MPEG myths, part I: CCE audio

[KoalaBear]

For some reason, home video disc mastering is a myth-driven process. People who should know better tell people who don't know what to think at all what the 'truth' is supposed to be, and the average level of intelligence actually decreases over time rather than increases, which is a statistical anomaly to say the least.

I propose that once a week or so we take a conjecture that's mistaken as fact and deconstruct it in order to find out the real truth. That way, when the myth rears its ugly head again, people who know better will transmit reliable information rather than parroting the misinformation that they themselves never thought to question.

This week: CCE doesn't code audio correctly, therefore you need to use TooLame. Discuss.

[mc4_idea]

I'm not big into CCE yet, because frankly I'm having a hell of a time getting it to work on my box. However I find with low bitrates, TooLame does do a better job. I find with anything below 160 Kbs Tmpgenc can sometimes muck it up. TooLame has never given me issues in that respect.

[kinneera]

First, I will admit that I have not attempted audio encoding with CCE, but I have used both TMPGEnc and tooLame.

Some irritating and inscrutable crashes do occur with tooLame, but for the most part I do think it sounds better. I also read a post once where someone had run a fairly technical analyzer on the output of the two, and determined that in some qualitative aspects tooLame was better. That was quite a while ago, though, and I don't feel like trying to find it to link it here.

There seem to be a lot of people who feel that CCE is the lowest quality, which is why I haven't bothered, but it is difficult to determine how many have actually used both/all themselves. Clearly, though, with CCE the focus has been on optimizing the video, not the audio. And since it seems to me that it is targeted at DVD authoring, in which other presumably very sophisticated encoders create ac3 streams instead of mp2, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that the audio has not been a priority for the developers of CCE.

[KoalaBear]

Hey, if people use TooLame because they like it and they get good results from using it, that's great. But why not just say that instead of creating the false impression that it's necessary?

The idea that 'CCE doesn't encode audio correctly' is an excuse to use TooLame as opposed to a reason.

[kinneera]

Where have you seen is stated that tooLame is "necessary", or the only way to go? People recommend it, because like me, they have listened to the output and prefer it to that of the other encoders. There's nothing wrong with recommending. If someone really wants to know, its not that damn hard to do the comparison themselves anyway.

The idea that 'CCE doesn't encode audio correctly' is an excuse to use TooLame as opposed to a reason.

No one ever said it doesn't do it correctly. I'm sure the audio stream produced by CCE is quite compliant with spec. And its not an "excuse", its an opinion. There are no "reason"s to use any of these encoders, as they all produce compatible audio streams. There are only opinions about quality. I certainly don't see any reason why people shouldn't express their opinions. And again, to anyone who is in doubt, do your own comparison! I don't understand the point of your little crusade, KoalaBear.

[KoalaBear]

Au contraire, Kinneera.

People say it all the time, but apparently not because it has a poor signal-to-noise ratio or a limited frequency response or audible compression artifacts or any other objective, quantifiable defect that would lead one to the conclusion that CCE's audio sucks.

Consider what's written here, here, here, here and here for starters. There are plenty of other references but I trust you get the idea.

[kinneera]

OK - all opinions that are within their rights to state. Anyone reading it is free to draw their own conclusions. It's no surprise that most people making such statements don't have the time or inclination to run a whole suite of audio analysis tools on the audio just to prove what they can subjectively determine with their own ears. If you want to do so yourself, then feel free to post the results here...otherwise I don't see the distinction between your un-evidenced counterclaim and the posts in question.

[dizidave]

Ive heard alot of people bashing TMPGEnc's audio but i havent had a problem with it myself?


maybe my standards are just lower )

[vitualis]

This week: CCE doesn't code audio correctly, therefore you need to use TooLame. Discuss.

I've certainly heard that CCE doesn't encode audio correctly but I have to agree with you that I've never seen any hard evidence on this... I'm too lazy to do it, but the doom9 forums might a much better place to look for info... However, I'm open minded enough to be able to accept that CCE might have problems with its audio encoding, I just don't know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, I have done a SVCD completely with CCE 2.5SP (video + audio) and it seemed to turn out okay...

As for quality, don't know --- never used it enough.

However, there is one definite reason why people don't/can't use CCE for audio. If I'm not mistaken, you can't use Athlon/Duron processors with CCE if you want to also encode audio. The program simply doesn't run. In this situation (not uncommon hey?) it is necessary to use another audio encoder -- tooLAME being a good choice.

@ dizidave, I have a low opinion of TMPGEnc's audio encoding... It may be an "acquired" thing. After listening to a lot of MPEG encoded audio (e.g., MP3), you start to pick up hearing artifacts that you may never have heard originally... (damn the brain! ).

Regards.

