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: 64kbps listening test (Read 48012 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

64kbps listening test

Reply #100 –
Quote
Well, I'm really anxious to try this test. I happen to have broadband, and there's a good number of people that do to. If bandwidth isn't an issue, I think this would be a great way to get more people involved.

OK. I'll create sample packages of decoded WAVs, and upload them overnight.

It's a little late to do that, but if it can get more participants... why not?

But I'll definitely use RAR and not ZIP, because RAR compresses audio much better.

Fortunately, there are free command line RAR decompressors for nearly every platform.

Regards;

Roberto.

64kbps listening test

Reply #101 –
Quote
But I'll definitely use RAR and not ZIP, because RAR compresses audio much better.

Make sure you enable 'audio' compression (or 'multimedia' on older versions (there is a seperate 'true color' scheme for uncompressed bitmaps and videos)), and disable the others.

Also, see if increasing the prediction order and MB to use (all in the compression options button of the WinRAR program) increases compression ratios; it can in many cases, but does take much more memory to compress.

64kbps listening test

Reply #102 –
Is there any reason not to use FLAC?  It's about as commonly available as RAR.
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/

64kbps listening test

Reply #103 –
Quote
Is there any reason not to use FLAC?  It's about as commonly available as RAR.

Well, I don't know if it's as commonly available on MacOS

Besides, RAR has the added feature of compressing solidly.

64kbps listening test

Reply #104 –
Quote
Make sure you enable 'audio' compression (or 'multimedia' on older versions (there is a seperate 'true color' scheme for uncompressed bitmaps and videos)), and disable the others.

If I disable the others, the compressed files actually get bigger.

Quote
Also, see if increasing the prediction order and MB to use (all in the compression options button of the WinRAR program) increases compression ratios; it can in many cases, but does take much more memory to compress.


I think prediction is only used in Text encoding.

It's probably used by default on Audio encoding, because that's the logic way.

Thanks for the hints anyway.

Regards;

Roberto.

64kbps listening test

Reply #105 –
BTW, On OS X, FLAC (Its called MacFLAC, latest version, 2.1.2) is availble with a nice GUI as well as Command Line binaries. It works quite Well. Rar is just as good tho

64kbps listening test

Reply #106 –
Quote
BTW, On OS X, FLAC (Its called MacFLAC, latest version, 2.1.2) is availble with a nice GUI as well as Command Line binaries. It works quite Well. Rar is just as good tho

Will, since I'm going for the whole enchilada, I might as well distribute the samples only packed.

I'm already uploading, it will take about 7 hours to finish the process. :B

And each package is average 25Mb.

I'll only announce these packages here. The test is messy enough as it is, I don't want to make things even worse (some people might think that the old packages were somehow wrong and they now should test with the new packages... you get the picture)

And, unfortunately, I can't postpone the test ending. I'll have to travel next week, so this Sunday is indeed the deadline.

The new packages will be announced tomorrow, as soon as I wake up (considering there'll be no issues while uploading). So, please check this thread in about 9 hours

Regards;

Roberto.

64kbps listening test

Reply #107 –
OK, all packages have been uploaded now:

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample01.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample02.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample03.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample04.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample05.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample06.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample07.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample08.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample09.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample10.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample11.rar
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples...es/Sample12.rar

Remember that the folders must be laid out this way:
http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/folder-setup.png

So decompress the sample packages to folders with the same names as the packages.

Enjoy, and thanks for participating!

Regards;

Roberto.

64kbps listening test

Reply #108 –
Updated the former post with all the package addresses.

64kbps listening test

Reply #109 –
Test completed 

I took 10 of the samples, as two of the music styles just plain offended me!  Thanks to Roberto I have a new found shame in my own hearing
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

64kbps listening test

Reply #110 –
Quote
BTW, I created the batch files following your templates, but couldn't get them to properly be converted to exe. One of the bat2exe tools I tried stopped the process at the middle of the batch, the other generated a GPF on ff123's PC. :B

Could you tell me what tool were you using? Maybe you can also try using it on this test's batches?

The link: http://www.computerhope.com/download/utili...ity/bat2exe.com
Actually it makes .COM files, but it doesn't matter as they work.
Tried with your new batches - they're all right except the cleanup. (weird)

I'll try another utility, maybe it will be better...
ruxvilti'a

64kbps listening test

Reply #111 –
Thanks for a wide selection of tracks (although there wasn't enough vocal material to my mind) -- I enjoyed testing my ears out! Any ideas on when we'll get the results?

