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: Plans for an ABC/HR test (Read 19640 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #50 –
Finally I had the possibility to start. I will do these tests as very short sessions and take breaks to refresh my hearing anytime I feel I need it, so I expect them to take a lot of time to be completed.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #51 –
I succesfully finished the test of the first sample. @Porcus (sorry for third time pinging) Was that what you meant by the first test? If yes, what do you mean by "evaluate"?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #52 –
Quote from: Klymins on
I succesfully finished the test of the first sample. @Porcus (sorry for third time pinging) Was that what you meant by the first test?
I wasn't quite sure what you wanted me to clarify, but I thought I answered it in reply 45. Then don't take my word for it, but guruboolez thought it was a good idea.

Quote from: Klymins on
If yes, what do you mean by "evaluate"?
Do a much shorter test first, and then "evaluate" meaning: 
* were these codecs and settings anything to make sense out of?
* if not, what codecs and settings should you use for The Big Test?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #53 –
Looks like I'm really confused. The test of the first sample in the first test was quite successfull, so I think continuing this test makes sense, am I right? And, is there something I should do before testing the second sample (still in the first test)?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #54 –
I'm continuing with the second sample.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #55 –
I just noticed that the sample VelvetRealm Techno (from Kamedo2) has obvious background noise, is that deliberate?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #56 –
What do you mean by deliberate?
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #57 –
Is this sample containing obvious background noise an advantage and thus it was deliberately chosen or modified this way?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #58 –
Samples are usually coming from CD (today: digital download)
Is it an advantage? test and you will see. Noise may cause a problem with one encoder but not with others.
This sample was chosen on purpose not because of existing noise but for revealing sound issues with an (old) encoder (this sample is old, from MP3 era).
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #59 –
Thanks.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #60 –
This test is hard for me, and I'm thinking of simplifying it and starting again (I completed three samples only). I'm thinking of removing MP3Enc@80kbps, MP3Enc@128kbps, and Helix@160kbps; do you think this choice is good, and do you think this simplification will worth it? (There may be another MP3 test for high bitrates, and this would be for ensuring at least one configuration is transparent with all samples.)

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #61 –
Can you summarize what you are currently testing?
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #62 –
As said in Reply#13 and Reply#27, Helix@[112,128,160]+MP3Enc@[80,96,112,128]+MP3S[128,144] with all of them being 44100Hz (the missing units are kbps) + 20kbps Opus as low anchor.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #63 –
I would absolutely keep all three encoders at 128 kbps for comparison.
I would remove the 80 kbps and 96 settings. Helix 160 kbps can also be discarded as suggested.

Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #64 –
I don't want to remove 96kbps because it sounds pretty good to me with some tracks (looks like I'm going to add more samples for a fair comparison too). I think MP3Enc 128kbps significantly contributes to the difficulty, and I wanted to remove it because I assumed that MP3 Surround will never be worse than MP3Enc for this bitrate; are there cases where MP3Enc@128kbps sounds better than MP3S@128kbps? Or is there another reason for keeping it?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #65 –
Be realistic, the world moved on from 96...112 kbps MP3s a long time ago. You might be the last person on Earth interested in MP3 codecs that were abandoned decades ago. I don't think anyone can guide you through the abandoned graveyard of MP3. If you think some of your choices aren't suitable, remove them without asking for advice that won't come. Cheers
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #66 –
I don't think you are being realistic. MP3 is not abandoned. I think this is my third time saying this but many players support nothing else than MP3 or MP3 and WMA as lossy codecs (I don't think WMA is really superior to MP3) - I (partially) have at least three of these. Besides, you know but this series of tests is absolutely not limited to MP3; many other codecs will also be tested if I don't get unable to do that.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #67 –
When did I say that MP3 is abandoned by users? I indicated that hardly anyone uses MP3 at bitrate lower than 128 kbps, and that you must be the only person on this planet interested in dusty encoders and deliberately neglecting those that are still widely used. I don't know what kind of help can be provided to you on this point.

BTW, apart from screenless audio players sold on Aliexpress for the price of a pack of noodles, which players manufactured in the last ten years do not support at least AAC (mp4)?


EDIT: My apologies. You're apparently two in this forum using MP3 at 112 kbps or below:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,126924.0.html
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #68 –
Why do you discard players manufactured more than ten years ago?

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #69 –
That's a pertinent remark. I would say that most players produced in the 2000s, which indeed primarily supported MP3 and WMA, likely have batteries in poor condition by now. Given the current prices of devices, most users have probably preferred to replace their Creative MuVo or Microsoft Zune with something more affordable or simply use their phone instead. At least in the most economically advanced parts of the world.
It is quite possible that in other regions, many inexpensive devices that only support MP3 are still in circulation. This would make the quest for the most efficient MP3 encoders at minimal bitrates perfectly legitimate. However, it still wouldn't explain some methodological choices made (like discarding LAME).
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #70 –
Why do you assume that I'm talking about players with built-in batteries? (Also worth noting, a non-ingorable amount of people including me develop feelings for their devices.)

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #71 –
I think it's fair to assume that people who are using devices over 10 years old that play little more than MP3s, whether, or not, they are 'attached' to their devices, are hardly likely to subscribe to HA. The same comment would apply to those in parts of the world where affordability of more recent and capable devices might be a financial challenge.

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #72 –
Quote from: Klymins on
Why do you assume that I'm talking about players with built-in batteries? (Also worth noting, a non-ingorable amount of people including me develop feelings for their devices.)
I assume this based on what I see outside, on the streets, on online store pages, and in shops. I believe that the number of users of devices that only decode MP3 and are powered by AA or any form or removable batteries that doesn't cost more than the player itself now constitute a small minority.
You're talking about "many players" but you didn't mentioned one.
I'll stop going off-topic. No offense, but I don't understand anything about your test, your methodology, or the purpose of your quest. It seems so far from what most people are looking here. I wish you to enjoy yourself.
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #73 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
Why do you assume that I'm talking about players with built-in batteries? (Also worth noting, a non-ingorable amount of people including me develop feelings for their devices.)
I assume this based on what I see outside, on the streets, on online store pages, and in shops. I believe that the number of users of devices that only decode MP3 and are powered by AA or any form or removable batteries that doesn't cost more than the player itself now constitute a small minority.
You're talking about "many players" but you didn't mentioned one.
I'll stop going off-topic. No offense, but I don't understand anything about your test, your methodology, or the purpose of your quest. It seems so far from what most people are looking here. I wish you to enjoy yourself.
I'll mention three: A portable music player that is powered by 1xAAA, a car CD and FM player powered by the car, and a DFPlayer powered by whatever you want.
 

Re: Plans for an ABC/HR test

Reply #74 –
I announce that while this work/project has been stalled for almost three weeks now because of multiple reasons, it is not cancelled.

While not the only reason for the past of course, the reason that it is still stalled is that the Java ABC/HR tool has so many problems. Very manual and mistake-prone (in multiple ways) preparation stage, no remembrance, no quick session savings, no rated slider or rating emphasization, stucking sliders (yes literally), and possibly more. And since apparently there are no better alternatives, I considered making my own ABC/HR tool. I'm open for suggestions about that.

And, about the test itself: I'll divide it further. The first one will only contain 128kbps MP3s including LAME (along with the low anchor). I'll also change the sample list.