[KoalaBear]

... I'm open minded enough to be able to accept that CCE might have problems with its audio encoding, I just don't know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That's the agnostic's argument, Michael, which surprises me because I always thought you were a man of science, or at least a rational skeptic. :)

If I'm not mistaken, you can't use Athlon/Duron processors with CCE if you want to also encode audio. The program simply doesn't run. In this situation (not uncommon hey?) it is necessary to use another audio encoder -- tooLAME being a good choice.

Let's use that as an analogy. If I can't get AVI2MPG2 to run on my computer, would I be correct to say that bbMPEG's multiplexer sucks? I might have to install Premiere to get around the problem on my particular system, but I don't tell people that 'AVI2MPG2 sucks and therefore you need to install Premiere in order to multiplex,' do I?

By the same token, if there's an incompatibility between CCE and the AMD that causes someone to need a secondary program to encode audio, that doesn't mean CCE's audio quality sucks.

----------------

OK - all opinions that are within their rights to state. Anyone reading it is free to draw their own conclusions.

Right. And while the attached poll is hardly scientific, the responses indicate that those who use TooLame do so because they were told CCE's audio sucks, not because they arrived at that conclusion on the basis of subjective or objective evidence.

It's no surprise that most people making such statements don't have the time or inclination to run a whole suite of audio analysis tools on the audio just to prove what they can subjectively determine with their own ears.

Then why not say "In my opinion," "I think," or "For me," TooLame produces MP2 files that sound better than the ones produced by CCE? At least that flags the judgment as an opinion as opposed to a fact.

If you want to do so yourself, then feel free to post the results here...otherwise I don't see the distinction between your un-evidenced counterclaim and the posts in question.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, Kinneera, not the defense. But I agree, a good experiment could be useful here. Let's give that a try:



Magical Mystery MP2

listen to both clips, then vote

[vitualis]

That's the agnostic's argument, Michael, which surprises me because I always thought you were a man of science, or at least a rational skeptic.

I am a rational skeptic and I at least try to follow the principles of science. However, I'm not a bigot. I can freely admit that I personally do not know if CCE has a problem with audio encoding. As I stated, there have been "reports/rumours" of problems that I cannot/cannot be bothered to substantiate. That doesn't necessarily make it myth. Being a good scientist doesn't mean that you deny the existence of phenomena until you have an all encompassing theory. Similarly, it also means that you don't accept information at face value.

Either way, there is not enough evidence (on this thread at least) on whether the CCE audio encoder is broken/faulty. Thus, there should be no conclusion on the matter (i.e., you shouldn't be calling it a "myth" unless you actually know better).

By the same token, if there's an incompatibility between CCE and the AMD that causes someone to need a secondary program to encode audio, that doesn't mean CCE's audio quality sucks.

I totally agree but you are drawing an implied relationship that isn't there. I don't believe that people say that "CCE's audio quality sucks" because of the AMD incompatibility. That is completely a separate issue and I believe that most people can see it as such.

It's no surprise that most people making such statements don't have the time or inclination to run a whole suite of audio analysis tools on the audio just to prove what they can subjectively determine with their own ears.

Then why not say "In my opinion," "I think," or "For me," TooLame produces MP2 files that sound better than the ones produced by CCE? At least that flags the judgment as an opinion as opposed to a fact.

All true and I agree entirely with your sentiment, but it again should be apparent that statements regarding video or audio quality are ultimately subjective. Thus in this area, there are no "facts", ONLY opinion.

Even audio analysis tools only show that one encoder has greater fidelity to the original according to a number of benchmarks than the other and we can then only inferentially assume that "quality" is better.

The only real way of getting any meaningful evidence would be a double blinded A-B test with a reasonably large sample representative of the population. Obviously this is logistically impossible.

Now, you've highlighted that there is no real evidence to say that the CCE audio encoder is worse than tooLame and this is true. However, again, that doesn't mean that the opinions of a lot of people who do use it "myth". If your opinion is that the CCE audio encoder sounds fine, then please use it as no one is going to stop you. However, you opinion is just that, an opinion, and has no greater weight than anybody else's.

If you want to provide some real meaningful evidence (i.e., double-blinded A-B testing) please do as I'm sure many people will be very interested.

Regards.

[vitualis]

Isn't it funny that neither CCE nor TMPGenc had sucky audio before TooLame came along? Hmmm.

That is a mischaracterisation of history, in regards to TMPGEnc at least. As far as I'm concerned, TMPGEnc's audio encoding has always been recognised as poor (at least compared to its early contemporaries -- LSX, Panasonic, Xing). This is why TMPGEnc allows you to use an external encoder plugin (e.g., tooLame) even from the very earliest of versions.

Regards.

[KoalaBear]

myth (mith)
n.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

All true and I agree entirely with your sentiment, but it again should be apparent that statements regarding video or audio quality are ultimately subjective. Thus in this area, there are no "facts", ONLY opinion.

That's hardly true, Michael. Video and audio quality are both estimated in terms of transparency. A picture containing visible compression artifacts is objectively of lower quality than a picture containing none. Why would a soundtrack be any different?

