Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: listening test at 160 kbps (Read 74347 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #51 –
Quote
You, Garf, Aoyumi, Guruboolez, Harashin and Phong rock!!

Ack, how did I get in that list?  I've only managed to finish one ABC/hr test.

Anyhow, I've compiled QK's new versions and I've started my computer grinding away to complete the bitrate vs. quality table.  To save time (so I don't have to encode too many combinations), I'm going to stick with the same set of songs as before.  I'll post an update as soon as it's done with the most interesting bitrate range (4 <= q <= 7 or so).

Since a couple of people have indicated my average bitrates are lower than what they're seeing (in particular, that gt3b2 bitrates are not high enough relative to other versions), I'm going to add a couple songs that really bloat with gt3b2.  That'll take a while though, so I'm gonna save it for later.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #54 –
This result is quite different from my result which had been done yasterday. I found notable artifact in background and this is rather annoying than pre-echo. Therefore, although this is actually an easy-to-ABX sample, I won't do to use this sample for pre-echo only test anymore.

Edit: Link for useless result is deleted to avoid any confusing. Read below post.
Edit2:I believe this is a reasonable result.
Trust_Vorbis_test

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #55 –
Thanks.  hmm....can someone do a bit-by-bit comparison between aoTuV+GT3b2 and megamix at q 5 on a sample?  I didn't touch anything else so they should be almost identical.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #56 –
Quote
Thanks.  hmm....can someone do a bit-by-bit comparison between aoTuV+GT3b2 and megamix at q 5 on a sample?  I didn't touch anything else so they should be almost identical.

I can confirm that. Oh, my result for that sample is completely useless.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #57 –
Quote
You, Garf, Aoyumi, Guruboolez, Harashin and Phong rock!!! You guys are the heros of Vorbis.

Don't forget to include nyaochi as well.  He is also a third-party Vorbis developer too.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #58 –
Here's the table as promised.  I'll add to it when I get results for other -q ranges.
Code: [Select]
                          Average bitrates
   -q  xiph.org    aotuv  a+gt3b2   a+qk32    gt3b2  megamix     qk32
4.00    120.19   121.45   121.45   132.05   120.19   132.05   124.10
4.50    131.32   132.79   140.29   143.91   138.47   143.94   136.46
4.99    142.58   144.24   155.56   154.84   152.78   155.62   148.25
5.00    151.13   150.45   161.67   160.89   161.02   161.67   157.55
5.50    161.24   162.27   171.43   168.44   170.73   171.43   164.14
5.99    172.02   174.64   181.41   174.77   181.04   181.41   168.43
6.00    180.15   182.24   188.42   182.25   188.26   188.42   179.56
6.50    191.42   195.83   199.63   195.83   200.20   199.63   191.10
6.99    203.14   209.59   211.36   209.59   212.52   211.36   203.13
7.00    205.65   214.89   218.31   214.89   218.51   218.31   205.65