64kbps listening test

Reply #112 –
Knowing Roberto it will be only a few hours into the 22nd of September
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

64kbps listening test

Reply #113 –
Quote
Knowing Roberto it will be only a few hours into the 22nd of September

My former record, on the 128kbps test, was 3 hours after the closure. I plan to break it this time.

(By having as much as possible ready at the closure time)

64kbps listening test

Reply #114 –
Finally...my work lets up a little and I can dedicate my PC for some testing...and with a day left to spare for this listening test!

I've downloaded the test start package, and I'm downloading two samples now.  I hate dial-up!  Anyway, I'll do the best I can to test as many samples as possible by midnight tomorrow.  Sorry for starting so late.

64kbps listening test

Reply #115 –
@ScorLibran: no problem.


Well, the test will be closed in exactly 24 hours. After brazilian midnight (4AM GMT, 8PM California), I will accept no more result submissions and will start calculating the results.

For those that just noticed this thread, will have the day free tomorrow and want to help at least a little...

For some very strange reason, there are quite less results for samples 09 and 11, comparing to what I got for the other samples. Although what I have is most probably enough to obtain statistically significant values, the more results I have for each sample, the better.

So, if you didn't participate yet, or participated but didn't pick those samples, I invite you to test one of them, or both, and send the results to my e-mail address (available at the readme) before the mentioned deadline.

Thank-you very much.

Best regards;

Roberto.

64kbps listening test

Reply #116 –
Wait for me!

64kbps listening test

Reply #117 –
Quote
For some very strange reason, there are quite less results for samples 09 and 11, comparing to what I got for the other samples

Nothing strange, IMHO these are by far the easiest samples on the encoder and the hardest ones on the listeners. I think most people gave up because they couldn't identify more than one or two (or none) of the encoded clips.

Results sent.

64kbps listening test

Reply #118 –
Quote
Nothing strange, IMHO these are by far the easiest samples on the encoder and the hardest ones on the listeners. I think most people gave up because they couldn't identify more than one or two (or none) of the encoded clips.

Makes sense. Still, it's good to know that some easy samples came out of this test, it makes things more or less equilibrated with harder samples (Waiting, EnolaGay).

Quote
Results sent.


Thanks a lot.
 

64kbps listening test

Reply #119 –
Could you please enable some automated notification that the results arrived?
I've lost one file in 128k test due to my ISP.

BTW, did my results arrive?
ruxvilti'a

64kbps listening test

Reply #120 –
Quote
Could you please enable some automated notification that the results arrived?
I've lost one file in 128k test due to my ISP.

BTW, did my results arrive?

Similar experiences/concerns/question here. Another possibility would be publishing a list (without results) of all participants that have submitted results so far ... - if it's not too much of an effort, of course. So everyone who's not on the list can send the results again.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

64kbps listening test

Reply #121 –
Quote
Similar experiences/concerns/question here. Another possibility would be publishing a list (without results) of all participants that have submitted results so far ... - if it's not too much of an effort, of course. So everyone who's not on the list can send the results again.

Yes, probably the list would be a good idea. Although it might raise some concerns about privacy... (for those that chose not to have their names mentioned on the test results)

The notification function is also possible, if I create another yahoo mail account. Then I can set an appropiate auto-reply.
That would not be a good idea with my current account because it's what I use for all putposes. My friends would be thrilled to get auto-replys "your results have been received" when they send me e-mail :B

@AstralStorm: yes, I got your results.

64kbps listening test

Reply #122 –
Results sent!

And the result I'll remember the longest...Grado SR-80s hurt my ears!  That's it...I'm ordering Sennheisers tomorrow!  Not blaming Grado...they make great sounding cans.  My ears are just an odd size/shape, and they don't like the supra-aural Grados.  I just need something that doesn't press on them so much.

With the test, I could only do five out of twelve samples.  My dead-slow dial-up connection is downloading two more samples right now, one's at 23% and the other's at 29%.  They've been going for over an hour.  I wouldn't make it under the deadline waiting for them, so I sent what I was able to finish so far.  Maybe by the time of the next test I'll have DSL or something.

64kbps listening test

Reply #123 –
One hour to go. If you haven't sent your results yet, I invite you to do so now.


@ScorLibran: Thanks a lot. Next test will hopefully feature smaller sample packages.

64kbps listening test

Reply #124 –
Test is now CLOSED!

No result submissions will be accpeted from now on.

If people already want to start looking at their results and find out how they ranked each codec, here's the super-secret code that nearly everyone already broke:

1-MP3pro
2-Real Audio Gecko
3-WMA Std
4-FhG MP3
5-Lame MP3
6-HE AAC
7-LC AAC
8-Vorbis

Results out in a few hours.

Best regards, and huge thanks to everyone that participated.

Roberto.