Slashdot Mirror

Windows Media Video 9 looks pretty good from what I've seen of it, but well... firstly it's from MS, and secondly it's still from MS. The quality is pretty much on par with (if not better than) MPEG-4, but snowball's chance in hell that it will ever be playable (legally) on anything but Windows.

Everyone on Hydrogen Audio disagrees with you. Do NOT link to r3mix.net - that site is notorious for its blatantly false information and crappy comparisons. Read the MP3 forums at Hydrogen Audio and becomre more enlightened.

The FLAC format has metadata support, and since you now can put FLAC in Ogg containers, it can also use Ogg tag support which is truly great.

In short: id3 (especially id3v2) sucks and should just DIE as soon as possible. Foobar 2000 even goes as far as to completely forgo id3v2 support on ideological reasons. Honestly, I think they are on to something.

You should take a good solid look at Hydrogen Audio. It is the place to go for audiophiles, and reading their MP3 forum should convince you that r3mix is deprecated and should never be used any more. Instead, you should use --alt-preset standard/extreme/insane for the best possible quality at ~192/~256/320 kbps.

If you really want the best from your encodings, you could try MPC which has absolutely amazing quality at high bitrates. The general consensus at Hydrogen Audio is that MPC currently is the best lossy format for achiving purposes. Of course, nothing beats lossless and with harddrives getting larger and larger, it is getting more and more realistic to encode everything with FLAC or Monkey's Audio.

The --r3mix switch is severly outdated and does not take advantage of many of the large improvements in quality that have been made in the LAME encoder over the last year. Not only that, but it is relatively poorly tuned, and the principles used by the author of the r3mix site to show it's "superiority" are rather flawed. In addition, the author of the r3mix.net site has literally dropped off the internet -- the site is in disrepair and his webforum has all but been abandoned.

You'd do well to use the --alt-presets. They are higher quality, more technically advanced, and have been tuned by a wider range of people (in addition to simply being subjected to much more critical listening tests) and developed in direct collaboration with many of the core LAME psymodel developers (unlike --r3mix which is just a n aliases of switches some guy came up with).

You can find more information at Hydrogenaudio (it has a nice search function you can look up information on the --alt-presets from). There is also a list of recommended LAME settings.

The --r3mix switch is severly outdated and does not take advantage of many of the large improvements in quality that have been made in the LAME encoder over the last year. Not only that, but it is relatively poorly tuned, and the principles used by the author of the r3mix site to show it's "superiority" are rather flawed. In addition, the author of the r3mix.net site has literally dropped off the internet -- the site is in disrepair and his webforum has all but been abandoned.

You'd do well to use the --alt-presets. They are higher quality, more technically advanced, and have been tuned by a wider range of people (in addition to simply being subjected to much more critical listening tests) and developed in direct collaboration with many of the core LAME psymodel developers (unlike --r3mix which is just a n aliases of switches some guy came up with).

You can find more information at Hydrogenaudio (it has a nice search function you can look up information on the --alt-presets from). There is also a list of recommended LAME settings.

Foobar2000 has a new homepage. Version 0.3 has also been released.

For those wondering what to expect, foobar2000 has a minimalist interface, but it does the job. CPU usage is very frugal and your MP3s can sound noticeably better. Why? Because clipping prevention is built-in, removing any distortion induced by overly loud signals.

I am currently running 0.3, and it's a beautiful piece of work. If you want a multi-format player that runs unobtrusively in the background while you do your other stuff, then foobar2000 is for you. At 168 KB, it's worth trying out.

Apparently the current underground favorite audio player for Windows is foobar2000, which was written by a former Nullsoft developer (Peter P. aka zZzZzZz). It supports mp3, ogg, ape, flac, mpc, and relevant to the article has abandoned ID3V2 support in favor of APEV2 tags. (And it's been suggested that the source will be released in the near future.) Supposedly the audiophile geeks at hydrogenaudio.org can hear quality improvements over Winamp, although even the developer suggests that it's probably a placebo effect.

