Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN (Read 37009 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #75 –
Quote
About VP6: do you mean this?

I can see nowhere to download that codec.


I think you'll have to encode your audio files from VP6 like you would for a video file.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #76 –
Quote
Why? That's puts very good codecs in a bad light.

If someone indeed can't tell the difference between the original and the compressed, the compressed must thereby be VERY good.

If someone can't tell the difference between a codec and the original, he must give 5/5 to both files, and his result is taken into account.
To "rank the reference" means to think that the original sounds worse than the encoded file, and give it a bad mark, which is absurd. That's why the result is discarded.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #77 –
Quote
If someone can't tell the difference between a codec and the original, he must give 5/5 to both files, and his result is taken into account.
To "rank the reference" means to think that the original sounds worse than the encoded file, and give it a bad mark, which is absurd. That's why the result is discarded.


Phew. Now I am more confident

I thought you ment that, if a codec was rated as the original, then the vote would be discarded. This would be a serious statistical error to do!

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #78 –
Quote
I think you'll have to encode your audio files from VP6 like you would for a video file.

From what I see, that is a VCM video encoder only. It doesn't encode audio. (or am I blind?)

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #79 –
Quote
From what I see, that is a VCM video encoder only. It doesn't encode audio. (or am I blind?)

Nope. You're fine. Nothing audio related to VP6... 

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #80 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, why did my post with the question get deleted/modded.  Is it against the TOS to call headphones cans?

I can still see your post :B

Clearly visible here.
Cans are as good as any word for the earcups IMO

Okay, I see it now.  I hope my ears are better than my eyes.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #81 –
Alright. I've just finished the test and I'm about to submit to Roberto. It was not so painful.

Anyway, I have some questions. First is that the decoded wavs from Vorbis and MP3 are producing the exact same filesize than the original (reference) wav. I mean exact, down to the last byte. As far as I compared, that's on all samples. OK, I know that shouldn't mean anything but I find it to be quite strange.

There is one other thing. I need to know which codec was used for the *_5.flac files. Was it WMA or Atrac3? In the Kraftwork Test (Sample10) there is a huuuuge artifact (that I won't mention for the sake of this test) with this codec. If someone could please PM me about the codec I'd be really thankfull.
Liberate tutemae ex inferis

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #82 –
Quote
There is one other thing. I need to know which codec was used for the *_5.flac files. Was it WMA or Atrac3?

I'll reply to your e-mail with the answer. Don't ask these things publicly


And yes, rjamorim.com is down again, in case anyone noticed. Let's all collectively blame 1and1.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #83 –
Quote
And yes, rjamorim.com is down again, in case anyone noticed. Let's all collectively blame 1and1.

It is up for me.
Liberate tutemae ex inferis

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #84 –
I’ve encountered many problems on the few samples I’ve already tested. There were many pops and skipping during playback. I’ve changed many times buffer length, but on some samples (like the Bartòk one), problems remains. It’s really disturbing, especially on difficult samples, where differences are hard to perceive. I gave up ABX phase when problems were too disturbing. On the first sample, I’ve also renounce to rate the files: too angry for undisturbed evaluation! The problems are also audible on reference playback.

These problems are maybe due to my little CPU (Duron 800), I don’t know. I remember that I’ve encountered similar ones during the last AAC test (Hongroise.wav), but the test was easier, and the problems were therefore less critical (easy test = less concentration).
Am I alone to have these troubles?
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #85 –
I think i can understand you: because of skipping i lost concentration many times while ABXing (successful) the first sample. With my CPU (Celeron 1000), some pops and skipping occur but not enough to make me "angry".
In a such critical test a perfect reproduction is necessary to concentrate and give an undisturbed judge. The ITU-R BS.1116-1 infact says: "There should be no audible artefacts (e.g. “clicks”) of the switching system, since such artefacts can seriously interfere with the assessment process." That said, i think we have to make a compromise because we can't exclude non-Windows users from an OPEN listening test.
WavPack 4.3 -mfx5
LAME 3.97 -V5 --vbr-new --athaa-sensitivity 1

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #86 –
Certainly. Nevertheless, what will happen to my (or someone else) results if I rank 3.0 file 3L or 6R, and if I'm failing on ABX due to disturbance of playback stage? I've abandoned the idea of confirming my results by ABX on one sample, simply because I feared to obtain unsignificant results due to concentration lost. Results can't be considered as serious, if ABX scores are bad, and if files have notation inferior to 5.0.
I've just finished 6 archives, but I think that I'll keep the same attitude for the 12 other: better skipping the ABX phase than risking to lose the significance of my work [i.e. careful listening and evaluating] previously done.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #87 –
The click problem is back !

I use ABCHR 0.4b4, 10 march 2004 (file abchr.jar 05/08/2004 14:01).

It is especially present in the Debussy sample if you select a part beginning into the violins, between 2 and 3 seconds, for example. Once you get the click, browse into the different sample. Some have the same click, some have a different one.

