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: AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN (Read 21795 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #50 –
I'd be glad to visit Brasil to take part in such professional test  On account of RareWares, Inc.

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #51 –
Quote
I'd be glad to visit Brasil to take part in such professional test   On account of RareWares, Inc.

Get Ahead to donate some money to the fund and I promise your encoder will have "Special treatment ™" *wink* *wink*

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #52 –
Results sent.

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #53 –
What would you do in this situation: I have three codecs, which sound about the same to me. I can reliably ABX no. 1 from no. 3 but I can't ABX no. 2 from either of them. Should I rate them all the same (although I'm convinced no. 3 sounds better than no. 1) or should I rate no. 3 higher than 1 and 2 (although I can't ABX 2 from 3)?

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #54 –
Quote
Quote
- I need Win32 binaries for FAAC 1.23.5, as I've no clue on how to compile them myself. Could somebody mail it to me, subject "FAAC 1.23.5"? Thanks...


http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/faac.exe
Kudos to Spoon for the binary.

A bit off topic, apologies...
Will this FAAC version be put up on Rarewares?  It would be nice to have a non-remote-linking link to share with folks.

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #55 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
- I need Win32 binaries for FAAC 1.23.5, as I've no clue on how to compile them myself. Could somebody mail it to me, subject "FAAC 1.23.5"? Thanks...


http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/faac.exe
Kudos to Spoon for the binary.

A bit off topic, apologies...
Will this FAAC version be put up on Rarewares?  It would be nice to have a non-remote-linking link to share with folks.

The binary is hosted off-shore because it would be highly illegal in the US, where the HA servers are (thats what I remember anyway)

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #56 –
Quote
Quote
A bit off topic, apologies...
Will this FAAC version be put up on Rarewares?  It would be nice to have a non-remote-linking link to share with folks.

The binary is hosted off-shore because it would be highly illegal in the US, where the HA servers are (thats what I remember anyway)

Actually, RareWares isn't even hosted at HA anymore (starting today, actually). Check my sig...
And there is no problem in only linking, I guess, since the actual binaries stay at a brazilian server. Else, this thread would be illegal too

@Moguta: I'll link it at RareWares' AAC page soon.

Regards;

Roberto.

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #57 –
Quote
What would you do in this situation: I have three codecs, which sound about the same to me. I can reliably ABX no. 1 from no. 3 but I can't ABX no. 2 from either of them. Should I rate them all the same (although I'm convinced no. 3 sounds better than no. 1) or should I rate no. 3 higher than 1 and 2 (although I can't ABX 2 from 3)?

I personally have no idea :/

Any thoughts from someone else?

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #58 –
Quote
Quote
What would you do in this situation: I have three codecs, which sound about the same to me. I can reliably ABX no. 1 from no. 3 but I can't ABX no. 2 from either of them. Should I rate them all the same (although I'm convinced no. 3 sounds better than no. 1) or should I rate no. 3 higher than 1 and 2 (although I can't ABX 2 from 3)?

I personally have no idea :/

Any thoughts from someone else?

Rate 2 directly in between 1 & 3?

It sounds like 1 & 3 are far enough apart to be ABXed, but 2 is too close in quality to both to be differentiated... that's where my suggestion is coming from.

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #59 –
Quote
Rate 2 directly in between 1 & 3?

It sounds like 1 & 3 are far enough apart to be ABXed, but 2 is too close in quality to both to be differentiated... that's where my suggestion is coming from.

Yes, that was my first idea, too. The problem is, this is speculation. 2 might be exactly the same as 3, so it would be unfair to rate it lower. Or it could be the same as 1, thus it would be unfair to rate 1 lower than 2.

Anyway, it's a purely theoretical problem by now. I tried it again today, and managed to ABX 1 from 2, so I rated 2 and 3 the same and higher than 1. Actually, it wasn't meant all that serious in the first place. Practically, you can't justify all your rankings by ABX tests, anyway, so technically there's always some speculation in those ABC/HR test results (in a public listening test this "noise" would get evened out if the number of participants is big enough).

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #60 –
You worked it out, cool.  ^^

Quote
(in a public listening test this "noise" would get evened out if the number of participants is big enough).

Yeah... like 100 to 1000 people.  Too bad we don't have those kinds of resources.  =p
 

AAC at 128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #61 –
Listening test is now CLOSED

Expect results to be posted real soon...

Regards;

Roberto.