                        Equivalent -q levels
   -q   xiph.org   aotuv  a+gt3b2   a+qk32    gt3b2  megamix     qk32
4.00       4.53    4.47     4.28     4.00     4.32     4.00     4.32
4.50       4.80    4.73     4.43     4.24     4.49     4.26     4.57
5.00       5.52    5.47     5.00     5.05     5.03     5.00     5.31
5.50       5.77    5.69     5.29     5.40     5.33     5.29     5.84
6.00       6.37    6.23     6.00     6.23     6.01     6.00     6.38
6.50       6.70    6.51     6.36     6.51     6.34     6.36     6.71
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #59 –
They look quite consistent, esp. how megamix at q 4 and q 5 has the same average bitrate as aotuv+qk and aotuv+gt3b2 respectively.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #60 –
Updated!
vorbis_bitrates.sxc OpenOffice.org
vorbis_bitrates.xls MS Excel
Here's the complete table.
Code: [Select]
                       Average bitrates                                             bitrate vs. xiph.org
                                         aotuv   aotuv                                                aotuv   aotuv
-q   xiph.org   aotuv    qk32   gt3b2   +qk32  +gt3b2 megamix     xiph.org   aotuv    qk32   gt3b2   +qk32  +gt3b2 megamix
-1.00    47.3    48.1    43.6    47.3    48.1    48.1    48.1         0.0%    1.6%   -7.8%    0.0%    1.6%    1.6%    1.6%
-0.50    53.3    53.3    49.5    53.3    53.3    53.3    53.3         0.0%    0.0%   -7.2%    0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    0.0%
-0.01    60.3    59.2    56.3    60.3    59.2    59.2    59.2         0.0%   -1.8%   -6.6%    0.0%   -1.8%   -1.8%   -1.8%
  0.00    62.9    62.5    58.9    62.9    62.5    62.5    62.5         0.0%   -0.6%   -6.3%    0.0%   -0.6%   -0.6%   -0.6%
  0.50    71.1    70.1    66.5    71.1    70.1    70.1    70.1         0.0%   -1.4%   -6.5%    0.0%   -1.4%   -1.4%   -1.4%
  0.99    78.9    77.9    73.7    78.9    77.9    77.9    77.9         0.0%   -1.3%   -6.6%    0.0%   -1.3%   -1.3%   -1.3%
  1.00    78.3    77.2    74.0    78.3    77.2    77.2    77.2         0.0%   -1.4%   -5.6%    0.0%   -1.4%   -1.4%   -1.4%
  1.50    81.6    82.3    82.6    81.6    88.7    82.3    88.7         0.0%    0.8%    1.2%    0.0%    8.6%    0.8%    8.6%
  1.99    84.8    87.5    88.2    84.9    97.2    87.5    97.2         0.0%    3.1%    4.0%    0.0%   14.6%    3.1%   14.6%
  2.00    89.1    92.6    92.2    89.1   102.5    92.6   102.5         0.0%    3.9%    3.5%    0.0%   15.0%    3.9%   15.0%
  2.50    95.0    97.5    98.6    95.0   108.2    97.5   108.2         0.0%    2.6%    3.7%    0.0%   13.9%    2.6%   13.9%
  2.99   100.7   101.8   104.5   100.7   112.9   101.8   112.9         0.0%    1.2%    3.8%    0.0%   12.1%    1.2%   12.1%
  3.00   108.9   109.9   115.3   108.9   122.9   109.9   122.9         0.0%    0.9%    5.8%    0.0%   12.9%    0.9%   12.9%
  3.50   115.5   117.5   122.5   115.5   131.6   117.5   131.6         0.0%    1.7%    6.0%    0.0%   13.9%    1.7%   13.9%
  3.99   121.8   124.5   129.2   121.8   139.4   124.5   139.4         0.0%    2.2%    6.1%    0.0%   14.4%    2.2%   14.4%
  4.00   121.8   122.8   129.3   121.8   137.7   122.8   137.7         0.0%    0.8%    6.1%    0.0%   13.1%    0.8%   13.1%
  4.50   133.3   134.6   142.5   143.7   150.3   145.5   150.4         0.0%    1.0%    6.9%    7.8%   12.8%    9.1%   12.9%
  4.99   144.8   146.4   154.6   159.3   161.4   162.5   162.5         0.0%    1.1%    6.8%   10.0%   11.4%   12.2%   12.2%
  5.00   153.9   153.0   164.2   167.8   167.7   168.9   168.9         0.0%   -0.5%    6.7%    9.1%    9.0%    9.8%    9.8%
  5.50   164.3   166.2   169.9   177.7   174.9   179.1   179.1         0.0%    1.2%    3.4%    8.2%    6.5%    9.0%    9.0%
  5.99   175.4   180.1   171.9   188.2   180.3   189.5   189.5         0.0%    2.7%   -2.0%    7.3%    2.8%    8.0%    8.0%
  6.00   183.5   187.5   182.9   195.0   187.5   195.9   195.9         0.0%    2.2%   -0.3%    6.3%    2.2%    6.8%    6.8%
  6.50   195.2   202.2   194.9   207.2   202.2   207.4   207.4         0.0%    3.6%   -0.2%    6.2%    3.6%    6.2%    6.2%
  6.99   207.4   216.9   207.4   219.9   216.9   219.3   219.3         0.0%    4.6%    0.0%    6.0%    4.6%    5.7%    5.7%
  7.00   210.0   222.6   210.0   226.3   222.6   226.7   226.7         0.0%    6.0%    0.0%    7.8%    6.0%    8.0%    8.0%
  7.50   226.2   240.3   226.2   240.4   240.3   245.2   245.2         0.0%    6.3%    0.0%    6.3%    6.3%    8.4%    8.4%
  7.99   243.0   260.1   243.0   255.4   260.1   265.9   265.9         0.0%    7.0%    0.0%    5.1%    7.0%    9.4%    9.4%
  8.00   242.0   258.8   242.0   253.9   258.8   264.4   264.4         0.0%    6.9%    0.0%    4.9%    6.9%    9.2%    9.2%
  8.50   273.2   288.0   273.2   284.3   288.0   294.1   294.1         0.0%    5.4%    0.0%    4.1%    5.4%    7.6%    7.6%
  8.99   306.9   318.5   306.9   317.2   318.5   325.2   325.2         0.0%    3.8%    0.0%    3.4%    3.8%    6.0%    6.0%
  9.00   313.0   327.2   313.0   325.4   327.2   334.7   334.7         0.0%    4.5%    0.0%    4.0%    4.5%    7.0%    7.0%
  9.50   400.2   412.5   473.8   495.6   412.5   440.5   440.5         0.0%    3.1%   18.4%   23.8%    3.1%   10.1%   10.1%
  9.99   444.8   461.5   513.3   549.8   461.5   510.9   510.9         0.0%    3.8%   15.4%   23.6%    3.8%   14.9%   14.9%
10.00   445.3   462.2   513.9   550.6   462.2   511.9   511.9         0.0%    3.8%   15.4%   23.6%    3.8%   15.0%   15.0%

