I think, if we get more than 5 CDs per category, it shouldn't be bad for the test because the more stuff the merrier the comparison!
Heavy-- Apocalyptica (very special kind of metal, that doesn't fit in this category)
(Myself I have enough music to do a comparison off my own collection. What stops me, is that I am missing a test suite which can to the job automatically and reliably ... (the Good Thing to use, I guess, would be some Linux live distribution running from RAM, and which does not try to go online for updates and download them ...) -- plus the fact that I don't really think people care that much anymore.)
Lastly, I wouldn't put Death Magnetic on there and instead focus on a more traditional metal album such as Megadeth - Thirteen or Anthrax - Worship Music. My main argument against Death Magnetic is that it is mastered pretty poorly
Or just a perl/python/whatever script that depended on having the codecs installed on the command line. Then you could install an interpreter and test stuff from Windows too.
Noise? Like Merzbow?
In the opposite direction: Bobby "Don't Worry, Be Happy" McFerrin has a live album called The Voice, which consists only of his voice a cappella.
In terms of electronic music, I would look at throwing a dubstep band/artist in there like the previously suggest Skrillex. I think Nero should be thrown in there with the album Welcome Reality. To me, it spans various electronic sub-genres and kind of has them all covered. As for NIN, I don't know if I would consider them electronic. They have released some electronic sounding albums (Ghosts comes to mind) but they also have some industrial and metal elements. I would also take Meteora out of the heavy category since it is more hard rock. There are other entries featuring chug-chug-chug riffs. Otep had a new album that came out a few months ago. Marilyn Manson even has an album coming out which is supposed to be more of a return to his older style.
Lastly, I wouldn't put Death Magnetic on there and instead focus on a more traditional metal album such as Megadeth - Thirteen or Anthrax - Worship Music. My main argument against Death Magnetic is that it is mastered pretty poorly and I don't think it is a good representation of what you would find in the genre. Had Metallica not blown it out of proportion, I would keep it on there but I think a different album should be used that better represents the genre.
You may even want to think about throwing some country on there. My experience with the genre is that it is very similar to pop but you may want to get all of your bases covered.
[...]It might be interesting to see how the formats/encoders do fare on these brickwalled recordings. Suggestion: make a selection of those and label them separately as 'prisoners of loudness war' as if that were a searate genre. (Eat that, Lars Ulrich.)
[...]Sure, for size. For reliable results when it comes to speed, you depend on your OS not starting any CPU- or hard drive-intensive processes in the meantime.
it might worth to look for the most used lossless codecs here 2012 ripping/encoding poll
sorry to sound silly, but what are we hoping to find?Surely we are only talking about ~5-10% compression differences?So are we doing compression vs CPU usage? or vs Time taken (as a proxy?)
Apocalyptica is orchestral, isn't it?
If you want to cover the more traditional "Electronic" you should consider (any) Kraftwerk, Klaus Schulze or (not any) Vangelis.As for Jazz, maybe a "classic" like Miles Davis - Kind of Blue.If you want to add traditional Country, any album from Alison Krauss+Union Station would do.For chamber music how about Vivaldi's the four seasons (performance of your choice).
I'm not trying to come up with rare albums, rather the more common ones.
You have already 2 live albums on the list, those might have as an added characteristic crowd noise/applause. That's OK, I would only suggest, not too many of those.
IMHO, no test should be without the king of instruments --the church organ-- ...
To make it more representative, I would add some salsa, mambo, and reggaeton.
Quote from: icstm on 01 May, 2012, 12:28:32 PMsorry to sound silly, but what are we hoping to find?Surely we are only talking about ~5-10% compression differences?So are we doing compression vs CPU usage? or vs Time taken (as a proxy?)I don't think this is a silly question at all. I am not even sure if there is any need for this. And if it is, then I think your suggestion is probably the best comparison, along with ranking by size (speed no objective).
For example, in addition to comparing size, what about the following: make a regression line time vs size, and for each codec report the compression gain relative to the regression line, or the time gain. (The latter is probably a better suggestion, as we have two time variables (encoding and decoding) -- then one could report that codec X encodes 1% slower but decodes 5% faster than average?)
Speed no objective? I really won't compress my files to the heaviest Optimfrog compression[...]
That's an option, but the problem is choosing that line. Tastes differ (there seem to be people actually using the OFR-setting I mentioned above) and I guess the usual graph will supply more information.
Regression, as computed from all the encoders?
[…] the problem is choosing that line.
In statistics, linear regression is an approach to modeling the relationship between a scalar dependent variable y and one or more explanatory variables denoted X.
In statistics, simple linear regression is the least squares estimator of a linear regression model with a single explanatory variable. In other words, simple linear regression fits a straight line through the set of n points in such a way that makes the sum of squared residuals of the model (that is, vertical distances between the points of the data set and the fitted line) as small as possible.
regression as they use it in software engineering.
Can you suggest some albums?