Now, you've highlighted that there is no real evidence to say that the [earth is flat] and this is true. However, again, that doesn't mean that the opinions of a lot of people who [believe the earth is flat are a] "myth".

You see my point now?

If you want to provide some real meaningful evidence (i.e., double-blinded A-B testing) please do as I'm sure many people will be very interested.

This is as close as we can get in a pinch. Participate; isn't there a saying like "better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness?"



Magical Mystery MP2

listen to both clips, then vote

[vitualis]

That's hardly true, Michael. Video and audio quality are both estimated in terms of transparency. A picture containing visible compression artifacts is objectively of lower quality than a picture containing none. Why would a soundtrack be any different?

That view is overly simplistic and I'm sure you know that to be true. Humans are not robots. The perception of "quality" has as much to do with physiology and psychology as fidelity which is why MPEG compression works at all. With MPEG compression, once you've reached a certain level of quality, objective measures of quality (which are based on fidelity) don't have much meaning for reasons already described. As an example, which has better video quality at VCD settings: Panasonic or TMPGEnc?

Now, you've highlighted that there is no real evidence to say that the [earth is flat] and this is true. However, again, that doesn't mean that the opinions of a lot of people who [believe the earth is flat are a] "myth".

You see my point now?

No, you've simply took mine out of context. There is no real evidence to say that the earth is flat but there is plenty of evidence that says it is NOT. Whether it is round or flat has now been determined as a matter of fact.

There is no real evidence to say that CCE is worse than tooLame AND there is no real evidence to say the contrary either -- which is why at this point in time, functionally, opinions and personal experience are the only things to go by. Which is is better has NOT been determined as a matter of fact. Your analogy was completely inappropriate and indeed misleading.

You are trying to push that YOUR opinions are more important than anyone elses by calling other people's collective experiences and opinions "myths". By the same reasoning, your assumption has no greater standing as it too is not based on fact.

By your own supplied definition a "myth" is: A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology..

This is all well and good but is it even relevant to the point at hand?
myth = fiction or half-truth
1. CCE audio is has poor quality audio
- as far as I can determine, the "poor quality audio" is based on opinion and personal experience. Neither come under fiction (completely made up) or half-truth (essentially a lie with some basis in truth).
2. CCE doesn't code audio correctly
- although I've heard rumours of this, there has been no specific reference to this in this thread at all (except for you original assertion). To the best of my knowledge the statement, "CCE doesn't code audio correctly, therefore you need to use TooLame" is indeed fiction, but one of your own creation.

Now, if you suggest that there is an ideology NOT to use CCE to encode audio, I have to agree. Most guides suggest not to. However, those reasons generally are not based on "fiction or half-truths" or "myths", but rather on opinion garnered from experience:
1. CCE doesn't run on Athlon processors if you encode the audio as well which is based on fact and readily testable
2. CCE doesn't encode good quality audio which is based on opinion

This is as close as we can get in a pinch. Participate; isn't there a saying like "better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness?"

I would except that you've surpassed Geocities' download limit and your site is down...

Regards.

[KoalaBear]

As an example, which has better video quality at VCD settings: Panasonic or TMPGEnc?

The one that returns the fewest number of visible artifacts. If you can't tell the difference between the two, the question of which is "better" is meaningless.

"as far as I can determine, the 'poor quality audio' is based on opinion and personal experience?" ... "although I've heard rumours of this, there has been no specific reference to this in this thread at all? ..."

OPINION, ANECDOTE and HEARSAY are the finest defense you can muster? Eat shit because 20 million flies can't be wrong? That's a persuasive argument (not).

Now, if you suggest that there is an ideology NOT to use CCE to encode audio, I have to agree. Most guides suggest not to. However, those reasons generally are not based on "fiction or half-truths"

Yes, and the guide authors are always correct, aren't they?

But more importantly, for CCE you should always uncheck audio, it doesn't do it well at the best of times' is a fiction, and 'CCE [has trouble with Athlons so] you can encode just the video stream. This is preferred anyways since cce's audio encoder isnt very good.' is a half-truth. These notions form part of an ideology, so "myth" is an accurate term.

This is as close as we can get in a pinch. Participate; isn't there a saying like "better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness?"

I would except that you've surpassed Geocities' download limit and your site is down... ;-)

Magical Mystery MP2
Geocities site down? Try this mirror instead

listen to both clips, then vote

[kinneera]

I have to strongly agree with Vitualis here, and furthermore suggest that there really is no discussion here.

Everything posted in a forum or guide is based on personal opinion. In a sense, this is "buyer beware". If for some reason you don't trust the opinion, test it yourself. This should be standard procedure for anyone with half a brain.

Your blanket statement that it is a "myth" is indistinguishable from the statements of those who have created the so-called "myth". Both are opinions!!!! If you think they both sound find, well good for you. We will never change that opinion any more than this pointless thread will change the opinions of those who subjectively have decided that tooLame, or whatever else is better.

