Dude, to tell you the truth, I keep wondering if it's not better to keep these results out of /. :-/
Since I have proved to myself my ears are crap, I can now sleep beter at night.
OK, as promised, I've compiled all the results into one big spreadsheet. You can download it in zipped XML (OO's native format) here: 128kbps_results.sxcWait? Your spreadsheet won't take that? Ok, you can get an .xls here (grumble, grumble): 128kbps_results.xlsLet me know if you have problems with that. I don't know how good OpenOffice's .xls export is.
Hmm, I double checked, and I get 12 for you for both versions. It could be OO's fault. The xls file I have there is exported for Excel 97/2000/XP. I just made a version for Excel 95 that you should also be able to import (it may work better): 128kbps_results_95.xlsDid the other numbers look right? By my count, 8 people should have all 12. What shows as the formula for that cell? (Should be something like "=COUNTIF(B1:B302;Q36)")
Man, LAME really is dated at this bitrate. Hopefully no one misinterprets this test and decides from it that all these codecs perform equally the same at higher bitrates. Please remember that this is only at 128kbps. alt-preset standard, vorbis gt3, musepack standard, etc will be tested later, if that would even be a valid or necessary test. Taking from the difficulty that this test has shown, it would be no wonder even harder to test the higher bitrates.Even though I know that it is incorrect to make blanket statements, I'm sure that because of this test we will see them. If it wasn't for compatibility, I think you would see people leaving LAME in droves now. While I guess it might be plausible to make judgements from this data that LAME is dated, that other codecs have seen greater development as of late, and then as such decide to use a different codec for all your encoding needs, I don't think it would be a good idea to directly link this test to overall sound quality.
Oops, my fault. I munged it up by sorting.
Listener annoyance ranking (who tended to rate the lowest):proxima 2.55 (7 samples)Guruboolez 2.71 (12 samples)gecko 2.73 (12 samples)kl33per 2.77 (3 samples)dimkovic 2.92 (1 sample)
I've got a perl script in the works right now to convert the raw data to .csv so that it can be played with in a spreadsheet. I'll post that later tonight.
I was one who flagged a concern about the bitrates, and I am genuinely sorry for any concern or constenation that I may have caused to others at HA.
Geh, I took too long to upload the results .zip. Sorry phong. :-/
delete in_wm.dll and add wma to the extension list in in_dshow's configuration
On looking upon how other people have marked, I think I've marked too hard.Â Maybe there needs to be more solid criteria then the "Imperceptible, Perceptible but Not Annoying, Slighly Annoying, Annoying, Very Annoying".Â After all, this sort of marking scheme is very subjective.Â What's annoying to one person might not be annoying to another, even if they both here the same flaws in the file.
I just had an idea for another test. Compare the major codecs at the broadly accepted high (but not stupid) quality level, eg lame -aps, ogg -q6, mpc -xtreme etc.
Two reasons for doing this - first, it would be an interesting comparison of the various recommended settings. But more important, imagine the flamefest! The amount of crap Roberto got just because VBR is, well, variable, would fade into insignificance!
Quote http://ff123.net/export/128exten_split.htmlthis could just be my spacial perception, but on the (Overall, high srocers) Ogg seems to win over WMA. so what are those graphs? what does it mean (in laymans terms if possible )?
Compare the major codecs at the broadly accepted high (but not stupid) quality level, eg lame -aps, ogg -q6, mpc -xtreme etc.
I couldn't help noticing that at both samples that could be classified as classical (Bach and Saint-Saens), WMA9Pro won with pretty good scores (~0.3 above the next "hardwareable" codec (let's face it - MPC will never get widespread hardware support - if any at all). I wonder whether WMA9Pro has such a good performance with all classical music in general, since if so, it might become my format of choice for the classical collection on my portable . Unfortunately I am not able to test that by myself at the moment, since I am on a trip and all my classical is encoded, and trascoding is something I'd like to avoid for this kind of judgment. ~Dologan