Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06 (Read 4976 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Here's a short clip where I noticed a loss of transparency using 1.06 --standard. The same clip encoded with 1.01j --standard offers improved sound. Pay attention to the cymbal hit at about 2.4 seconds. The original WAV sounds smooth here while 1.06 --standard adds a silibant edge to the attack. It seems 1.01j --standard isn't audibly transparent either but it's much harder to notice (good AB/X test).

Although this is just one case, I'm leary about using any of the post-1.01j encoders.

Original FLAC

1.01j MPC

1.06 MPC

Yes, I am using the "bug fixed" version of 1.06.

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #1 –
Because I know you'll be asking:

1.06 vs original - 16/20, 1% guessing chance
1.01j vs original - 22/30, 2% guessing chance

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #2 –
Quote
Originally posted by mithrandir
Because I know you'll be asking:

1.06 vs original - 16/20, 1% guessing chance
1.01j vs original - 22/30, 2% guessing chance


1st)  statistically not significant (ask ff123)
2nd)  Try 1.06 --ms 0
3rd)  I can easily ABX 1.01j (8/10), but not 1.06 (12/20).
--  Frank Klemm

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #3 –
Quote
Originally posted by Frank Klemm

1st)   statistically not significant (ask ff123)


Uh?

giancarlo@garf:~/r3mix > ./confid
Ok's / Trials ?
16 20
1000000 iters, 6010 success, 0.601000% luck probability
giancarlo@garf:~/r3mix > ./confid
Ok's / Trials ?
22 30
1000000 iters, 8079 success, 0.807900% luck probability

--
GCP

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #4 –
Quote
Originally posted by Garf


Uh?

giancarlo@garf:~/r3mix > ./confid 
Ok's / Trials ?
16 20
1000000 iters, 6010 success, 0.601000% luck probability
giancarlo@garf:~/r3mix > ./confid 
Ok's / Trials ?
22 30
1000000 iters, 8079 success, 0.807900% luck probability

-- 
GCP


16/20 vs. 22/30        => 0.6% vs. 0.8%      (1.01j is better than 1.06)
15/20 vs. 23/30        => ?% vs. ?%            (1.01j is ?        than 1.06)

BTW I have serious trouble with my sound card with this signal.
It sound completely different with -6.07 dB PCM attenuation (*0.497) and
setting volume control from 82/100 to 91/100 (Linux OSS). °)

K-20 replaygain reduces level by NEARLY 19 dB.
This is new world record!


°) I have calibrated my sound card using a loop back connection.
--  Frank Klemm

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #5 –
Quote
Originally posted by Frank Klemm
2nd)  Try 1.06 --ms 0

Frank,
in the (recent) past you have always condemned the use of --ms 0 . Now you suggest trying it (also in the thread "stereo separation").
Do you mean that the quality problems that were introduced by --ms 0 in previous versions are now solved?
--
Ge Someone
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #6 –
Quote
Originally posted by GeSomeone

Frank,
in the (recent) past you have always condemned the use of --ms 0 . Now you suggest trying it (also in the thread "stereo separation").
Do you mean that the quality problems that were introduced by --ms 0 in previous versions are now solved?
--
Ge Someone


--ms 0 is currently unmaintained and with the current encoding theme difficult
to handle. With --ms 0 you can perfectly encode 2 directions (-45°,+45°),
with --ms 15 4 directions (+/-90°,-45°,0°,45°). An omnidirectional encoding
would be better than both. A way would be to extend --ms 0.
--  Frank Klemm

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #7 –
"With --ms 0 you can perfectly encode 2 directions (-45°,+45°),
with --ms 15 4 directions (+/-90°,-45°,0°,45°). An omnidirectional encoding
would be better than both. A way would be to extend --ms 0."


Does this influence encoding of surround signals and their resolution ?

I would prefer, that every encoder (mp3, mp2, mpc, ogg) should be able to reproduce surround signals very well.
And not only "old" Dolby ProLogic Surround (one mono rear channel),
I like much more: DS2, separated rears, full frequency.

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #8 –
Quote
Originally posted by user
"With --ms 0 you can perfectly encode 2 directions (-45°,+45°), 
with --ms 15 4 directions (+/-90°,-45°,0°,45°). An omnidirectional encoding
would be better than both. A way would be to extend --ms 0."


Does this influence encoding of surround signals and their resolution ?

I would prefer, that every encoder (mp3, mp2, mpc, ogg) should be able to reproduce surround signals very well.
And not only "old" Dolby ProLogic Surround (one mono rear channel), 
I like much more: DS2, separated rears, full frequency.


D. PL is just sheisse - just a shortcircuited mess of phases.
I say ambisonics!
the only way to go, especially for such a great format as MPC.

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #9 –
"1. D. PL is just sheisse - just a shortcircuited mess of phases.
2. I say ambisonics!"


Hi,

1. I agree, but don't want to make angry those persons still using DPL, not having/using Logic7/DPL2/DS2

Do you have listening  experiences with DPL2 ?

2. What is it ?
I have found www.ambiosonic.net
But do you think of any usage of it in real life in future ?
DD5.1 and dts, DPL2 are common, not ambiosonic.

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #10 –
Quote
Originally posted by user
"With --ms 0 you can perfectly encode 2 directions (-45°,+45°), 
with --ms 15 4 directions (+/-90°,-45°,0°,45°). An omnidirectional encoding
would be better than both. A way would be to extend --ms 0."


Does this influence encoding of surround signals and their resolution ?

I would prefer, that every encoder (mp3, mp2, mpc, ogg) should be able to reproduce surround signals very well.
And not only "old" Dolby ProLogic Surround (one mono rear channel), 
I like much more: DS2, separated rears, full frequency.


Dolby ProLogic I and II is less critical than Stereo.
There's a VCA in it. Speakers with reduced signal are additional
damped. This starts at -3 dB. Stereo issues are at least 20 dB
below this point. I measured 50 dB attenuation for standard and
60 dB attenuation for xtreme before this become relevant.
--  Frank Klemm

Sample: more transparent in 1.01j than 1.06

Reply #11 –
Quote
Originally posted by user
"1. D. PL is just sheisse - just a shortcircuited mess of phases.
2. I say ambisonics!"


Hi,

1. I agree, but don't want to make angry those persons still using DPL, not having/using Logic7/DPL2/DS2

Do you have listening  experiences with DPL2 ?

2. What is it ?



IMO we should all abandon AC3/DS - well Dolby period.
they actually make lousy formats, whereas the smaller better formats, such as ambisonics are hidden in the marketing of Dolby's solutions.

No, I have little experience of DPL2, but sincerely doubt there's much of interest.

I'm planning of building a Ambisonics setup at home, so I guess there will be little time for anything else

cheers,
David