Maybe if this discussion teaches some people to be more critical readers and thinkers, it serves a purpose, but beyond that its just a silly he-says, she-says waste of time.

Have I used CCE's audio? No! But that is because I have found a solution that is satisfactory to me, not because I necessarily believe it is any worse. A testimonial that something is better generally warrants my investigation, which is why I switched from TMPGEnc to tooLame, but testimonials that something is worse are irrelevant to me. If someone were to say "CCE's audio is better than anything else", I would certainly try it out.

Its like saying product a might be as good as as product b, but then it might also be worse. Then why bother, unless there is the possibility of it being better? That possibility exists for tooLame, but not for CCE. This is most likely the reason for the prevailing attitude observed.

[Fury]

Koala: "and 'CCE [has trouble with Athlons so] you can encode just the video stream. This is preferred anyways since cce's audio encoder isnt very good.' is a half-truth. These notions form part of an ideology, so "myth" is an accurate term. "

You're bundling 2 statements there to prove your point, and you're wrong i'm afraid.
My experience:
CCE v2.5+ has trouble encoding audio PERIOD.
I have an athlon - CCE just crashes with no errors. Sometimes i can get away with not demuxing (just unchecking audio), but most times i have to demux to get CCE to encode. For software that costs so damn much, you'd think there'd be better error handling.
From the amount of forum posts (here and elsewhere) and even in the vcdhelp guide, surely its fair to say that CCE has a problem?

"The idea that 'CCE doesn't encode audio correctly' is an excuse to use TooLame as opposed to a reason."
How can it be an excuse, as most people with athlons can't get it to work?
When CCE "tries" to encode audio, it bombs out and leaves some small video and audio files. Its not finishing its job that it was designed to do, so technically it isn't doing it properly?

[vitualis]

The one that returns the fewest number of visible artifacts. If you can't tell the difference between the two, the question of which is "better" is meaningless.

Surely you are not so simplistic... Take a look at the Panasonic vs. TMPGEnc threads some time.

OPINION, ANECDOTE and HEARSAY are the finest defense you can muster? Eat shit because 20 million flies can't be wrong? That's a persuasive argument (not).

Exactly my point. You are trying to argue opinion with opinion and by your own admission it is stupid. Why do you persist with this pointless debate? You cannot convince me that CCE is as good as tooLAME because you yourself only have an opinion on the matter. Your opinion is in no way more important than anyone elses. Indeed, how exactly did you arrive at this opinion? Just exactly how much experience do you have in the comparison between the audio quality of CCE and tooLame?

Yes, and the guide authors are always correct, aren't they?

Stop being idiotic. If they are WRONG then point out the error rather than insinuating that they could be wrong.

But more importantly, for CCE you should always uncheck audio, it doesn't do it well at the best of times' is a fiction, and 'CCE [has trouble with Athlons so] you can encode just the video stream. This is preferred anyways since cce's audio encoder isnt very good.' is a half-truth. These notions form part of an ideology, so "myth" is an accurate term.

Neither of those links are guides and are simply opinions. Furthermore, you took adam's post out of context as he is clearly was making two separate views which would not make it a half-truth.

As for you clips, I downloaded them and listened. To my ears they sound pretty much the same. If you forced me to choose, I'd say that X sounded better than Y -- however, it is impossible to do a blinded test on yourself so it may be no more than wishful thinking.

Out of the pure sake of curiosity, I further analysed both clips with Cool Edit 2000 and got some pretty interesting results on frequency analysis. The following pics are in PNG format:



As you can see on clip X, there is a cut-off at 18 kHz but it starts dropping off at about 16 kHz.

On clip Y, the cut-off is at 21 kHz but it starts dropping off at about 17 kHz. Noticeable, however, clip Y has these bizarre frequency spikes throughout the spectrum. I would have to say this is almost certainly an artifact produced by the encoder. Although the audible significance of this is unclear, it is definitely worrying. Also, clip Y had one occurence (not pictured) where there "could" had been clipping.

Actually, from these two pictures you should be able to work out which encoder is which if you've played around with both... CCE may have a problem with its encoder after all...

Regards.

[KoalaBear]

Everything posted in a forum or guide is based on personal opinion. In a sense, this is "buyer beware". If for some reason you don't trust the opinion, test it yourself.

Duh.

-------------

My experience:
CCE v2.5+ has trouble encoding audio PERIOD.
I have an athlon - CCE just crashes with no errors.

The question isn't whether CCE works well under Athlons, the question is whether CCE's audio quality is sucky. CCE doesn't work at all under a Pentium II, does that mean it's video quality sucks as well?

----------------

The one that returns the fewest number of visible artifacts. If you can't tell the difference between the two, the question of which is "better" is meaningless.

Surely you are not so simplistic... Take a look at the Panasonic vs. TMPGEnc threads some time.

It's not a particularly complex question, Michael, though the answer I gave was apparently less subjective than you were hoping for. Sorry.

