I always find stuff to reply to in the /. threads way too late. In the current thread there were a couple that got my goat (having to do with the legitimacy of subjective testing and the drawing of the confidence interval bars).
(From Slashdot)The poster offers an interesting interpretation of the results, but only his/her comments support Ogg Vorbis in this case. The numbers tell a completely different story.The analysis presented leads us to one conclusion: use Lame 128. It's strictly better than all other options. Do not use FhG MP3. Easy.If you're willing to slip to 4th best encoder, then consider Ogg Vorbis. 4TH BEST. That's hardly the rosey picture painted in the article.
Internet forums should use color schemes to make knowledge easily identifiable. Idiots post in red. Newbies are green. Regulars are black. Veterans are blue. First sixty days as a member is a screening process to determine later what color you will be assigned after green. Just an idea...
Some people are like defective playdough...easily impressionable, but not always accurately impressionable.
QuoteSome people are like defective playdough...easily impressionable, but not always accurately impressionable.You just made my quotes page.Can anyone point me to some spots in any of these samples that really show well the typical problems with WMA? It sounded really good to my ears, and I want to figure out what I'm missing because I'm very uncomfortable about liking WMA. I've gone over a couple samples again, getting similar results as before, but my results are so much different than almost everyone else's that I think my ears are broken.
Can anyone point me to some spots in any of these samples that really show well the typical problems with WMA? It sounded really good to my ears, and I want to figure out what I'm missing because I'm very uncomfortable about liking WMA. I've gone over a couple samples again, getting similar results as before, but my results are so much different than almost everyone else's that I think my ears are broken.
Can anyone point me to some spots in any of these samples that really show well the typical problems with WMA?
Roberto, a bit of a n00b question here, but is there any reason why my results aren't included in samples 1, 2 & 4? Was it an effort to keep things fair & balanced, somehow?
6L File: .\Sample04\experiencia.wav6L Rating: 4.76L Comment:
You see, the encoded files have a number before the .wav, that identify what encoder was used there. And if there's no number, it means you gave a ranking to the original instead of the encoded.That's why these results had to be removed.
,Sep 23 2003, 02:07 PM] I've done the same mistake with LAME 128 kbps and sample08 but this doesn't necessary mean that i've ranked the original because there is a successful ABX test attached. So.. there is a possibility that i've ranked the file during ABXing.
Ditto with WMA... I rated it even better than LAME 128 I also rated Vorbis worse than FhG on one sample (Enola Gay, number 3), and in sample 9 (Polonaise), it's the only codec I can easily pick out (by just hitting "X", some sort of "warbling" in the last 10 seconds), the rest just give me a headache for trying so hard...My personal "ranking", with only 4 samples (I'm still working on the rest, though)WMA 4.78 MP3 128 kbps 4.65 MP3 Pro 4.55 QT AAC 3.98 HE AAC 3.93 Ogg Vorbis 3.9 Real Audio 2.78 MP3 64 kbps 2.4 Cheers, Joey.
3R File: .\Sample02\DaFunk_2.wav3R Rating: 1.53R Comment: Uh? High snares smeared worse than a cheap hooker's makeup.
4R File: .\Sample07\mybloodrusts_1.wav4R Rating: 1.04R Comment: It's the evil bee codec. An evil bee encoded this song. The beginning is an abomination. The rest sounds muddy and unclear.
I would have just liked to pull most of them down to 1 and move on, but I restrained myself. It's like rating green from brown shit. Both stink.
It is truly interesting if wma's results are so subjective. Not an offense but i really must ask, how can somebody not hear the wma artifacts. According to some of my own tests, they are even hearable @ 160 kbps (didn't test higher).
Hello.I just uploaded the bitrate tables. They are available just below the individual plots.Also, for those interested in a laugh, I uploaded a "comment highlights" to the server.
2L Comment: Strangely warblyBUT.INTERESTING NOTE: I would be very hard pushed to ABX on my Wharfdale Speakers,yet my Denons should up Warble straight off!sod Dibrom and his "Speakers make no odds cack"
I am thinking that certain manufacturer claims of 64Kbps to be the same quality as mp3 @128Kbps might be true if you were to include other less able mp3 encoders to compare against...Lame is the best but what about an average mp3 encoder?