Skip to main content

Topic: Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN (Read 87615 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • ff123
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #50
Just a note for people who have just installed ubuntu (like me).  The default gnu java is compatible with sun java jre 1.4, but abchr-java needs jre 1.5 or later (also called version 5).  I decided to go for broke and install sun java version 6:

sudo apt-get install sun-java6-jre sun-java6-plugin

and then change the configuration to use this:

sudo update-alternatives --config java

and finally from within the abchr application I changed the playback device to be the Java Sound Audio Engine.

It seems to work fine!

Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #51
Geez, I could party that I finally got rid of Ubuntu Live CD and others install it voluntarily...

  • ff123
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #52
OT warning:

Hehe, actually for all its supposed user-friendliness, I did have to tweak it quite a bit.  I didn't like the fonts, which seemed big and fuzzy, so I found out how to install/configure the Microsoft ones.  Samba sharing (using cifs and not the deprecated smbfs) took me quite a while to get right, so that I could get my XP Share to mount/unmount as it came online or went offline.  Using cifs without having to explicitly use the IP address of the share took more tweaking (installing winbind), and did I mention Feisty has some sort of shutdown bug when using cifs?  Had to fix that too.  I wouldn't have had to use samba to browse my kids' XP laptop in the first place if the GnomeFS was actually able to stream files properly over a Microsoft network.

Getting my wireless network to connect on bootup was kind of a pain.  No, it's not obvious how to do that and why, but it wasn't as easy as just playing with the Network Manager settings inside a GUI of some sort.

MPlayer configuration took a lot of tweaking (it doesn't even use X11 by default).

Wanted to write to ntfs volumes -- more fiddling.

And of course the java thing.

Good things:  my streaming video media plays faster, but maybe that's only because I have not installed a software firewall; I could have uninstalled zonealarm on my Win2k boot and I might have seen the same speed improvement.  There's no resident anti-virus program sucking up resources.  Openoffice works well enough, and it does most things (I don't play games) I need to do as well as my Win2k installation does.

/OT warning

Oh, and BTW, I have 4 more samples to test, and I'll email them off to you.

  • rbrito
  • [*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #53
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.


PowerPC? 


Yes, PowerPC. That was my intention originally. But given that we can't even redistribute the binaries (as I've read in the license), I don't think that I'm going to package them. It is a pity for those of us with multiple platforms.

Quote
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 do and I'm talking about this with Mike. I already told him by private e-mail what my plans are here with the layout of the repository and this would make mirroring the repository much easier.

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.

It is really strange here that I have Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle Earth" encoded with Apple's latest version of Quicktime at 128CBR and I can listen to artifacts that are here, but that I'm having a hard time in participating of this test...

I think that I may have a "killer" sample to contribute...


Regards, Rogério.

  • rbrito
  • [*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #54
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.


Well, I have only had the chance (you, know, that thing called "Real Life" actually takes our time) to try 3 samples. With much difficulty, I should add.

Regards, Rogério.

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #55
I'm now working on sample 11, having worked backwards from 18 (to even out the number of results for the different samples  ) . Another 10 to go, in other words.
  • Last Edit: 02 August, 2007, 03:42:49 PM by naylor83
davidnaylor.org

Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #56
Thanks for all submissions so far and good luck to all of you who are still testing.

  • ff123
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #57
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.


So far I've noticed:  lowpass (of course), mushy transients, wheezy voices, narrowing of stereo, fluttering or a type of low-frequency noise in which the music doesn't sound "clean."  In one case, I had a "wtf!?" experience, in which an entire instrument virtually disappeared.  That was kind of cool; I've never heard that one before.  I should add some of these to my artifact training page, but I'm so lazy these days.  The HA knowledge base would be good too.

ff123

  • TechVsLife
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #58
(you, know, that thing called "Real Life" actually takes our time)




I thought that was cancelled for poor ratings.

  • Gabriel
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #59
Hey, I just noticed this test is running!
Aren't we suppose to receive a mail from Roberto for those tests? I thought he had a ML dedicated to this.

Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #60
Yeah, Roberto is so unreliable these days... 

Extending the test until August 12th.
  • Last Edit: 03 August, 2007, 06:15:50 AM by Sebastian Mares

  • Junon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #61
(you, know, that thing called "Real Life" actually takes our time)

I thought that was cancelled for poor ratings.

Click, but don't hurt me!

Interesting, really interesting. So far I haven't been aware of something like this. Once again I learned something new.

  • Gabriel
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #62
Tried a few sample....

GUYS, WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP IMPROVING YOUR ENCODERS (as LAME now seems quite lame)

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #63
Tried a few sample....

GUYS, WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP IMPROVING YOUR ENCODERS (as LAME now seems quite lame)


I'll throw in an LOL @ that.

Quote
Extending the test until August 12th.


Great! That should give me enough time to do all the samples.

Edit: This strategy of setting a short date and then extending it is probably a good one, because if you had said the 12 of August from the very start, people (me) might have put it off and not finished in time all the same.
  • Last Edit: 03 August, 2007, 10:35:06 AM by naylor83
davidnaylor.org

  • muaddib
  • [*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #64
Did somebody succeed finding (abx-ing) all encoded samples except maybe high anchor?

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #65
Did somebody succeed finding (abx-ing) all encoded samples except maybe high anchor?


I've found basically all compressed samples so far (samples 9-18) including high anchor. Possibly the odd 5.0, I can't remember now.

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!

BTW: When should you set a score between 4.0 (perceptible) and 5.0 (imperceptible)?  How do you define something that is between perceptible and imperceptible? I'm ending up giving nearly all my samples 4.0. Some slightly lower, and the odd just above 4.0 - when I have to twist my brain round and swivel my eyes into my head to hear any difference.
  • Last Edit: 03 August, 2007, 03:16:09 PM by naylor83
davidnaylor.org

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #66
I'm also  spending a lot of time trying to spot. There is important difference between 48 and 64 kbit test.

  • MedO
  • [*][*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #67
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

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #68
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


Well, sometimes I can do 10 or so abx choices quickly in a row, but it has to be a very clear artifact, or at least I have to be able to define it very clearly in my head. (I.e. "the cymbal on beat 3/8, to the left, sounds mushier than it should".)
davidnaylor.org

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #69
Aren't we suppose to receive a mail from Roberto for those tests? I thought he had a ML dedicated to this.


Gah! Blame my teacher that wants me to code a huge Java program by yesterday.

Sorry about that. I wonder if it's still worth announcing?

Yeah, Roberto is so unreliable these days...


FYAD
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Polar
  • [*][*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #70
How do you define something that is between perceptible and imperceptible?
Uhm...  I'd say you could call it ... perceptible?

  • [JAZ]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #71
How do you define something that is between perceptible and imperceptible? I'm ending up giving nearly all my samples 4.0.


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?

Perceptible (4.0) means that i hear the difference, but if i didn't have the original to compare, i wouldn't think that's an artifact, or wouldn't notice it at all. (say, some lowpass filter that doens't affect the sound quality, an artifact that makes the noise more noisy without affecting the tonal parts...)

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #72
Quote
' 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, yeah. But my kind of anal point is that if you can tell the difference, then you can't set a score higher than 4.0. I know, I know, I perhaps shouldn't take the scale so literally.
davidnaylor.org

Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #73
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.

  • naylor83
  • [*][*][*]
Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 64 kbps - OPEN
Reply #74
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.


Ok, I'll buy that.
davidnaylor.org