80Kbps. > please tell me if i'm wrong.How could we? You've provided absolutely no data nor information about how you conducted the test. I recommend you use a blind listening test tool such as http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html and actually post the data. Make sure your testing set includes the original uncompressed audio. You may also find it useful to also test the latest aotuv development version http://www.geocities.jp/aoyoume/aotuv/test.html which is believed to represent the best in the current development of vorbis, and some AAC-LC encoder (if quicktime is not already AAC-LC), since some devices are only AAC-LC compatible at least in combination with video.
all files has been uploaded to email attachment,maybe someone need it. split to 2 files because the 25MB attachment limit. test.7z.002 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20100905/ca4ce9ee/attachment.htm
I got some error,upload it to mediafire.com. http://www.mediafire.com/?da3lj6yhan4pad4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20100905/45a87a81/attachment.htm
I remake the testing,because the previous testing has some issues. also,i reupload all new files to omploader.org. <http://omploader.org/> the download link here: I comparing the "waveform" and "spectral frequency". waveform: vorbis better,obviously. I put it to "waveform" directory. spectral frequency: qtaac better,vorbis choice 16000HZ,this's a good point,but,qtaac do it better. I put it to "spectral frequency" directory. I also drawn the "spectral pan" and "spectral phase",i put them to "spectral pan" directory and "spectral phase" directory,maybe someone want it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20100908/9ff50e1e/attachment.htm
I remake the testing,because the previous testing has some issues. also,i reupload all new files to omploader.org. <http://omploader.org/> the download link here:http://omploader.org/iNWg5bA I comparing the "waveform" and "spectral frequency". waveform: vorbis better,obviously. I put it to "waveform" directory. spectral frequency: qtaac better,vorbis choice 16000HZ,this's a good point,but,qtaac do it better. I put it to "spectral frequency" directory. I also drawn the "spectral pan" and "spectral phase",i put them to "spectral pan" directory and "spectral phase" directory,maybe someone want it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20100908/0ef1877f/attachment.htm
Also i do the blind listening test,but,it really hard to do,because they's qulity are both very good,i didn't heard any difference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20100908/0f9ceb7b/attachment.htm