Just don't expect too much; it's a very minimalist GUI (what mean these "skinz" of which you speak?), and doesn't support Win9x/NT4.

There's also a support forum for the player.

Apparently the current underground favorite audio player for Windows is foobar2000, which was written by a former Nullsoft developer (Peter P. aka zZzZzZz). It supports mp3, ogg, ape, flac, mpc, and relevant to the article has abandoned ID3V2 support in favor of APEV2 tags. (And it's been suggested that the source will be released in the near future.) Supposedly the audiophile geeks at hydrogenaudio.org can hear quality improvements over Winamp, although even the developer suggests that it's probably a placebo effect.

Just don't expect too much; it's a very minimalist GUI (what mean these "skinz" of which you speak?), and doesn't support Win9x/NT4.

There's also a support forum for the player.

Why DVD Video? DVD Video allows 24bit 96khz PCM audio streams. DVD Audio is absolutely not needed, in fact, you would find more DVD players accepting DVD Video discs used for audio than DVD Audio.

There is also DVD media used in data mode, where we can store either raw pcm or lossless compressed audio.

We can also use the lossy formats, say, for multichannel, like ogg vorbis which handles 255 of these...

We are producing our own standalones that can play mp3s, oggs, mpcs, currently using CD in data mode, why not simply use DVDrom drives and continue the trend? There is no need for these outrageous formats anymore, its time costumers have a word.

Besides independent artists can produce and distribute using these "underground" formats, there is no need for major labels to dictate "standards" anymore, specially when such "standards" are no more, only a bunch of closed, propietary and heavily copy-controled black boxes than can and will be cracked anyway.

24 bits is a good improvement. Sampling rates beyond 48Khz are not that good. Sure its easier to build cheap filters for 96Khz and 192Khz sampling rates (as most humans cant hear much above 16khz, or nothing beyond 24khz), there is little incentive to go beyond 48Khz sampling rates, let alone above 96khz. With that reasoning, i insist we are more than fine with the original DVD Video spec, which allows PCM audio at 24bit 96Khz.

For SACD, the implications are more far fetched than you may thought. I think you better head for http://www.hydrogenaudio.com/ boards and search for SACD. You will be suprised, how much is true, how much is pure marketing tricks. And the new problems introduced by the SACD system. Sony is at it again, this format will be a complete failure, just ignore it, and ignore DVD-A as well as any other DRM compliant format, we have the power to make and use our own standards, we don't need big companies dictating our needs.

We ARE the customers, we shall receive respect. Remember, this is all a battle for control. Big corps know they are losing control, they will fight for it.

I will copy what i said in another forum regarding the news about BMG decision to produce no more CDs without "copy protection":

This means that all BMG discs are now low quality. Only "backups" will be good and reliable.

Copy protected CDs are a guaranteed measure to prevent customers from trusting major record labels discs anymore, as a street made copy will give better quality and price, demand for such _reliable_ backups discs will only increase.

All means of copy protection are doomed to failure, and will only increase production costs, and will annoy who knows how many people.

I guess we will simply keep producing our own full quality Red Book CDs and start ignore the major brands, it could be a good thing, to promote independent artists, underground scene, and all.

Remember how Divx (copy/play controlled DVD) failed, look how SACD is doomed from the beginning, and any outragious format that they devise (unless easily cracked open) will face strong opposition from the public.

The people are starting to resort to their own formats. Divx/Xvid instead of DVD, Mp3/Ogg Vorbis instead of CD, we are even developing our own software and hardware, they are losing control, they are desperate to regain that control back, they have lost already, but they will fight, will declare the whole world illegal, the whole knowledge a sin, and freedom a crime, and put their money to buy all the politicians and fund the lawyers.

Even with Palladium, you will see how people will start thinking seriously about free software and probably hardware, when Microsoft asks regular fees to use Windows, Office, Messenger, and such things people are starting to depend on for without knowing that its exactly what they want, so later they can ask whatever they want. Its the drug dealer tactic, none the less, first for free, then you pay, then you owe, then you die...