                  Equivalent -q levels (all)                              Equivalent -q levels (excluding outliers)
                                        aotuv   aotuv                                                aotuv   aotuv
-q   xiph.org   aotuv    qk32   gt3b2   +qk32  +gt3b2 megamix     xiph.org   aotuv    qk32   gt3b2   +qk32  +gt3b2 megamix
-1.00   -0.94   -1.00   -0.62   -0.94   -1.00   -1.00   -1.00        -0.94   -1.00   -0.62   -0.94   -1.00   -1.00   -1.00
-0.50   -0.54   -0.55   -0.27   -0.54   -0.55   -0.55   -0.55        -0.54   -0.55   -0.27   -0.54   -0.55   -0.55   -0.55
  0.00    0.00    0.02    0.26    0.00    0.02    0.02    0.02         0.00    0.02    0.26    0.00    0.02    0.02    0.02
  0.50    0.42    0.49    0.73    0.42    0.49    0.49    0.49         0.42    0.49    0.73    0.42    0.49    0.49    0.49
  1.00    1.00    1.11    1.25    1.00    1.05    1.11    1.05         1.00    1.11    1.25    1.00    1.05    1.11    1.05
  1.50    1.86    1.66    1.62    1.86    1.23    1.66    1.23         1.86    1.66    1.62    1.86    1.23    1.66    1.23
  2.00    3.13    3.02    2.81    3.13    2.00    3.02    2.00         2.30    2.00    2.03    2.30            2.00
  2.50    2.93    2.78    2.62    2.93    1.64    2.78    1.64         2.65    2.41    2.35    2.65            2.41
  3.00    4.06    3.86    3.53    4.06    3.00    3.85    3.00         3.48    3.35    3.00    3.48            3.35
  3.50    3.98    3.79    3.44    3.98    2.87    3.79    2.87         3.67    3.51    3.15    3.67            3.51
  4.00    4.69    4.63    4.32    4.36    4.00    4.33    4.00         4.69    4.63    4.32    4.36    4.00    4.33    4.00
  4.50    4.91    4.84    4.52    4.48    4.17    4.43    4.20         4.91    4.84    4.52    4.48    4.17    4.43    4.20
  5.00    5.72    5.60    5.41    5.05    5.08    5.00    5.00         5.72    5.60    5.41    5.05    5.08    5.00    5.00
  5.50    5.89    5.74    6.27    5.28    5.33    5.21    5.21         5.91    5.76            5.30    5.38    5.24    5.24
  6.00    6.53    6.29    6.54    6.04    6.29    6.00    6.00         6.53    6.29    6.54    6.04    6.29    6.00    6.00
  6.50    6.79    6.51    6.79    6.31    6.51    6.29    6.29         6.79    6.51    6.79    6.31    6.51    6.29    6.29
  7.00    7.52    7.12    7.52    7.01    7.12    7.00    7.00         7.52    7.12    7.52    7.01    7.12    7.00    7.00
  7.50    7.83    7.43    7.83    7.41    7.43    7.32    7.32         7.83    7.43    7.83    7.41    7.43    7.32    7.32
  8.00    8.36    8.10    8.36    8.17    8.10    8.00    8.00         8.36    8.10    8.36    8.17    8.10    8.00    8.00
  8.50    8.67    8.45    8.67    8.51    8.45    8.36    8.36         8.67    8.45    8.67    8.51    8.45    8.36    8.36
  9.00    9.12    9.04    9.07    9.03    9.04    9.00    9.00         9.12    9.04    9.07    9.03    9.04    9.00    9.00
  9.50    9.93    9.77    9.07    8.99    9.77    9.49    9.49         9.73    9.59                    9.59    9.37    9.37

