Quote*I think that Guru's idea of 2 sets is interesting but unfortunately probably bad in our case. I am afraid that only experienced listeners would pick the second group. As we know that those listeners are using lower ranking (as demonstrated in the 128kbps test), ranking of both groups would probably not be comparable.Good point.
*I think that Guru's idea of 2 sets is interesting but unfortunately probably bad in our case. I am afraid that only experienced listeners would pick the second group. As we know that those listeners are using lower ranking (as demonstrated in the 128kbps test), ranking of both groups would probably not be comparable.
A solution could be to "normalize" the rankings of each listener by calculating his/hers total average of rankings of the 1st (smaller) group of samples. Then all rankings (also for the 2nd (extended) group of samples should be multiplied with a certain factor so the average (1st group) becomes e.g. 3. Hopefully this doesn't mess up the results - another thing that dologan could try to find out. B)
EDIT: And what about PNS for nero? With quick test i heard that it is useful option to use low bitrates.
Well, as already explained somewhere, the Anchor isn't there only to protect rankings, but also to put things into perspective across the entire sample suite.
I think that having lame at 128k for the upper anchor is critical. Lots of these codecs are claiming to be as good at 64k as mp3 is at 128k. I'm going to wager that such a claim is a big fat lie and I think one of the goals of this test should be testing that claim.
As far as WMA vs. WMA pro, you're screwed any way you do it. If you use WMA only, people will complain that you didn't include the best version. If you use only WMA pro, people will claim that it's not representative of the WMA that everyone uses and actually has support in hardware. Including both seems like a waste.
Sony's claiming that Atrac3 sounds really good and are marketing the crap out of it, which is a claim that should be tested. However, apparently the software is so horrible that nobody's gonna use it no matter how good it sounds.
If an higher anchor is included (mp3-128), I think that a lower anchor should be included. Otherwise, there is a risk that most of the ranking would be in the bottom range.
I realy have no big clue bout all the special 'treatments' for each codec that may be chosen... (but that has been discussed before in this thread, if my mem. doesn't let me down).
But if someones time is short, it's better to reduce the number of testet samples in this personal case, than to reduce the number of codecs for the whole test.
IMO, it would be interesting to use MP3 at it's best at 64kbps too, to see how well (bad?) it compares to other codecs (specially WMA). And at 64kbps the best is surely FhG, since neither Lame nor Blade have Intensity Stereo coding.
read @ the portal.sounds familiar.: *general phong*
rj -- as for which aac to include, i would hate to see you choose ahead just because its the latest to throw its hat in the ring to the exclusion of qt
-- which was i think a surprise in the last two tests, the first for winning outright and the second for placing 2d with cbr. on that basis i would assume it merits inclusion without comment.
however, if you personally abx qt vs. ahead and conclude that ahead shows more promise, i for one would not object to you kicking qt out. fwiw.