You are trying to argue opinion with opinion and by your own admission it is stupid. Why do you persist with this pointless debate?

Nope, by my own admission I'm trying to deconstruct an oft-repeated conjecture that's mistaken as fact in order to arrive at the truth. But I don't think that you find the discussion pointless, either, or you wouldn't bother to share your point of view with the rest of us.

Yes, and the guide authors are always correct, aren't they?

Stop being idiotic. If they are WRONG then point out the error rather than insinuating that they could be wrong.

Michael, do you go along with every prevailing belief under the assumption that if an authority figure (guide writer, forum moderator, moderator wannabe, the village vicar) says so, it must be true?

As for you clips, I downloaded them and listened.

Good. That's all I asked you to do. But let's discuss the outcome of the experiment at its conclusion, not while it's in progress, okay?

I haven't cast my own vote yet, primarily because I don't want to see the results in advance. I'll keep it open until we have an odd number of responses above twelve, say, thirteen, fifteen, what have you, and since you've cast your vote already perhaps you can tell me when this number has been reached.

After that I'll be happy to discuss both the methodology and the result. You can wait that long, can't you, or are you trying to contaminate the data so you can self-righteously proclaim that it means nothing (which you obviously intend do anyway)?



Magical Mystery MP2
Geocities site down? Try this mirror instead

listen to both clips, then vote

[kinneera]

Everything posted in a forum or guide is based on personal opinion. In a sense, this is "buyer beware". If for some reason you don't trust the opinion, test it yourself.

Duh.

Well, you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it.

the question is whether CCE's audio quality is sucky.

Which is, and always will be, an opinion. An opinion cannot be labelled a "myth" anymore than it can be labelled a "fact". Refer back to buyer beware.

Nope, by my own admission I'm trying to deconstruct an oft-repeated conjecture that's mistaken as fact in order to arrive at the truth.

1. You seem to be the only person who thinks it is fact
2. There is no "truth" in opinion

Michael, do you go along with every prevailing belief under the assumption that if an authority figure (guide writer, forum moderator, moderator wannabe, the village vicar) says so, it must be true?

I'm even going to speak for Michael here, in that I am fairly certain that what he is suggesting is that there is no point in calling a guide author a liar - which you are doing - for stating an opinion, unless you can prove in some way that something that has been stated is factually wrong. Unfortunately for you, the subjective issue of quality cannot be determined factually - not now, not ever.

Even your little sound test will only provide a general consensus (NOT factual proof), and a very unscientific one at that. What Michael has done in Cooledit by analyzing the streams is the only factually deterministic experiment that has been performed, which makes it the only experiment that meets your own critera, which clearly indicts one of the streams as problematic from a technical standpoint, and you insinuate that he is "contaminating" the data.

[dvbr]

Hi,

I use CCE for video and BBMpeg for audio and mux.
I have a Athlon, so no audio from CCE.

[KoalaBear]

Well, you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it.

Wouldn't be the first time I held the minority position on a particular issue, would it?

An opinion cannot be labelled a "myth" anymore than it can be labelled a "fact."

Pop quiz:

(1) The earth is flat, and if you travel far enough you'll likely fall over the edge. Fact or Myth?
(2) The sun and each of its planets are affixed to a series of concentric crystal spheres, which explains why they travel in an arc across the sky. Fact or Myth?
(3) Disease is caused by an imbalance of vital fluids known as "humors" which is why leeches are sometimes necessary to cure illnesses such as insanity. Fact or Myth?

All of these beliefs were fact at one time, just as authentically and on the same evidence, as the claim that CCE's audio is inherently sucky: somebody of influence said this was so, and that wisdom was passed on without question until they were subjected to rational scrutiny and overturned. New facts replace old ones all the time; this is how knowledge progresses over the course of time.

What Michael has done in Cooledit by analyzing the streams is the only factually deterministic experiment that has been performed, ... , and you insinuate that he is "contaminating" the data.

With all due respect to Michael I didn't consult him when designing the experiment, and I'm happy to take his findings into account when the experiment has concluded.

He can't wait until the results are collected, a mere 24 hours, before attempting to interpret the outcome? Or is he attempting to sway any vote which hasn't already been cast?

Anticipating the outcome is one thing, but generating bias is another.



Magical Mystery MP2
Geocities site down? Try this mirror instead

listen to both clips, then vote

[kinneera]

Honestly, what is your major malfunction?

Comparing an opinion about audio quality to an opinion about whether the earth is round or flat is nonsensical. There is a factual means to test the latter hypothesis, but not the former. Thus, it is a logically unequivalent argument. If we want to go there, the theory of a flat earth was because we had not experimented against or for the theory. However, there have been "experiments" that resulted in subjective determination that CCE's audio quality is poorer. People thought the earth was flat because they were afraid to sail too far away from shore. People were not afraid to try CCE's audio. You're using what are at best red herring arguments.

