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: Vorbis and very high bitrates (Read 11991 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

I am definitely go mad, I am going to rip my huge collection of CD's to bitrate between -q 320 - 500. Why? I have enough of disk space, don't want to use losless but I would like to have absolute certainty, that my collection will sound great, near (or like) to losless. Mainly purpose will be playing on very high quallity apparatus. Sometimes in portable, but this is not my prefference. I am going to start encoding in bitrate -q 9,18 (352 kbps) in approx 1 hour. Can anybody cognizant save me? 
Quickly please 
Don't tell use MP3, please all Iwant is Vorbis 
Thanx.
Sorry for mistakes.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #1 –
use the Lancer builds to save you some time(that is if you have a SSE/2/3 CPU).

as for high bitrates, mp3 or practically any other encoder should be transparent.

but if you want music just on your comp, then lossless is the answer.

if diskspace is an issue, you could go with WavPack lossy with a correction file backed up to a DVD or something similar so that you can restore the lossless quality.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #2 –
Lossles is not solution for me.My CD's collection is quickly growing, and because I listen to metal, bitrates that product Monkey's audio is too high, approx 3/4 of full amount of data on CD's.
I decides for Vorbis definitivelly, please don' tell me about neither MP3 nor any other formats.
Simply tell me: Is my idea  about replacemet lossles by Vorbis -q 9-10 right?
For explanation some example:
500 CDs = aprox 250 Gigs = lossles aprox 170 Gb.
500 CDs = aprox 250 Gigs = Vorbis Q10 aprox 89 Gb, quality is identical!
You can re-count it for 1000 Cds, 2000 Cds
Is still lossles better choice? 
And when I withdraw from q10 and use q9, there is probably nothing to handle.
People using Vorbis at quality q1 or 2 must be guffaw by reading my problems 
Seriously. Is Vorbis q9 ideal for me?
Thanx a lot.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #3 –
Being a Metal listener myself I'll tell you that -q 6 is what I always used but only as a "safety margin." The only reason for me using -q 6 was because it encodes the stereo image lossless.

You're better off encoding something you know very well, and listen to it, or conduct your own listening test. This will allow you to determine if -q 9 or -q 10 is complete overkill for your hearing capabilities, as just telling you to use this or that isn't really going to help - it's up to your hearing.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #4 –
Depends if you're after perfection or good enough quality. Theoreticaly only lossless is perfect and I've never believed that a transform codec needs 500k to deliver - especialy Vorbis, AAC and MPC.  These things were designed to sound good at 128 k and should be transparent at 160~190k

You can use Q9-10 even though listening tests show that Q4 is already close, so Q5~6 will be perfect or close to with half the size of Q9..

The advantages of very high bitrate vorbis are limited and if you or someone finds some flaw (looks like they do every so often) then very high bitrate is more painfull than mid-high bitrate. So you can do it your way and its not entirely wrong.. but only lossless is the ultimate.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Petr_67 on
Lossles is not solution for me.My CD's collection is quickly growing, and because I listen to metal, bitrates that product Monkey's audio is too high, approx 3/4 of full amount of data on CD's.
I decides for Vorbis definitivelly, please don' tell me about neither MP3 nor any other formats.
Simply tell me: Is my idea  about replacemet lossles by Vorbis -q 9-10 right?
For explanation some example:
500 CDs = aprox 250 Gigs = lossles aprox 170 Gb.
500 CDs = aprox 250 Gigs = Vorbis Q10 aprox 89 Gb, quality is identical!
You can re-count it for 1000 Cds, 2000 Cds
Is still lossles better choice?


Let's see: 500 CDs = several thousand dollars investment; 170 Gb to store them losslessly = approximately $50. I don't see the problem.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #6 –
Using such high bit rates really defeats the purpose of lossy encoding in my opinion. If you're going to go that high, you may as well go lossless. But if you want to stick with Vorbis, -q6 would probably be sufficient. Like someone else said though, ABX something you're familiar with.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #7 –
What about WavPack's hybrid mode?

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #8 –
I agree that it's probably overkill. On the few cases I've seen where Vorbis does have problems at -q6, the quality gain of using a higher q-level was far too small compared to the bitrate increase.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #9 –
vorbis at Q5 is normally transparent
BUT rare samples requires q6 and more rares q7

then vorbis Q7 is the solution for me ( that i use)
very fast encoding ( lancer)
affordable bitrate for portable use too ( i use a palm with 1go sd card)
Music is my first love.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #10 –
I like you. You are 'crazy' Vorbis fanboy.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Jillian on
I like you. You are 'crazy' Vorbis fanboy.


I like you too. Is he/she a woman? We can pertinently discuss it personally 
But Thailand is too far..
Piece
Petr 

For all:
I did not start compress my collection yet.
I cannot decide about the bitrate untill now.
I am study HydrogenAudio very honestly.
 

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #12 –
I was in your same condition ^^. The only rational choice at high bitrates is lossless, but it needs space.

Now I use the latest lancer at -q7 for my collection. I made some ABX tests and it sounds transparent to me even transcoding to various format. Whatever it's hard to me to abx any modern codec beyond 130kbs... (and even less with vorbis)

So I'm sure -q7 is too hight for transparency and not theoretically right for transcoding or further processing, but I use it mainly because I like the number '7' 

(also Vorbis plays gapless well with foobar, I can use a lot of tags, and it supports multi-channel, it s open, and so on...)

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #13 –
-q10 is really overkill, you should be using 6 or 7.

If you want high bitrate stuff, you can also look at WavPack hybrid, which will give you high quality files suitable for future transcoding (and you don't even need to use 500kbps, like 400 or so will suffice).

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #14 –
Vorbis Q7 was my decision in the past too..
But this bitrate is too small for my great expectation of replacement lossles compression by super bitrate Vorbis.
I am disappointed 
Will be better listen to CDs directly from DVD player.
I am warry to do complete collection in 320 kbps, I  discovered that this is probably nonsens and I don't want re-rip all CDs every week.
Meanwhile I do nothing. I will read HydrogenAudio 

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #15 –
When a problem doesn't exist, it cannot be solved. As such, Vorbis has never been tweaked to be a lossless substitute. There is no guarantee that -q 6, -q 7 or -q 10 will not fail, just because there's no guarantee that it won't make a mistake, even when it is highly unprobable.

Either be happy having more space to fill, or change the codec ( wavpack lossy being a good candidate for your needs, like it's been said).

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #16 –
And what about Q8?
Is it still overkill?
Is it good compromise between great sound on PC and occasional using on portable?

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #17 –
Q8 might be a compromise, but in the unlikely event of a failure q8 might not be much better than q6. Personally, I think that 170k is a good balance between quality and portability. If things are getting tough around 130k then you can only guess the rest. If these vorbis files are used only for listening then there's no real need for > 200 k encodings .

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #18 –
Your opinion seems to be rational.
Thanx all, I am much more informed about Vorbis purpose than yesterday.
I will chose a nice compromise Q8. Considering, all of my files are metal, thus some exra bits may be usefull.
256 k should be very good, mainly for quality listening and occasional portable use.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #19 –
Quote
But this bitrate is too small for my great expectation of replacement lossles compression by super bitrate Vorbis.

 

  ok you don't like the number "7", but I'm sure you understand that the whole discussion is a nonsense (but someones gave some good answers, anyway)

Quote
256 k should be very good, mainly for quality listening and occasional portable use.


If you need only "quality listening" the best thing you can do is ABX yourself. And then use -q0.
If you do some tests you will change your mind about quality/bitrate with modern codecs.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #20 –
Just ABX it. You might find that your golden ears are not so golden and you can get away with putting Q4 or something.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #21 –
Quote from: hushypushy on
Just ABX it. You might find that your golden ears are not so golden and you can get away with putting Q4 or something.


Hi, I did the test. I used two various years old songs and Foobar ABX comparator. All metal.
Here is result:

-Q2: I am very surprised, very good quality, but easily ABXable. 
+Q5: Very close to original, but I still can recognize it in 25% cases.
+Q6: Sound is almost identical, but sometimes something wrong I hear here.
+Q7: Souds identical, I cannot hear any difference!
+Q8: Ditto, this is my definitive solution! 
Above Q8 there was no reason to try it.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #22 –
Quote
+Q5: Very close to original, but I still can recognize it in 25% cases.


This means you were not able to distinguish it. (i.e. you were *not* able to ABX the sample with enough confidence to assert that you hear a difference).

Anyway, Q8 is something reasonable. Just not an usual setting.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Petr_67 on
+Q5: Very close to original, but I still can recognize it in 25% cases.


This is not clear. What does it mean? Did you recognize 25% of your music samples with a good confidence?

To make an abx test, you must choose the number of trials for each samples (10 or 15 should be enough) before to start the test, and then you must check the probability you were guessing: it must be reasonably low.

and that "something wrong" you can heard can be a placebo effect if you can't abx 

to counter the placebo effect maybe this can help, it is a comment of guruboolez about the last multiformat test at 128Kb/s.
Quote
At this bitrate, further tests are indeed questionable. Quality of the tested encoders is apparently too high for most listeners at ~130 kbps - at least for those interested by participating in such tests. The 192 kbps syndrom has now reached the 128 kbps area: it's beyond most listeners abilities, including HA.org members' one. At this stage, all people who can't differenciate MP3 from Vorbis or AAC and interested by these formats should try to lower the bitrate (I guess that it's already the case for many of them).
It's maybe the last 128 kbps multiformat collective test organized here. The next "mid/high" collective test should maybe lower the pretension and be limited to 100...112 kbps.

Vorbis and very high bitrates

Reply #24 –
@Petr_67: Although for my needs -q 8 is much too big, if it gives you peace of mind, then by all means use it