Quote:
Originally Posted by Meow
Sounds worse imo tbh.
|
Maybe my original "Alan Walker - Fade [NCS Release]" was worse (I think than is over saturated)
Using my own source (Mozart) I make a test to know if there are any advantage, audio only related, when play a video at 2x fps.
- The video must have double duration (double size) than original audio in 2x mode.
- The process to obtain audio for 2x videos was explained in my first post.
- Work fine for me, using mpc-hc, forcing 2x.
Here are my test and some data to compare:
Code:
Audio 1x Audio 2x
-------------------- --------------------
Video Full size Audio size Samplerate Bitrate Samplerate Bitrate
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- --------
Test_0.1x 11.918.113 9.832.907 44.100 605 Kb/s - -
Test_1.1x 6.825.835 4.754.353 44.100 292 Kb/s - -
Test_1.2x 10.742.783 6.504.371 22.050 200 Kb/s 44.100 400 Kb/s
Test_2.1x 5.310.606 3.236.032 44.100 199 Kb/s - -
Test_2.2x 7.553.672 3.324.731 22.050 102 Kb/s 44.100 204 Kb/s
Test_0 have the original FLAC source.
1) Test_1
I used qaac to encode to max quality (V 125) the audio and we can obtain a, theoric, better quality (400 Kb/s vs 292 Kb/s) in 2x mode.
The questions are:
1.1) Is really better?
My old ears can't difference them. Maybe some "golden ears" can say something.
1.2) The full video size is near the size than the reference Test_0.1x and can't be better.
I can't see the advantages.
2) Test_2
Now the encodes was make at v 196 and v 98 to obtain the same size for audio and a equivalent bitrate (199 Kb/s vs 204 Kb/s) in both modes.
Like before I can't difference them, but in theory must have the same quality.
The full video size 2x is greater than 1x, even greater than Test_1.1x with better audio bitrate (292 Kb/s)
I can conclude than, in my opinion, this thecnique is usseless for audio quality.