As for the Cooledit analysis, it doesn't matter when he posts that information, as it does not tell which encoder produced which clip. Therefore, it doesn't alter the basis of the experiment. In fact, it could be just as much a victory for you if the questionable audio stream was produced by tooLame. But I highly doubt that is the case, as you would probably already have terminated the experiment jubilantly had that been so. Instead, I suspect you have resorted to labelling it as contamination of the poll, so that the results will be irrelevant and you can therefore cover your own tracks.

[vitualis]

Surely you are not so simplistic... Take a look at the Panasonic vs. TMPGEnc threads some time.

It's not a particularly complex question, Michael, though the answer I gave was apparently less subjective than you were hoping for. Sorry.

Yes and your answer in inconsistent with the general views of most people who actually use the two programs and do discuss the quality issue. You seem to believe that fidelity is the be all and end all of "quality". If you think so, then that speaks for itself. Let me pose the general public another example: which has better quality -- CD or LP?

Nope, by my own admission I'm trying to deconstruct an oft-repeated conjecture that's mistaken as fact in order to arrive at the truth. But I don't think that you find the discussion pointless, either, or you wouldn't bother to share your point of view with the rest of us.

It is pointless because you don't have any facts to stand on. It's all very noble but you can't debunk a "myth" with opinions. You can only debunk a "myth" with FACT, which is something you don't possess. The only reason I'm debating this is to show everyone else how your own prejudices have in no way any more standing than the conjecture you are trying to "deconstruct" -- poorly may I add.

If you are really trying to "deconstruction an oft-repeated conjecture that's mistaken as fact" then all you need to say is: "There is actually no substantive evidence to show that the audio quality of the CCE encoder is inferior to that of tooLame".

As for this "CCE doesn't code audio correctly, therefore you need to use TooLame in your first post, this is a fiction of your own creation. I've done a bit of reading and I have not seen one guide that states this or even implies that. The reasons of using tooLame for audio is stated explicitly and is obvious. If YOU have seen a guide with that sentiment, please post the link and perhaps we can ask the author to qualify that statement.

The "flat Earth" idea which you seem to like to trumpet and use as an analogy inappropriately was only fully debunked when evidence showed that it was indeed round. That the Earth is round is fact. The "flat Earth" idea WAS NOT debunked by people going around saying that the flat-Earthers don't have any evidence and thus are wrong.

Michael, do you go along with every prevailing belief under the assumption that if an authority figure (guide writer, forum moderator, moderator wannabe, the village vicar) says so, it must be true?

Did I say that? I don't believe I did. In light of the scientific method, I try to view things with a critical eye but that doesn't mean I scream at a particular point and say that it is WRONG because basically I don't like it -- especially if I have no evidence to the contrary.

Anticipating the outcome is one thing, but generating bias is another.

I wonder if you realise just exactly how hypocritical you sound here... GENERATING BIAS:
"Isn't it funny that neither CCE nor TMPGenc had sucky audio before TooLame came along? Hmmm."

Hmmm... indeed.

You will notice that I kept the blinding on the frequency analyses for the very reason NOT to contaminate the results. Although I had a pretty good idea which was which, I for a very good reason did not explicitly say so. You could imagine my complete surprise when the polling page removed the veil of blinding -- thus plunging your entire little experiment into the pits of irrelevence (from a subjective quality study point of view at least).

The ONLY value left in your little experiment is indeed the objective study I performed before...

Now, the next time you want to do such an experiment, try to follow these points:

1. Don't name EITHER encoder!!! Just say it is a quality test of two separate encoders with clips x and y.
2. If possible, try to do DOUBLE BLINDING -- e.g., get a friend to randomly rename the clips so that YOU don't know which one is which either and at the end of the experiment (of which your friend will play no further part in), get him to reveal which one was which.
3. Having more than one clip would be useful too (e.g., clip a vs. clip b, c vs. d, e vs. f
4. YOU don't bias the experiment with your prejudicial snides at one encoder over another. I at least have always stated on this thread that there is NO real evidence that one is better than the other.
5. Do the discussion AFTER the results

Regards.

[vitualis]

The question isn't whether CCE works well under Athlons, the question is whether CCE's audio quality is sucky. CCE doesn't work at all under a Pentium II, does that mean it's video quality sucks as well?

I believe every other person here can see that the Athlon compatibility issue and the quality issue are two, obviously separate ones.

CCE has an Athlon issue (fact)
CCE may have an audio quality issue as well (not fact -- only opinion)

In fact, nobody is confusing the two issues here except... YOU.

Regards.

[KoalaBear]

The question isn't whether CCE works well under Athlons, the question is whether CCE's audio quality is sucky. CCE doesn't work at all under a Pentium II, does that mean it's video quality sucks as well?

I believe every other person here can see that the Athlon compatibility issue and the quality issue are two, obviously separate ones.
CCE has an Athlon issue (fact)
CCE may have an audio quality issue as well (not fact -- only opinion)
In fact, nobody is confusing the two issues here except... YOU.

