Quote from: rbrito on 26 July, 2007, 01:14:33 PMAnd speaking of that, I can even provide Debian (also usable by Ubuntu Linux users) packages for that and I would be glad to provide packages for amd64 and powerpc too.PowerPC?
And speaking of that, I can even provide Debian (also usable by Ubuntu Linux users) packages for that and I would be glad to provide packages for amd64 and powerpc too.
The Nero encoder is distributed binary-only. Unless you get Nero's sources through some sort of NDA, you won't be able to create binaries for architectures other than i386.PS: still not interested in creating a PowerPC repository at RareWares?
I would like to see as many listeners as possible participating in this test and thus it would be great if Mares would postpone closing for a week or more.
Anyway, back to the topic of the listening test, this will be my first time participating on the test. I'm having a really hard time (as others) doing the listenings.I think that it is easier to recognize problems with genres of music that I'm familiar with (like Metal and Harpsichord), but with others, it is quite hard even to detect a low pass (say, with Techno).One thing that would be nice to catalog in the Knowledge Base of HA would be the types of artifacts that usually arise with different encoders/formats.
(you, know, that thing called "Real Life" actually takes our time)
Quote from: rbrito on 02 August, 2007, 03:34:34 PM(you, know, that thing called "Real Life" actually takes our time)I thought that was cancelled for poor ratings.
Tried a few sample....GUYS, WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP IMPROVING YOUR ENCODERS (as LAME now seems quite lame)
Extending the test until August 12th.
Did somebody succeed finding (abx-ing) all encoded samples except maybe high anchor?
But I often find, when ABXing, that I can get the first 3 or 4 attempts right, but then suddenly, I can't hear the difference any more... then I have to rest my ears for little while and continue... In other words: not really artifacts you would notice during normal listening!
I'm also noticing when I ABX in test mode and I suddenly lack feedback, I become unsure at first, and then just say "oh well" and click through the trials so fast that I have little time to consciously decide whether I heard the artifact or not. I'm quite surprised afterwards when I find I scored something like 14/15, which is what usually happens.I heard before that very fast decisions can be better than those you had time to think about, maybe this is a similar effect
Aren't we suppose to receive a mail from Roberto for those tests? I thought he had a ML dedicated to this.
Yeah, Roberto is so unreliable these days...
How do you define something that is between perceptible and imperceptible?
How do you define something that is between perceptible and imperceptible? I'm ending up giving nearly all my samples 4.0.
' date='Aug 4 2007, 14:11' post='508416']When ABXing, I use that range to indicate how difficult is for me to spot the problem. If i have to concentrate a lot, and might even fail at times, it's almost imperceptible, so 4.8, 4.9.... You get it?
Well, you said yourself that sometimes you can hear a difference and then suddenly it's gone after you ABXed a few times. So, it's between perceptible and imperceptible.