(Note: Term "free" used as in Freedom of Speech).

AAC shines at 128kbit, where it reportedly is acoustically transparent when encoded with CD-quality source.

Yeah, right... CD quality at 128kb/s. That's what they said about MP3 a few years ago.
Today (they say) we can achieve CD quality at 64kb/s when encoding to MP3Pro or WMA.

Don't believe in something like that.

If you want to learn about audio stuff, visit www.hydrogenaudio.org.

I have only used bladeenc. Is there much of a difference?

Start here: Hydrogen Audio

No, that's not us (Although we like them as they're likely the least bullshit-laden codec comparison and development bulletin board out there. These guys were *very* harsh about Vorbis's quality the first few years. That feedback was invaluable for making the codec as good as it is today.)

c't has also run tests including Vorbis, and will have a big test run on several thousand listeners to offer here sometime soon. It's basically a much larger version of the tests ff123 has run on Hydrogen Audio. We're not privy to any of the current results, but I expect we'll do just fine ;-)

As for 'cranking it out', Ogg development started in 1993.

Monty

This whole SACD stuff is just a sneaky way of trying to replace the CD with something the RIAA and their minions have more control over. The audio CD's acoustic format is sufficient even for the finest ear. I challenge anyone to be able to distinguish CD from SACD in a blind listening test. See something like this thread on Hydrogen Audio if you don't believe me...

This whole SACD stuff is just a sneaky way of trying to replace the CD with something the RIAA and their minions have more control over. The audio CD's acoustic format is sufficient even for the finest ear. I challenge anyone to be able to distinguish CD from SACD in a blind listening test. See something like this thread on Hydrogen Audio if you don't believe me...

The man who conducted these tests, a regular on the Hydrogen Audio forum, knows darn well that 64kbps is not high fidelity. He wouldn't dare archive his CD collection at that bitrate. But 64kbps is a decent streaming audio rate, first of all; and secondly, it exposes weaknesses in higher-frequency reproduction---weaknesses which, if corrected, benefit higher bit-rate encoding as well.

Check out Hydrogen Audio

Its pretty much the best audio discussion you can find on the 'net.

Ogg had a very low bitrate (in the forties) on all the classical samples, which is the way it should have been (Classical solos with their deep noise floors and simple harmonics are relatively easy). But the real reason Ogg scored so low in both (and Beauty Slept as well) was a) the tuning behind noise normalization is still not perfect. This is the very first release of that feature, and the test found flaws b) also the first release of new, more aggressive stereo modes and I think that they too need more analysis infrastructure driving them.

I expect Ogg's performance on Liszt and Bach to be very subpar NN performance. The poor performance on BeautySlept and Waiting was most likely insufficient stereo analysis. Ogg had the infrastructure to win those four samples, but the encoder didn't know how to do it yet (because I didn't know it would be necessary).

Vorbis at 96kbps is usually somewhere between the quality of a good 112 or 128 cbr mp3, and I and quite a few other are already in the belief, after early testing from 1.0-ish CVS-code, that it is better than wma8 at 64kbps.

ff123 will be conducting a 64 kbits/s blind listening test where people will send in their results, and that will show how vorbis stacks up against the likes of wma8, mp3pro and quicktime-AAC.

IMO it doesn't really matter if it is better.. if it is at least comparable, than that should be enough for us to make the switch. Because besides being a flexible codec of high quality, it is open source AND completely free of patents (amazing!).. oh yeah, plus it has that really cool bitrate-peeling feature. Anyway, this is one of the few chances we have to get something right in the computer world (for a change!), so let's not blow it! Spread the word and take your hats off for xiph and vorbis!

