[FFmpeg-devel] [Patch] AAC encoder improvements
michaelni at gmx.at
Mon May 6 13:06:32 CEST 2013
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:27:16AM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > see http://ffmpeg.org/~michael/psnr_loosing_audio/
> > i tried encoding at 64,128 and 256 kbps:
> > If someone has a link to a more standard and diverse set of
> > reference audio samples ...
> > also note above are just decoded mp3s not raw cd quality audio as
> > it should be, it was just intended as a quick check for the patch ...
> > -stddev: 4201.26 PSNR: 23.86 MAXDIFF:55201 bytes: 10580156/ 10584064
> > +stddev: 4252.98 PSNR: 23.76 MAXDIFF:55201 bytes: 10580156/ 10584064
> > -stddev: 1815.74 PSNR: 31.15 MAXDIFF:34136 bytes: 10584576/ 10584064
> > +stddev: 1874.21 PSNR: 30.87 MAXDIFF:37634 bytes: 10584576/ 10584064
> > -stddev: 2776.54 PSNR: 27.46 MAXDIFF:57966 bytes: 10580156/ 10584064
> > +stddev: 2787.54 PSNR: 27.42 MAXDIFF:59070 bytes: 10580156/ 10584064
> The psnr test is nice to spot major screwups, but I've written a small
> shell script that runs it all over lame's samples and a few of mine,
> and I now can say with confidence, it's misleading. Here:
> -- 10.flac - 64k --
> A: stddev: 477.95 PSNR: 42.74 MAXDIFF:39643 bytes: 95432704/ 95432704
> B: stddev: 481.98 PSNR: 42.67 MAXDIFF:40041 bytes: 95432704/ 95432704
> It shows almost no difference in psnr (B is the patches I gave, A is
> an improvement over them I'm working on, trying to get twoloop to
> really respect psy), and listening I can spot more than a few passages
> where B is clearly inferior to A (I can hear artifacts in B, not in A,
> I've abx'd and I can tell them apart), yet the psnr doesn't show a
> hint of it.
> Why? I guess because psnr doesn't take psychoacoustic effects into
> account. So, while I confirm the joint stereo part about having to
> recompute psy might have been unneeded, and while tiny_psnr is useful,
> I wouldn't trust it too much.
> Back to the patches, I'll rebase on current git, try to get them as
> clean and atomic as possible, testing each step with psnr at least.
> I'll replace the quantization one with the A version that seems to
> perform better.
> After that, I'm undecided between implementing intensity stereo,
> codebook 13, or a new bit allocation strategy based on grid search.
> I've noticed twoloop is rather unstable (a tweak here and there, and
> it goes bonkers, probably a symptom of it not being really goot at
> searching optimal allocation, although I've got to admit it does a
> pretty good job already).
> BTW... got any tool to clean up sources after editing to remove
> trailing whitespace and whatever other pickiness git has? I feel doing
> this by hand would be the wrong way.
yep, your editor can probably be configured to avoid trailing
and if you want to fix the whitespace in the last 12 commits
git rebase --whitespace=fix HEAD~12
will do it
possibly this needs your local git to be configured to which kind of
whitespaces it should fix, i didnt check
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give
it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For
even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel