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.

Poll

Which vorbis fork do you use

Xiph1.1 / AoTuV b2
[ 95 ] (65.5%)
GT3 b1
[ 4 ] (2.8%)
GT3 b2
[ 11 ] (7.6%)
QK 3.2
[ 0 ] (0%)
MegaMix II
[ 26 ] (17.9%)
Other
[ 9 ] (6.2%)

Total Members Voted: 243

Topic: Which vorbis fork do you use (Read 12881 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which vorbis fork do you use

this one is just to see what vorbis users are using

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #1 –
I don't use Vorbis often right now, but i would probably use 1.1 with --advanced-encode-optinons

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #2 –
Other...

1.0.1 Xiph official compile via OggDropXPd
No one can be told what Ogg Vorbis is...you have to hear it for yourself
- Morpheus

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #3 –
I use Xiph 1.1 (with impulse_noisetune and Impulse Trigger Profiles).

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #4 –
Mix of 1.1 RC1 with ITP and IN options and Megamix II.
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #5 –
1.1RC1 with impulse_noisetune and impulse_trigger_profile

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #6 –
God, I don't really follow vorbis myself, but just browsing the poll choices and first couple of responses...

Vorbis development is a fucking disaster! It'll never catch on as long as people have to know this stuff! Come on Xiph, for shame!

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #7 –
Quote
Vorbis development is a fucking disaster! It'll never catch on as long as people have to know this stuff! Come on Xiph, for shame!

Personally, I'm wondering how the Xiph team actually manages to do quality testing these days.

People have been asking Xiph for news and information, but it seems that they have a pretty strong hearing impairment. I guess they're tuning out legitimate questions and requests as artifacts?

Emmett

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #8 –
Other - AoTuV b2, but not the one merged with Xiph1.1 (beacuse there's no -q-2).

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #9 –
Quote
Other - AoTuV b2, but not the one merged with Xiph1.1 (beacuse there's no -q-2).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=243763"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Aoyumi mentioned that -q-1 is now what -q-2 was in b2 so you can use xiph1.1.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #10 –
Quote
God, I don't really follow vorbis myself, but just browsing the poll choices and first couple of responses...

Vorbis development is a fucking disaster! It'll never catch on as long as people have to know this stuff! Come on Xiph, for shame!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=243734"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The choices may seem various but these are mainly experimental/non-xiph forks by interested Vorbis developers. I wouldn't call it a disaster. Confusing, yes, but many of these recent forks are fortunately improvements over the original 1.0 release. It would be bad if there were regressions but for the most part the new forks are all better than the old base code.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #11 –
It's not all too confusing after a little reading, but yeah I admit it was a lot for me at first.  Fortunately 1.1 has had aoTuV integrated into it so now the official encoder is of high enough quality for me.  In fact when a build of 1.1 with an impulse_trigger_profile option shows up I plan on using it.  I can mimic Megamix II with it quite well. 
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #12 –
When I encode in Vorbis, I use the plain 1.1rc 1. To me, the impulse trigger switches are a very good idea, but they are also too much to type and remember. If they were simpler like --itp 1 (or even -i 1), I think more people would be more eager to experiment with them. Is it technically possible to simplify the command line switches?

I have noticed that not many people have really experimented with the switches and reported the results here. If the switches were as simple as -q, I'm sure more people would be willing to use them  .

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #13 –
From what little I remember from programming in college it shouldn't be that hard to simplify the switches or at least offer alternate shortened names for them, unless it's impossible with Vorbis's code.  My frontend at least remembers the switches for me which is nice.  -q 5 -itp 5 -in -15 would be a lot nicer than what I currently have to type but I'm not all too picky.
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #14 –
Quote
Aoyumi mentioned that -q-1 is now what -q-2 was in b2 so you can use xiph1.1.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=25273&view=findpost&p=233636]but...[/url]

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #15 –
It shouldn't be that hard to make shorter switches.  It just requires a bit more fiddling.  I chose advanced-encode-option since it is sort of an option which the average user shouldn't need to fiddle with.  But also because adding a new option there was relatively simpler.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #16 –
Other.

Custom-compiled aoTuV b2 on some days, 1.1 with impulse_noisetune and impulse trigger profiles on others.

Depends on my mood, and the amount of doubt I have in said customized encoder and my (lack of being able to properly) mess with code on a certain day.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #17 –
i assume that all who prefer 1.1 or AoTuV b2 are using q4 or lower for their encodes. also, is it not better to use GT3 b2 or Megamix II for q5 and above?

The idea behind Megamix II is pretty cool. have the best of all tunings at one place. has it lead to regression? i had hoped to see more votes in its favour...

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #18 –
1.1rc1 with advanced switches performs similar to Megamix II. So most people consider Megamix II obsolete.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #19 –
Quote
The choices may seem various but these are mainly experimental/non-xiph forks by interested Vorbis developers. I wouldn't call it a disaster. Confusing, yes, but many of these recent forks are fortunately improvements over the original 1.0 release. It would be bad if there were regressions but for the most part the new forks are all better than the old base code.


He (she?) wasn't saying it was a disaster in terms of better/worse code. Jebus was saying that if things are this confusing for audiophiles and 'computer folks,' it will be even harder for Vorbis to gain traction in the real-world markets. I completely agree.

They need to put everything together, unify things into a codebase that makes sense, provide builds for the major platforms, call it done and let the chips fall in terms of acceptance. Why they'd choose to shoot themselves in the foot by making all of this so confusing (also, refusing to make Windows builds) is beyond me.

I do not understand it, but I don't understand a whole lot of stuff in this great big disco world.

Emmett

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #20 –
I don't think the situation is terribly messy, if someone came in and used the default (1.1) version they should go away reasonably happy.  Someone who is after the absolute best quality will likely be interested enough to do a quick read about the different builds and find out why/how they differ.

I just use 1.1 with no advanced parms because of the bitrate inflation they bring, and I'm deaf as a cloth anyway
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #21 –
First off, they are not forks, you're talking about only a couple of changes in a small number of files.  They are more like branches.

Secondly, this is only seen as an issue by a very small group of people in a small community.  It's not a big deal.

Thirdly, Emmett, although it may just be your personal opinion it's hard to ignore the fact that you must have an obvious bias.

So let's stop with the Xiph bashing already.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #22 –
Quote
I don't think the situation is terribly messy, if someone came in and used the default (1.1) version they should go away reasonably happy.  Someone who is after the absolute best quality will likely be interested enough to do a quick read about the different builds and find out why/how they differ.

You are on HA, which means that you're at least fifteen steps ahead of the standard user. Builds should be available and everything should be ready to go when it comes to point releases. All experimental branches available to the public should also be kept around by Xiph, with no builds until they get folded into core.

I am convinced that part of the reason that this is confusing for people is because Xiph hasn't provided solid multi-platform builds of the latest official version, and has barely mentioned the latest point release in any way to anyone. If your 'official version' looks like everyone else's experimental code, expect problems.

Emmett

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #23 –
IMHO there's no problem at all with all this forking. As long as these forks do not require some special decoder, why would this be bad?
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Which vorbis fork do you use

Reply #24 –
Quote
Thirdly, Emmett, although it may just be your personal opinion it's hard to ignore the fact that you must have an obvious bias.

Claiming that someone on Hydrogen Audio has an obvious bias is like saying that water is wet.

Of course I'm biased; that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Emmett