I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #61 –
Quote
No problems here.  Rarewares often has connection problems so try a few times



We do?

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #62 –
Quote
Quote
No problems here.  Rarewares often has connection problems so try a few times



We do?

Very rarely so it's nothing to be alarmed about (I guess it's not just the wares that a rare  )  I think there were one or two times when I had troubles connecting to it the first time but usually it worked if I tried connecting to it again.  Probably more to do with my ISP.


EDIT:  I noticed I used the word 'often' in my original post.  I actually meant 'sometimes' .

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #63 –
Quote
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']guruboolez can't access to HA, and asked to post the following formated text[/span]


SAMPLES

Same as before, with for new samples (three posted by harashin: Diner_reprise, Khan, Shostakovitch_sym14[/I] - another one, public: trust). I have just change the glockenspiel one (Zauberflöte -> Zauberflöte (2)).
There are now 26 samples, and three categories: sharp attacks - micro-attacks - and the rest: attacks mixed with instruments.


CHALLENGERS

I removed CVS encoder in order to spare time and motivation. With 26 samples and three challengers, I have enough material to finish completely tired and with a big headache. GT3b2 is tested (-q 5,00), aoTuV beta 2 original code (-q 5,50) with aoTuV MEGAMIX (-q 5,00) in regard.

RESULTS



CONCLUSIONS


• on sharp attacks, aoTuV b2 is the looser and suffers from the lack of power of the native pre-echo tuning. GT3b2 and aoTuV MEGAMIX are tied. On some samples, GT3b2 is better; on some other, it is slightly worse than aoTuV MEGAMIX. For this kind of sample (rare in my opinion), GT3b2 and aoTuV MEGAMIX are both recommanded.

• on micro attacks, GT3b2 is the clear winner. The MEGAMIX tunings doesn't reproduce the benefits of GT3b2. It's very obvious to prove with the creaking sample (see Appendix below). And in one case, MEGAMIX is worse than pure aoTuV (Orion II, confirmed with a brilliant ABX test: 18/18). GT3b2 is the the very best vorbis .version for micro-attacks.

