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 public listening test (Read 54956 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

64kbps public listening test

Reply #100
Code: [Select]
7R File: .\Sample09\Polonaise_8.wav
7R Rating: 3.0
7R Comment: It all sounds subtly different.  Couldn't tell on a casual listen through.


I noticed on a couple of samples that if you listened through the whole 20 seconds, Vorbis sounded just fine to me, but if you start listening to short 1 second chunks and concentrated, you noticed a staggering difference between it and the original?

Would it be over-optimistic to suggest this was the intention, make a codec that sounds better in every-day use than on short bursts of concentration?

ps. Roberto - 1) Awesome test, badbwoy! 2) Thankyou for 4 mentions on the funnies list
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

64kbps public listening test

Reply #101
Quote
I noticed on a couple of samples that if you listened through the whole 20 seconds, Vorbis sounded just fine to me, but if you start listening to short 1 second chunks and concentrated, you noticed a staggering difference between it and the original?

Interesting concept...Subliminal Transparency.  You only *think* it's transparent if you hear it enough.

Wait...my whole collection is in Vorbis....-q 4.25..............Those Vorbis programmers fooled me!!!.......:fingers in ears:.....LALALALALALALALA.....not listening....not thinking about this.....it really IS transparent....all of it!!!......it's not just subliminal....

Especially worrisome considering I rated Vorbis below the low-anchor overall (8th out of 8).   

But seriously, I'm going to train myself to hear artifacts better before I pull out all my CDs and the FLAC encoder.  This test was a *big* wake up call for me.  But it's actually a big difference between 64kbps nominal and 136kbps nominal, so I'm not losing sleep either.

64kbps public listening test

Reply #102
Which CODEC was used for the Real test. Cook or ATRC0? Thanks.

webwonk




64kbps public listening test

Reply #106
Quote
Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

I'd like to point out, for the record, that it was not I who started the flaming.

Thanks.

64kbps public listening test

Reply #107
Quote
Quote
Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

I'd like to point out, for the record, that it was not I who started the flaming.

Thanks.

Nobody ever claimed so.

64kbps public listening test

Reply #108
Quote
Quote
Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

I'd like to point out, for the record, that it was not I who started the flaming.

Thanks.

Well.. I don't think there was/is any flamewar, we are strictly discussing in non-personal level. However, I'm expecting the promised clarification to the patent search issue (meaning documents or such online):
Please continue this discussion here (thread split):
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=13531
Juha Laaksonheimo

64kbps public listening test

Reply #109
Quote
...I've produced a spreadsheet of the results.  You can download it in OpenOffice (yay!) format here.  You can also get it in Excell (boo!) format here....

I've updated the spreadsheet - it now has a section on the far right that lets you get a summary of all the results of any one listener and compare to the averages.  Just enter a listener's handle (where it says "garf" in blue right now) and it will show all their scores and the difference between their scores and the averages.  It even highlights lows/highs for each codec in different colors.

ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf.  :-)  His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.
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 public listening test

Reply #110
Quote
Quote
...I've produced a spreadsheet of the results.  You can download it in OpenOffice (yay!) format here.  You can also get it in Excell (boo!) format here....

I've updated the spreadsheet - it now has a section on the far right that lets you get a summary of all the results of any one listener and compare to the averages.  Just enter a listener's handle (where it says "garf" in blue right now) and it will show all their scores and the difference between their scores and the averages.  It even highlights lows/highs for each codec in different colors.

ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf.  :-)  His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.

Cool thing to play with - thanks!
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 public listening test

Reply #112
Quote
Any reason the link doesn't work?

I'd really like to take a look at the site.

No reason at all - I just tried it and it came up fine.  Perhaps you could post what happens and I'll try to sort it out.

Cheers, Paul
audio.ciara.us sponsor

64kbps public listening test

Reply #113
Quote
ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf.  :-)  His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.


If I interpret the results correctly, for me HE-AAC is a clear winner with MP3Pro second, followed at some distance by WMA and only then Vorbis, which did only marginally better than RealAudio.

There's a goofy result in that I rated the low anchor up to 5.0 in one test, while giving the high anchor a 3.8.

64kbps public listening test

Reply #114
Quote
Quote
ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf.  :-)  His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.


If I interpret the results correctly, for me HE-AAC is a clear winner with MP3Pro second, followed at some distance by WMA and only then Vorbis, which did only marginally better than RealAudio.

There's a goofy result in that I rated the low anchor up to 5.0 in one test, while giving the high anchor a 3.8.

I had something similar, rating the low anchor at 5.0 on one sample, though the lowest rating I gave the high anchor was a 4.3.

Ironic it seems to me is that I rated Vorbis at this bitrate the lowest overall, slightly under the low anchor.  Ironic, since my entire collection is encoded in Vorbis, although at a bitrate that I tested on many tracks and found to be generally transparent to my ears.  Someone proposed that it may be that since I have listened to more Vorbis than any other codec recently, I may be more "tuned" to pick out artifacts with Vorbis.  I would have thought it would be the other way around...automatically tuning out Vorbis artifacts more than those of other codecs since I listen to Vorbis encodings every day.

Interesting psychoacoustic phenomena either way...

64kbps public listening test

Reply #115
Thanks to Both ErikS & rjamorim for their replies to my query (Was the Real CODEC cook or atrc0 - it was Cook), now the follow-up. Was there a reason for not including ATRC0 (Real's 66kbs ATRAC3 implementation) - besides, of course, the obvious difference of 66 and 64kbs. As they are so close, It would be interesting to see how ATRC0 compares to HE-AAC. Has anyone tried this? Any insight would be most appreciated. Thanks again for a very interesting test and subsequent discussion.

Sincerely,

Webwonk.

 

64kbps public listening test

Reply #116
Quote
Was there a reason for not including ATRC0 (Real's 66kbs ATRAC3 implementation) - besides, of course, the obvious difference of 66 and 64kbs. As they are so close, It would be interesting to see how ATRC0 compares to HE-AAC. Has anyone tried this? Any insight would be most appreciated.

There is a pre-test thread with discussion about what codecs to include etc, you might find some answers there.
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

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021