Hello all-First some catch-up. I finally had some time, as of late, to get back into the ear model project.I reread Frank Baumgarte's PhD Dissertation paper (twice) and discovered that I had used the incorrect parameters for the model. The parameters I used were meant for using the ear model as an encoder, and not for using the ear model as a typical listener. The reason for this mistake is that the paper is written in German and I can only read what Babel translates for me.I have since placed the parameters I'm interested in (the ones representing a typical listener) into the ear model program.I am using a set of 100 random ten second samples from my CD collection ranging from classical to techno. I encode all 100 wavs using the compression tool, plus settings, that I'm interested in evaluating. I then decode the 100 clips back into wavs using WinAmp 2.78c with the proper decoding plugin for the compression tool used. Then, using CEP, I batch process both the original wavs and encoded/decoded wavs to 88200 sampling rate, mono, 32-bit float (making sure to align the waveform samples). The ear model program, named Virtual Listener (VL for short), then "listens" to both the reference wavs and test wavs simultaneously and determines if it hears a difference between the two.I have run several different compression tools and settings and created a quick web page to display the results:Virtual Listener resultsIf there are other settings that you would like to see "evaluated", let me know.
Originally posted by Jansemanden Holy cow!Does this suggest that lame extreme is better than mpc extreme??Jan.
Originally posted by Jansemanden I know it isn't the truth, but it is staggering how Lame clearly wins this test over mpc.
Originally posted by Jansemanden The difference I notice was the difference mpc have at 1400hz-5000hz where lame has pratically no difference.
Originally posted by EarGuy JohnV, what would be the best way to have VL listen for pre-echo? I need some ideas on conducting a pre-echo test.
Originally posted by Jansemanden But mpc was supose to always be better than lame at bitrates above 180 or something.
Well it sure looks like it is. Or do you mean that under 160kbps mpc might be equal to mp3, and suddenly 180kbps mpc should be always higher quality than 320kbps mp3?
Originally posted by Jansemanden No, but we always tell newbies that if they are after quality and can effort bitrates 180+ mpc is the superior choice.
Originally posted by JohnV Well, I see it differently. mpc is clearly superior at equal bitrate level, even according to this test.