• on 'normal' transients, the winner is aoTuV MEGAMIX. Sharper than pure aoTuV, and much cleaner than GT3B2. GT3b2 suffers too much from the fat rendering of CVS legacy. aoTuV is good, and aoTuV MEGAMIX is just better => I recommand aoTuV MEGAMIX for most common transient situations.

• I kept the sample named "Die Schlacht". I can't differenciate the encoding from the original on transients, but on additional noise affecting ~tonal~ sound. GT3b2 suffered a lot. The MEGAMIX addition doesn't affect the nice quality of aoTuV reference code. In other word, aoTuV MEGAMIX is apparently recommandable with non-transient samples


APPENDIX.

The noisy artifact audible with the creaking sample is clearly visible on a graphical representation:
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...iff_ref_GT3.gif
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...ref_megamix.gif
We could also see that benefits of GT3 tunings are not reproduced with the MEGAMIX one:
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...gamix_aoTuV.gif

APPENDIX (2)

I have also noticed two times the same "hollow sound" artifact, audible with aoTuV based encoders, but not with GT3b2: with clapping and with shostakovich_sym14.
I've tried to make this artifact visible on Cool Edit. It's probably this hole visible in the 10 Khz band:
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...TuV_MEGAMIX.png
The GT3 file:
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...pping_GT3b2.png

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #64 –
Quote
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']guruboolez can't access to HA, and asked to post this second formated text[/span]

I was too bored to complete the -q 6 test. I therefore limited the test to my favorite samples (i.e. easier to ABX), and maintained two encoders only:
- GT3b2 at -q 6.00
- aoTuV MEGAMIX at -q 6.00

RESULTS



CONCLUSIONS:

• GT3b2 is still superior to aoTuV MEGAMIX on micro-attacks samples.

• on very sharp attacks, the MEGAMIX addition is perfectly implemented: quality is at least eaqual to GT3b2, and sometimes better. aoTuV tunings and GT3b2 tunings are apparently cumulative for this kind of sample.

• there's apparently more noise problem with GT3b2 than aoTuV MEGAMIX: audible with Sarabande (harpsichord), Danse Hongroise (piano), Atem-Lied (ringing).

• I must add that the "hollow" / "distorted" sound of aoTuV (MEGAMIX or not), audible at -q 5,00 with Shostakovich_sym14, is also audible at -q 6,00 with the same encoder. GT3b2 seems to be free of this problem, and sound also better than the reference! (I explained the reasons on the log file).



LOG files are available here:
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...EGAMIX%20-Q5.7z
http://www.foobar2000.net/divers/tests/200...EGAMIX%20-Q6.7z

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #65 –
Thank you for the tests, Tang.  They are very detailed and informative.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #66 –
Quote
Thank you for the tests, Tang.  They are very detailed and informative.
Joke?

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #67 –
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the tests, Tang.  They are very detailed and informative.

Joke?

Not at all.  I quite like how you put a description for each sample too, whether it is a microattack or sharp-attack.  These are the things I often like to know when comparing the numbers. 

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #68 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the tests, Tang.  They are very detailed and informative.

Joke?

Not at all.  I quite like how you put a description for each sample too, whether it is a microattack or sharp-attack.  These are the things I often like to know when comparing the numbers. 

Seems to be some misunderstanding...
I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THESES TESTS Quantum-Knot!!!
It's Guruboolez's works... i've just pasted his "formated text" cause he had some connection problem with HA...
I've edited the previous quote to make the "introducting notice" more evident...

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #69 –
Oups, I'm connected again....
I'd like to thanks Tang for posting my tests. I spent a lot of time yesterday, and I was very angry to see that HA wasn't accessible on my computer.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #70 –
Quote
APPENDIX (2)

I have also noticed two times the same "hollow sound" artifact, audible with aoTuV based encoders, but not with GT3b2: with clapping and with shostakovich_sym14.

I think I know exactly what you mean. I noticed this artifact with aoTuV on "The Frog Princess" by The Divine Comedy Casanova...but on low quality levels (< -q 2). I didn't notice it at -q 6. The artifact sounds like a band of frequencies is missing, the middle and lower treble in particular. It's like someone took a vacuum and sucked out some of the music!