Jeezus, Michael, are you so desperate to score SOME kind of point that you need to troll through the thread to find something -- anything! -- no matter how petty to comment on?

Methinks you doth protest a little too much sometimes, my friend.

[KoalaBear]

Where were we, again?

Comparing an opinion about audio quality to an opinion about whether the earth is round or flat is nonsensical.

Abstract thinking is apparently not your strong suit, Kinneera. The idea that the earth is flat was a fact at one time. It was not an accurate fact, but it was a fact to the day it was exposed to be a myth. Similarly, ideas like heliocentrism and the germ theory of disease were not always facts. They were opinions that turned out to be truer than the opinions they ultimately displaced. Do you see the relationship? The fact is that there's nothing wrong with CCE's audio encoder. While it's true that this fact is also an opinion, it happens to be supported by evidence.

it doesn't matter when he posts that information ... In fact, it could be just as much a victory for you if the questionable audio stream was produced by tooLame. But I highly doubt that is the case, as you would probably already have terminated the experiment jubilantly had that been so.

Not at all. The question of whether TooLame is better than CCE was a red herring. The question the experiment sought to answer was, "Does CCE's audio really suck?" which was stated quite plainly at the outset. The answer was that most people couldn't hear an audible difference.

Only the people who were prejudiced against CCE took the experiment as a popularity contest, and they revealed that bias by voting for TooLame when they couldn't even tell which clip was which. So the subsidiary fact established by the experiment was that people who prefer TooLame are also more likely to be liars, a fact too delicious to forego if it could be captured as a byproduct of the experiment. And yes, I find that correlation amusing.

My problem with Mr. Tam's prematurity is that he was sooooo certain the emperor was naked he couldn't stop shooting his mouth off and just let the experiment speak for itself. Instead he acted out his desperation like a bad piece of performance art. Oops.

The ONLY value left in your little experiment is indeed the objective study I performed before... Now, the next time you want to do such an experiment, try to follow these points:

Ahem. Let's just pretend you never went there, and look at your "objective study" on its own merits, shall we?

Actually, from these two pictures you should be able to work out which encoder is which if you've played around with both... CCE may have a problem with its encoder after all...

No, Michael, actually, spectrographic analysis doesn't mean dick.

Imagine trying to fell a Redwood tree using nothing but a steaknife. It very probably can't be done. That's not to say steaknives aren't great for sawing portion-sized chunks of meat into a series of handier bite-size pieces, but you're not likely to find them listed in a forestry goods catalog because that sort of task requires an entirely different kind of instrumentation. Chainsaws, for example. Very heavy chains. Explosives.

Now, spectrum analysis can yield some interesting facts about an audio file, but apart from having a highfalutin name it doesn't represent anything other than the distribution of frequency versus amplitude for a particular sample. This can yield information about minimum, average and maximum volume, dynamic range, channel separation and so forth, but it's useless as a means of estimating quality because it's not intended as a measurement of fidelity -- only frequency vs. volume, which tells you nothing about the presence or absence of artifacts.

If you want to know the absolute quality of a pair of audio samples you need specialized equipment capable of measuring things like signal-to-noise ratio and total harmonic distortion (which the human ear can detect to an accuracy of less than 1%). Your spectrograms don't yield that information, nor can they reasonably be expected to do so.

It's like trying to fell a redwood tree with a steaknife.

The most powerful analytical instrument at your disposal is your own pair of ears, and they told you there was little or no audible difference between the samples. Why not take their word for it?

But speaking of words, Mr. Tam, did you happen to remove a posting you made in which you actually claimed to be a scientist? I remember reading it, in fact I was going to quote it, but it seems to have just... disappeared. I did notice you now have admin access to the off-topic board now, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

[kinneera]

Abstract thinking is apparently not your strong suit, Kinneera. The idea that the earth is flat was a fact at one time. It was not an accurate fact, but it was a fact to the day it was exposed to be a myth.

If it's not my strong suit, then you are incapable of it. I am increasingly led to the conclusion that you don't even read our entire posts. DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS: "There is a factual means to test the latter hypothesis, but not the former." ???? You are COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. Your ridiculous arguments about facts about the physical world are in an entirely different realm from evaluating qualitative OPINIONS, which is what your ridiculous crusade IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ABOUT. WHETHER CCE'S QUALITY SUCKS IS AN OPINION - IT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN LIKE A THEORY ABOUT EARTH FLATNESS OR HELIOCENTRICITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not at all. The question of whether TooLame is better than CCE was a red herring. The question the experiment sought to answer was, "Does CCE's audio really suck?" which was stated quite plainly at the outset.