The waiting is over people, at last we can start ogging for real! ^_^

You're sure? According to a post on hydrogenaudio (search for '#vorbis') the release might be a few days off due to updates needed to the specification. I quote:

"I'm sorry, folks, but we have to wait. We're being very thorough with the spec, and it has inadequately documented areas. Official 1.0 release is soon, days as opposed to weeks. It's my call, and I take full responsibility. See you soon" -- Emmet on #vorbis

If you would really like to see Ogg Vorbis support in future players, please sign the petition here.
A poll on the type of MP3 players people own also yield some interesting results.

Unlike with MP3, at the moment there is only one reference implementation of a Vorbis encoder. There are quite a few frontends, though. If you are in Windows, your best bet at the moment is to use the incredible but slightly clunky EAC, with the command line oggenc encoder available from the main site. The main alternative is CDex, but at the moment it only supports RC2 (not RC3). If you are in Linux, then you can use any ripping program you like as long as you use oggenc as the encoder.

What options to use?

You are using LAME --r3mix at the moment, so give '-q 5' a go (with RC3 on, specify a *quality* level rather than a *bitrate*). Quality 5 (out of 10) is nominally 160kpbs, and should be comparable or better than --r3mix in quality.

For more information and discussion, check out the Hydrogen Audio (Project Mayhem) forum. Many of the developers of various audio formats hang out there, as well as people organising listening tests.

You really should visit Project Mayhem - there's a lot more to audio coding than "256 kbps MP3 is transparent to everyone because I say so".

News flash. You're not everyone. Neither is the guy waving 256 kbps about (in this case, Roel).

I suggest you give Project Mayhem a try - it's arguably the most quality-conscious audio forum on the internet, and you'll find alternatives to FLAC which I think your ears will be very happy with (i.e. MusePack -insane).

That aside, you are never going to see 'common' people trading FLAC or APE files between themselves, the benefit to the few simply doesn't outweigh the 6-fold increase in time and storage needs for the many.

Ok, we got many things (using lame style names):

CBR = Constant bit rate = Variable quality
VBR = Variable bit rate = Constant quality
ABR = Target bit rate = Variable but not as much quality

OGG normally uses a form of ABR, but is capable to do true CBR and true VBR as well (not sure which versions enabled for).

Also, even if you are using true CBR, there is little room for flexibility in the form of the "bit reservoir"; you can save some bits in the "easy parts" so they can be better spent in the hard parts.

Second, mp3, being open in some way or another, has the side effect of many encoders available. Different encoders produce different quality. Take 4 192kbps mp3s encoded with 4 different encoders, and you will discover quality differences as day to night.

And to use Lame properly, first, let me suggest that you *at least* use Lame 3.89b. Lame 3.70 is *too old*. If you get Lame 3.90a, even better.

Want to be on the safe side? use this single option:

lame --dm-preset standard

This will produce near 256kbps files, and its the hightest quality you can get out of mp3s.

If you think you can live with 192kbps like files, then use

lame --r3mix

Otherwise stick to the normal, don't apply options you don't know much of. Typically you *always* want -h, and -b for the desired bitrate in case of CBR, or minimun frame bitrate for audio in the case of VBR (usually 112 or 128). ABR is VBR attempting an average bitrate. And no, it is not wise to use option -B at all (let the encoder use up to 320kbps frames when using VBR).

If this topic of lossy compression is of interest for you, then you should visit:

Proyect Mayhem, channel #Project_Mayhem at irc.openprojects.org
and
r3mix.net, channel #r3mix at irc.openprojects.org

Um... on side note, have you seen The Wavelet Tutorial yet? Wavelets are planned for Ogg Vorbis 2.x, stay tuned... :)

BTW, for more in depth discussion that has been ongoing, have a look at the forums at r3mix.net and the Ogg-specific forums at Hydrogen Audio. I keep up with both forums, and the folks there tend to make prerelease build binaries available for people to play with. For up-to-date detailed information without the overhead of the Vorbis-dev list, those are the places to go.

One more link for folks who want to know more: The beginning of the document describing Vorbis stereo discusses good terminology and qualification of subjective fidelity. It's nothing new to most posters I expect, but it might help keep the discussion consistent.

Happy hacking,

Monty
xiph.org