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #71 –
I've updated my chart above to include two new songs.  A few people had mentioned that my average bitrates was lower than what they were getting on average, as was the bitrate differential between gt3b2 and non-preecho tunings (xiph.org and aotuv).  I went back to look at the bitrate distribution on my whole collection of encoded files (about 200 albums with gt3b2 at -q 6), and found that while most fell in a bell curve, as expected, around 190kbps, there were a fair number of outliers more than 70kbps over the average.  On the other hand, there were no outliers below 60kbps below the average.  None of these upper-outliers were represented in my test group, so I've added a couple: "Nannou" off of Aphex Twin - "Windowlicker" and "(-) Ions" off of "Tool - AEnema".

True to my hypothesis, for these "bitrate monsters", preecho tuned encoders bloat proportionally more than the average song.  For example:
Code: [Select]
                                            aotuv   aotuv
-q 6.0  xiph.org   aotuv    qk32   gt3b2   +qk32  +gt3b2 megamix
Ions       271.0   331.7   270.1   379.6   331.7   405.7   405.7
Nannou     228.8   252.4   227.7   277.8   252.4   286.4   286.4
Average    183.5   187.5   182.9   195.0   187.5   195.9   195.9

For the average song, gt3b2 averages about 6.2% higher than xiph.org and 4% higher than aotuv.  For something pathological like Ions, it's 40% and 14% vs.  xiph.org an aotuv respectively.  Even for Nannou (which is a lot less weird than Ions, and a beautiful little song), it's a 21% or 10% increase.

In the end, it doesn't change my numbers all that much.  For example, the -q 6 equivalent for aotuv goes from 6.23 to 6.29.  It's pretty vain of me to suggest I have 3 significant figures here anyway.  It did make aotuv+qk32 (and megamix) an even bigger outlier in the 2 <= -q < 4 range, but it was already too high in that range to get a good comparison anyway.

If someone is looking to do a listening test, I suggest they use the new numbers (the lower-right table), but the difference between the new and old numbers is not big enough to be signfiicant.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #72 –
Quote
I think I know exactly what you mean. I noticed this artifact with aoTuV on "The Frog Princess" by The Divine Comedy Casanova...but on low quality levels (< -q 2). I didn't notice it at -q 6. The artifact sounds like a band of frequencies is missing, the middle and lower treble in particular. It's like someone took a vacuum and sucked out some of the music!

At those -q levels the "hollow sound" artifact is a pretty common one with xiph.org vorbis too.  It was discussed some in the aftermath of the 64k test.  It's a bit unsettling that Guruboolez heard it at high bitrates too.  I wonder what it is in gt3b2's preecho tunings that fixes it...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=136491
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=136490
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #73 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the tests, Tang.  They are very detailed and informative.

Joke?

Not at all.  I quite like how you put a description for each sample too, whether it is a microattack or sharp-attack.  These are the things I often like to know when comparing the numbers. 

Seems to be some misunderstanding...
I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THESES TESTS Quantum-Knot!!!
It's Guruboolez's works... i've just pasted his "formated text" cause he had some connection problem with HA...
I've edited the previous quote to make the "introducting notice" more evident...


whoops.  I didn't pay attention to that.  The numbers distracted my eyes.  Well, thanks for being the messenger  and thanks to guruboolez for his meticulous test.

listening test at 160 kbps

Reply #74 –
question about vorbis megamix

between q 1 to q 2 and between q 4 to q 5 (e.g. q 1.50 and q 4.75) , what tuning encoder is chosen?

q 1 to q 2 -> aoTuV beta 2? QuantumKnot tune beta 3.2 + aoTuV beta 2? or both marge?

q 4 to q 5 -> QuantumKnot tune beta 3.2 + aoTuV beta 2? Galf Tuned 3 beta 2 + aoTuV beta 2? or both marge?
<name>madoka</name>