As you lose each point in this argument, you rewrite your initial aim to suit your purposes. If your only issue was whether CCE's audio really sucks, then you would never have put in options such as "I heard CCE's audio sucks, so I use tooLame just to be safe". Your poll would have been 2 choices: "CCE sucks", or "CCE is fine". If you don't like the inclusion of tooLame as a red herring argument, ITS YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. This is exacerbated by your "magical mystery mp2" test, where you explicitly placed the encoders in direct competition. Again, ALL YOU.

Only the people who were prejudiced against CCE took the experiment as a popularity contest, and they revealed that bias by voting for TooLame when they couldn't even tell which clip was which.

What the hell? The point of the experiment was that we didn't know which clip was which! How could we "reveal our bias" by "voting for tooLame", when WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS TOOLAME? Apparently someone was bitter about the fact that in a blind comparison, tooLame lived up to its reputation relative to CCE.

My problem with Mr. Tam's prematurity is that he was sooooo certain the emperor was naked he couldn't stop shooting his mouth off and just let the experiment speak for itself. Instead he acted out his desperation like a bad piece of performance art. Oops.

Again, either you don't even read our analysis, or its beyond your comprehension. As was discussed before, the information that Micheal posted had no impact, as it DID NOT REVEAL WHICH CLIP WAS ENCODED BY WHICH ENCODER! As I mentioned before, and which once again goes unanswered, is if the suspect stream had been tooLame, would you have even cared? I think not. All your bitching is simply because Michael's analysis objectively proved that CCE's encoder is doing something wrong, whether or not it affects quality.

The most powerful analytical instrument at your disposal is your own pair of ears, and they told you there was little or no audible difference between the samples. Why not take their word for it?

So why is that you REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT MANY PEOPLE'S "most powerful analytical instrument" tells them that tooLame is better? And again, I would point you back to my analysis regarding the motivation to try another tool when the one you are using already works just fine. If someone says another tool is better, you'll try it. But if another tool is only as good as the one you are using, and possibly has problems, why bother? As usual, you don't even bother to address this, because you don't have any good answer. And I would wager that this is why a majority of people use tooLame. Using tooLame for this reason passes no judgement on CCE to the effect that it is crap or incorrect, only than it is average, whereas tooLame is above average. And last I knew, this discussion was about CCE, as you so adamantly stated, and not whether tooLame being better is a myth.

[kinneera]

But speaking of words, Mr. Tam, did you happen to remove a posting you made in which you actually claimed to be a scientist? I remember reading it, in fact I was going to quote it, but it seems to have just... disappeared. I did notice you now have admin access to the off-topic board now, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Almost forgot-

1. A bunch of posts were lost by accident during the latest downtime, Baldrick posted information about it.
2. Anyone can edit and completely delete the content of one of their previous posts, so it can hardly be attributed to abuse of moderator priveleges.

[KoalaBear]

I am increasingly led to the conclusion that you don't even read our entire posts.

I read them, I just don't think every bloody sentence deserves a reply. I think in whole ideas, Kinneera, not sound bites, so if you want to score a point with me, form a coherent logical argument and not just a simple series of contradictions.

WHETHER CCE'S QUALITY SUCKS IS AN OPINION - IT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN LIKE A THEORY ABOUT EARTH FLATNESS OR HELIOCENTRICITY!

suck (suk)
v. intr.
Vulgar Slang. To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive.

Opinion or not, this is a testable hypothesis. It also happens to be incorrect -- if CCE's audio sucks, people would easily have been able to distinguish which of the two clips sounded disgustingly disagreeable or offensive to them. In fact, most people couldn't hear any difference at all.

DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS: "There is a factual means to test the latter hypothesis, but not the former."

That's a patent falsity. This isn't a supernatural phenomenon; the question isn't akin to whether god exists or not. The evidence shows that CCE's audio doesn't suck. The burden of proof now rests squarely on those who say that it does. Put up or shut up, but don't pretend it's an issue outside the realm of knowability because it's not.

As I mentioned before, and which once again goes unanswered, is if the suspect stream had been tooLame, would you have even cared? I think not. All your bitching is simply because Michael's analysis objectively proved that CCE's encoder is doing something wrong, whether or not it affects quality.

Whoa, Kinneera, careful there. You're starting to choke on your own argument.

(1) I don't care whether TooLame is better or worse than CCE. Look up toward the beginning of the discussion where I said "If you can't tell the difference between [two encoders], the question of which is 'better' is meaningless."

(2) Michael's analysis doesn't mean dick. A spectragraph isn't a tool for measuring objective fidelity, it's a tool for measuring frequency distribution. Do you think he chose that test because it had something useful to say? He chose it because it sounds impressive and it's the only test he could do, as if we're supposed to pretend that it means something it doesn't in order to save him from looking like an ass.

(3) If Michael "proved" with his "objective" experiment that "CCE's encoder is doing something wrong," he's impugning Panasonic, not CCE. If those charts had any objective value whatsoever they would add to the evidence that CCE's encoder doesn't suck, not subtract from it, but in reality they don't mean anything at all.