I've been running through a collection of hard to encode samples that the lame developers use, and others, doing ABX testing at various quality levels looking for my personal sweet spot. Last time I did this for RC3 I found that most samples where pretty transparent around the 3.5-4 region (my ears aren't that well trained, and I don't want them to be :-), but this time I noticed that applaud.wav[1] seems to have a lot of conspicuous static-like noise in it, all the way up to -q 6 or there abouts - I could ABX out to 5, before I gave up and went to bed. I just compared RC3 output with 1.0 and I could easily spot that 1.0 was sounding worse at -q 4, and I could probably ABX the two at 5 or even 6 (RC3 sounds pretty clear at both, to me). What do other people think? John [1] http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/samples/applaud.wav --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
I know this was covered just the other day, but using the official vorbis site is like watching glaciers move currently. Where are the executables mirrored at? Also, on the links page is this entry: VorbisLinks.com added to Advocacy and News on 2001-06-30 21:52:17.00 Links to all kinds of Vorbis related sites. Which is now one of those cybersquatter generic pages that i detest so much. While we're purging spam, might as well kill the dead links. Finally, i'm not sure i follow the recent conversation on CD ripping and normalization. I was going to use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to create wavs and then convert directly to ogg. Previously i did use a wav editor to normalize my songs so that they reached 100% dynamic range (or something like that), but it sounds like you're saying that's a bad thing to do. How does cdex differ, and what IS the best way to convert a collection of CDs to oggs with a similar dynamic range (so that i don't blast my speakers as a quite song that had to be cranked up ends and a loud one begins)? Thanks Flandry --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
> (my ears aren't that well trained, and I don't want them to be :-)Surely better trained than mine, then. :^) <p> > but this time I noticed that applaud.wav[1] seems to have a lot of > conspicuous static-like noise in it, all the way up to -q 6 or there > abouts - I could ABX out to 5, before I gave up and went to bed. I can't do that. applaud.wav was one of the very few samples where I could recognize artifacts in RC3; they were still barely noticeable at -q 4.99, but went away at -q 5. On 1.0 I have a hard time hearing that noise at -q 2! Now the only sample that needs -q 3 to be transparent is fatboy.wav (at the same location). Well, apart from that pesky udial.wav that's as broken as before. ;^) So, I've changed my chosen encoding level, from -q 4.99 to -q 3, the default, for a gain of 20-30% in size, and I'm confident I won't regret this decision. Vorbis is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Thanks again, Monty and crew! <p> -- "Oddly enough, Python's use of whitespace stopped feeling unnatural after about twenty minutes." Eric S. Raymond Nicola Larosa - nico@tekNico.net <p><p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.