Search options (Page 11 of 24)

Hey... since AAC always has treble a little bit higher, wouldn't that be easy to cancel out? Or would there be a way to neutralize the grainy aspect of the audio? Or perhaps by understanding the nature of audio artifacts, cancel out those artifacts? Or perhaps predict missing data based on the data that is available?

We're talking a lot about how to improve images, and there has to be ways to also improve the audios. Anything has been done in that area?

I'm glad censorship filtering settings are low on this forum

This most likely will be the final v1.2. Test it to make sure it starts, runs and updates your database properly. It will delete your database file, but in this version, there will be a basic Export/Import feature to allow you to keep your database between versions.
http://spiritualselftransformation.com/ … 2-beta.exe

The bitrate is determined by the Quality value. A lower value increases the quality. I'm only doing fixed-quality encoding, and you specify the quality value I pass over to x264.exe. The only downside is that you cannot predict the final file size.

I was wondering why I had done it that way as well. It was repeating a frame every 16 seconds. I tried changing it to 60fps. As a result, the encoded file size was slightly larger, there was an effect to the video that looked less natural, and there were both dropped frames and repeated frames. So overall, I decided to revert back. Perhaps I could add an "Advanced" mode so that you can edit the script yourself before encoding.

I was thinking about adding another option for opening the file.

I'll consider it.

I work only from the database because there are various file-management features that depend on it.

The reason I encode to AVI is because otherwise there are all kinds of issues when opening various files. Sometimes the pixel ratio will be wrong. It's kind of a wildcard to open all file formats. Plus, I was also having a hard time reading the proper pixel ratio from the source file directly. By converting to AVI, everything just works all the time. Plus, the videos I tested had serious blocking artifacts and although I tried AviSynth deblocking, simply converting to AVI with ffmpeg did a better job at removing the blocking... somehow... Basically, I convert to AVI so that it just works all the time. In cases where it would produce a file that is too large, or that it doesn't work for whatever reason, I could offer another option to open the file as Plan B.

There are some videos that I have that don't work with SVP. It's 30fps interlaced, but it actually de-interlaces as 60fps. It plays 60fps without SVP, but if SVP is on, it lags.

As 4k and 120hz displays start to come out, it may be necessary to have some form of integration between madVR and SVP to be able to run both on a 4k 120hz display.

Currently, if you use SVP and then madVR, madVR has only 8.3ms to upscale each frame to 4k.

If madVR was to be processed first, madVR would have much more time to process each frame and SVP would have higher quality frames to work with. However, SVP would then have RBG data instead of YUL which would be heavier to process so the algorithm would have to be tweaked.

According to my own testing, any final sharpening has to be done after SVP otherwise the output looks weird.

The only way to process SVP after madVR would be to have an integration between both.

This would be the only way to support 4k 120hz displays. Not sure how it could be done, but something to keep in mind. Before these displays become popular and the technology requires it.

This version has a downloader and mass-downloader that should be working optimally.
http://spiritualselftransformation.com/ … 2-beta.exe

Have you tried the Media Encoder? Any issues with it?

Unlike VP9 that stores more data per byte, I don't think Opus stores any more data than AAC. It simply is more intelligent as to which data it discards.

The first 44100hz sample you posted is very good for testing because it has a wide range of frequencies: bass, middle and treble.

Format-wise, Opus maintains more the character of the original audio. AAC's bass sounds a bit more square while the treble is a bit higher, with a bit more noise in the background. Also we have to consider that most videos are uploaded to YouTube in AAC format, so I suppose it's easier to re-convert AAC to AAC than AAC to Opus.

Bitrate-wise, however, the 256kb AAC still has much more details and a richer sound than the Opus. But the details are something that most people probably don't notice. I find VP9 and Opus to keep more of the details that people notice, and to drop the details and noise.

That's testing with professional headphones that have a high accuracy reproduction of the whole audio spectrum, and a pre-amp plugged via USB that reduces the analog background noise.

I uploaded the 256kb AAC and 160kb Opus so that anyone can compare easily (the Opus is hard to grab from YouTube!)
https://mega.co.nz/#!XRA2TIKL!zvJNrFgVM … Pw_qpK0COw
https://mega.co.nz/#!nVIWwKZS!UPJa0MVug … 93rTdOinl0

EDIT: Wait! I was doing the tests with VLC. If I play in Windows Media Player, however, Opus sounds better! VLC's Opus decoder is bad.

In WMP or MPC-HC, I would say this file plays better in 128kb Opus.

Here are more audios to compare

32hz. Opus clearly sounds much better
https://mega.co.nz/#!nI5SVCBK!8U6c0hoK1 … j9X3kLoNJQ
https://mega.co.nz/#!6AhzGLQZ!PKV4JJgPR … s3Ol3yz82w

Real-life scenario. Inna - More Than Friends. It's a close call, but AAC sounds richer.
https://mega.co.nz/#!fJABmRSB!gogKytyR0 … ReVDWvavaE
https://mega.co.nz/#!rQJQXaiT!XoyhOwLUj … 4-uFY-rd50

Real-life scenario. Michel Teló - Ai Se Eu Te Pego
https://mega.co.nz/#!2IBWlBYT!wSvNlT3nZ … IODPygjops
https://mega.co.nz/#!KR5mFJ7C!XVyT2llIP … fT5bFwnKQw

The first 2 audios are pure electronic sounds with no background details so perhaps those are better encoded with Opus. For live recordings, however, it's more difficult to calculate the shape (Opus) and storing the pixelated details (AAC) still gives a richer sound.

For Michel Telo, the very beginning with simple audio sounds considerably better in Opus, and the rest of the music with complex sounds sounds better with AAC.

Opus works best for simple sounds or electronic sounds. AAC works best for complex sounds.

So I'll stick with AAC for now.

Can you send me the exact video you're testing with? I'll test with the headphones tomorrow.

Yeah I bet there's a good difference between 128kbps Vorbis and 192kbps Vorbis. I have Beyer Dynamics DT 770 Pro headphones with a pre-amp so I can easily hear the audio differences.

YouTube can read most formats, that's the easy part. It won't support playing it back in FLAC

I don't think the VP8 difference matters all that much. It's only for a few low-quality videos.

As for Opus, looking at this graph, it appears it has great benefits in low bitrates, and that at 128kb, the various codecs even out.
https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/

Considering the fact that it offers 50kb and 70kb formats, it most likely was added for Live Streaming.