It is possible to get that data using chunky on the complete test results which are available in .rar.
% Sample Averages:WMA High Vorbis Low Nero3.32 4.78 2.09 1.81 4.213.39 4.58 2.21 1.50 3.933.84 4.61 3.91 1.22 3.883.87 4.70 3.81 1.80 4.273.45 4.84 3.25 1.61 3.923.21 4.69 2.94 1.37 3.372.79 4.55 3.20 1.31 2.783.55 4.80 3.36 1.86 4.013.30 4.60 3.80 1.47 3.764.25 4.47 4.22 1.59 4.333.84 4.71 3.73 1.48 3.922.92 4.13 2.94 1.45 2.743.90 4.47 3.34 1.34 3.853.54 4.26 3.29 1.30 3.843.16 4.50 3.50 1.50 3.363.67 4.86 2.78 2.03 3.633.54 4.49 3.78 1.85 3.493.87 4.58 3.60 1.41 3.96% Codec averages:3.52 4.59 3.32 1.55 3.74
This one goes to the experts:How would you rank codecs in such a situation, where A=B and B=C, but C<A?
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on 15 August, 2007, 07:00:17 PMThis one goes to the experts:How would you rank codecs in such a situation, where A=B and B=C, but C<A?That is actually not a contradiction as such...
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on 15 August, 2007, 07:00:17 PMHow would you rank codecs in such a situation, where A=B and B=C, but C<A?not an expert, but at leas mathematically if A=B and B=C, A=C.
How would you rank codecs in such a situation, where A=B and B=C, but C<A?
Interesting results. I only use Vorbis for high bitrates (my own music collection on my PC's hard disk), since I expected low bitrates (for a small, portable mp3 player) to kill Vorbis. Seems like I was wrong.With those results, low bitrate Vorbis internet streams make more sense now!
Wouldn't it make more sense just to go with one of the winners for low bitrates? (Also note that on some of the subtests, ogg did much more poorly relative to the others.) Or are there other tradeoffs here?
Out of curiousity, why is there no castinettes in this test? In my recollection pre-echo was a large problem with several of the codecs, and not with some others. It would seem unreasonable to suppress this issue.
' date='Aug 27 2007, 14:46' post='512918']Quote from: Woodinville on 27 August, 2007, 05:31:13 PMOut of curiousity, why is there no castinettes in this test? In my recollection pre-echo was a large problem with several of the codecs, and not with some others. It would seem unreasonable to suppress this issue.AFAIR, it's "castanets", not castinettes, and there are other samples in it that show that issue. You'll definitely find comments about preecho in several test comments (i know, i wrote some)Edit: typos.
How many of you that took test did use Headphones? How many did use in ear phones?
Out of curiosity, I played some of the samples through my big & good Hi-Fi speakers. I did know that only headphones can reveal codec problems properly, but I was still surprised about how much better the encoded samples sounded through a standard stereo speaker system in a casual listening situation. I suppose that the normal room echoes get mixed with pre-echo and other codec faults and the listener's brain "calculates" subconsciously a new "combined acoustic space", which does not sound completely wrong.
Headphones for 17 samples. Loudspeakers for White America samples because I couldn't hear the diff in headphones. Masking, noise canceling?
It seems to me that in most cases headphones reveal more differences than speakers and that most of participant in public listening tests use headphones.Also while doing this listening test, I discovered that in some cases I could hear more differences with cheap earphones Creative EP 630 than with Sennheiser HD 650. I guess it is because of blocking of outside noise (though there was not much outside noise since I was in a room with doors and windows closed, and using quiet HTPC).Or maybe it has to do something with neutralizing effects of head and pinnae related filtering.
Could it be because the cheaper ones don't produce all frequencies as well/evenly, which reveals high frequency artifacts better...?
"I hate this sample. My previous sample was the quiet bibilolo and I had set the volume level louder than normal. I didn't remember to reduce the level before starting this. It was like an explosion inside my eardrums. I hope I didn't damage my hearing...In general the sample is overcompressed and very distorded. It does not have much that encoders could hide or alter. A bit more pre-echo & distortion does not change the ugly nature of this sample."