But there is no click at all if the sample is played from the beginning.

I've tested the four first samples without noticing anything wrong. Debussy is the 5th one.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #88 –
Quote
The click problem is back !

I use ABCHR 0.4b4, 10 march 2004 (file abchr.jar 05/08/2004 14:01).

It is especially present in the Debussy sample if you select a part beginning into the violins, between 2 and 3 seconds, for example. Once you get the click, browse into the different sample. Some have the same click, some have a different one.

But there is no click at all if the sample is played from the beginning.

I've tested the four first samples without noticing anything wrong. Debussy is the 5th one.

I confirmed the noticeable click in the debussy sample if it is started between 2 and 3 seconds in both abchr-java and abchr (native windows).  abchr-java adds a second, softer click shortly after the first one, as I reported earlier, although it seems worse in this sample for some reason.

I wonder if the clicking can possibly be reduced or eliminated if a fade-in is used?

ff123

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #89 –
Quote from: ff123,May 16 2004, 04:18 AM
Quote from: Pio2001,May 15 2004, 06:11 PM

I wonder if the clicking can possibly be reduced or eliminated if a fade-in is used?

ff123

Do you think that fad-in/fade-out are a good idea for listening tests based on A-B conditions? From my experiences, difference in volume level between the end of the file and the beginning are highly disturbing. When I begin the listening of the file X, I always think it's the encoded one, because low-volume sound muffled, a bit lifeless, etc...


Anyway, am I alone to have problems with the first sample (string quartet)? I also had problems with the Debussy sample, but the encoding problems were really severe with a couple of file that I wasn't really annoyed.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #90 –
Such fade-in/out must not exeed 1/40th of a second. In fact to avoid a click, the fades should be half the period of the lowest frequency present at the beginning (or at the end). It it short enough to be unnoticeable, and long enough not to introduce audible harmonics (=click).
To find it, just look at the waveform, and set the fade lenght approximately the same lenght as the longest visible oscillation, so that it doesn't look disturbed by the process.

What do you mean with "having problems" ? Problems for testing (bugs, clicks), or hearing artifacts (pre echo, ringing) ? The latter should be discussed after the test is done. I'm not finished yet.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #91 –
Just wanted to mention that the test is quite hard to do under OSX, as I am experiencing many sound problems with the application: some clicks, and often the sound is stopping for about half a second.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #92 –
Quote
What do you mean with "having problems" ? Problems for testing (bugs, clicks), or hearing artifacts (pre echo, ringing) ? The latter should be discussed after the test is done. I'm not finished yet.

I'm not talking about encoding problems (I knew some of them before the test, because I've submitted this sample), but playback problems (clicks, but also short moment of silence during playback).
With the Debussy sample, I'm not too annoyed, because I don't really need too much attention for hearing artifacts (or ABX them, but I don't ABX too obvious artifacts). But for more subtle artifacts, the playback problems (pops...) are disturbing.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #93 –
Quote
To "rank the reference" means to think that the original sounds worse than the encoded file, and give it a bad mark, which is absurd. That's why the result is discarded.

OT? First, hearing is subjective. Second, I may like the sound of a piano after a low pass filter was applied to the recording, because it removed some unwanted nosie from it. Maybe in this test the negative effects of discarding data outweights the positive effects. One still can not state in absolute terms that preferring the encoded file over the original is absurd.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #94 –
Quote
One still can not state in absolute terms that preferring the encoded file over the original is absurd.

In this test, it's all about sounding as close to the original as possible. What people prefer is another matter. If you prefer to lowpass at 11 kHz is totally up to you
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #95 –
Quote
Quote
One still can not state in absolute terms that preferring the encoded file over the original is absurd.

In this test, it's all about sounding as close to the original as possible. What people prefer is another matter. If you prefer to lowpass at 11 kHz is totally up to you

Because compression discards information and adds other artefatcs to the original and the samples were choosen to find such artefacts easier (as far as I know people worked hard to find such), than discarding those results where the encoded version "rank the reference" is the right thing to do.
But in general I can prefer the sound of the compressed one, because my hearing is just as subjective as yours. If you would wave a $100 bill in front of my eyes every time the compressed one is played, I bet I would prefer the sound of that one (but that would not be a blind test would it )

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #96 –
Quote
In this test, it's all about sounding as close to the original as possible.

But he doesn't know which is the original

So, yes, you can, in some cases, have encoded samples sounding better than the reference. Even experienced listeners get fooled sometimes. Check the private listening test conduced by Menno comparing HE AAC to other codecs.

The problem is, if a listener ranks the reference, you can never know if he actually listened to the samples or was just guessing (unless he did ABX, but that's another story). And guessing is bad for the test. That's why I usually choose the safe route and discard results with ranked references, unless the listener ABXd the samples with confidence.

Regards;

Roberto.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #97 –
Is it just me, or rjamorim.com is down again?

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #98 –
It's OK here

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #99 –
OK now, but I couldn't access to your site 10 hours ago.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz