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 @ 128kbps listening test discussion (Read 83302 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #100 –
Quote
If the participation at the listening test would be without restriction, and compaact! would rate good, nobody would believe it now anyway.

It's possible to make a comparison between 'trusted' users and outside users. If the results disagree significantly, you'll know something is amiss.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #101 –
Quote
-NCTU is in as an anchor.

I'm not sure NCTU is a very good anchor. It may be too good for anchor in samples which don't have strong attacks.
Juha Laaksonheimo

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #102 –
Quote
How strong this encryption is? What crypto system it uses?

ElGamal and BlowFish, in a Public Key environment (the test admin keeps the private key, as proper)

I believe you need to be a very good hacker to be able to fool the system.

Edit: More info:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=135744

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #103 –
Quote
Quote
If the participation at the listening test would be without restriction, and compaact! would rate good, nobody would believe it now anyway.

It's possible to make a comparison between 'trusted' users and outside users. If the results disagree significantly, you'll know something is amiss.

Good point. And with strong enough ecryption implementation, nobody won't even try any foul play..

Heh.. funny, but maybe this troll incident brought something good after all: It's definitely good that the encryption will be in use now!
Juha Laaksonheimo

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #104 –
Well, sucks that the poll didn't work out.

Quote
-Compaact and Real are in
-Winamp is out because it seems to be broken, so it would be unfair to test it now.

OK by me. I would have liked to see Winamp in the test (instead of Real), but if it's broken, well, can't change it.

Quote
-NCTU is in as an anchor.

I wouldn't mind that, if it's really clear that it is considerably inferior to all the other codecs. Otherwise, I'd prefer keeping the field of real contenders down to 5.

Quote
-The test will be encrypted and will require Java ABC-HR.

When were you planning on starting the test, again? I'm sure you mentioned it earlier, but I can't find it now. If you're not planning on starting it this weekend, I'll rework some of the encryption code and keep that source closed, so cheating will get even harder (I said it before, it's impossible to completely eliminate the possibility to cheat, simply because you need to give the user the right to encode his own results).

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #105 –
Quote
OK by me. I would have liked to see Winamp in the test (instead of Real), but if it's broken, well, can't change it.

Actually, I think it can be changed. A friend of mine contacted a developer inside nullsoft that will try to fix that. He has been told the deadline is tuesday afternoon next week :B

Quote
I wouldn't mind that, if it's really clear that it is considerably inferior to all the other codecs. Otherwise, I'd prefer keeping the field of real contenders down to 5.


I think I'll create a poll for anchor neverthless.

Quote
When were you planning on starting the test, again? I'm sure you mentioned it earlier, but I can't find it now. If you're not planning on starting it this weekend, I'll rework some of the encryption code and keep that source closed, so cheating will get even harder (I said it before, it's impossible to completely eliminate the possibility to cheat, simply because you need to give the user the right to encode his own results).


Perfect with me. The test start the next Wednesday (the 18th), so I need it ready by Wednesday morning.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #106 –
Quote
-Winamp is out because it seems to be broken, so it would be unfair to test it now.

Flames? Opinions? Comments?

we could wait (like for vorbis 1.0.1  )
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #107 –
Would like to see WinAmp in the test (if it is fixed by then). Perhaps that could be the "anchor"?

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #108 –
Quote
we could wait (like for vorbis 1.0.1  )

Vorbis was a f***ing scam that promised the release for "next week", but took months instead.

Nullsoft isn't promising anything, so it's even more risky. So, no. If they don't deliver on time, they're out.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #109 –
I did some tests with FAAD2 on Winamp AAC encoder generated files. And I can exactly reproduce the Winamp decoder output in FAAD2, by limiting the TNS filtering to 5 kHz. So this is surely a decoder only problem, the encoder is safe to use.

Menno

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #110 –
stupid troll....and please don't exclude members by time on the board. i've only been on here since early january but i would hate to be excluded.

that haveing been said, i'm glad to see compaact is in, its a shame that winamp is out (in out in out where is it now?), and real is iffy IMO. because they have a music store, i feel that it should be tested (a reason to buy from real instead of apple) but unless the container issue is fixed i won't end up using them.

NCTU might not be a good idea for anchor. it might be another Xing. it would make me more comfortable to have a piss-poor encoder as anchor instead of a possible contender. if the god's have chosen NCTU, so be it.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #111 –
I'm fine with the selected codeks. I was just wondering how is this encryption efekting us testers? I mean how is the test canged comparing to mp3 test?

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #112 –
Quote
I'm fine with the selected codeks. I was just wondering how is this encryption efekting us testers? I mean how is the test canged comparing to mp3 test?

The only difference for the testers is that you have to use another ABX program. (And that you can't modify your result after testing

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #113 –
Quote
The only difference for the testers is that you have to use another ABX program. (And that you can't modify your result after testing

Right. When you load the .ecf (Encrypted Config File) in Java ABC/HR, the files are randomized and loaded in proper places like it would happen if you loaded a .txt file in Win32 ABC/HR

Then, you save the results in an encrypted results file (I don't remember the extension right now), that you attach to a mail (preferably all results zipped into one) and send to me. At home I have the decrypting key.

Of course, once the test is finished, I'll make the decrypting key available so that you can check out your own results.

Regards;

Roberto.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #114 –
I will personally paint the town red with the corpse of the first guy messing with my new poll.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #115 –
Quote
I will personally paint the town red with the corpse of the first guy messing with my new poll.

you are being to violent latelly

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #116 –
Quote
Right. When you load the .ecf (Encrypted Config File) in Java ABC/HR, the files are randomized and loaded in proper places like it would happen if you loaded a .txt file in Win32 ABC/HR

So if I open the config file twice, samples are in different scorebar?

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #117 –
Quote
So if I open the config file twice, samples are in different scorebar?

Yes. And the same happens with Win32 ABC/HR

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #118 –
Quote
Of course, once the test is finished, I'll make the decrypting key available so that you can check out your own results.

Kudos Roberto for providing a way to see our own tests. (For me, my own test is as important as all other users tests together). Last test I took, all formats were transparent for me, except of course for the anchor and the format I was using for archives, so even though the encryption is unfortunately needed, so is the ability to check our own limitations.
Thanks! 

Now I guess there is only one question to be answered. LC or HE?
I guess this is like going to a XVid forum and ask people wether they use motion precision 5 or 6.
If we can get higher quality from HE why not use it? Because our portable won't suport it? Most players don't even support AAC, period.
New players will surely do, but what will you do then? Re-archive your 300(+) CD collection with HE? The only time I archived, it involved bringing around 30 CDs to my job everyday, and it took me over 2 weeks.
That is probably why they are still in OGG with just the most recent ones being backed up to Musepack.

I vote for HE, but I guess you can roll your eyes out 720º, and start another poll.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #119 –
Quote
Now I guess there is only one question to be answered. LC or HE?

HE is for low bitrates only (80kbps and lower). This test will be at 128kbps

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #120 –
Thanks for clearing that, I had no idea! 
I thought is was something like a higher quality mode...

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #121 –
2 Things:

1. From the 64kbps test and the 128kbps mp3 test I got the impression that my "experiencia" sample is too easy too encode / doesn't cause enough problems. I'd like to provide a similiar sample (same genre, female voice) that's harder to encode. In case you don't agree, please tell me - than I can stop spending time on this.

2. It has been said before here and in another thread - and I noticed it with the files I encoded for testing: Latest Nero encoder seems to give too high bitrate at medium setting. (135... 145-155...165 kbps here). Is your decision about use of medium fixed already?
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

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #122 –
Quote
1. From the 64kbps test and the 128kbps mp3 test I got the impression that my "experiencia" sample is too easy too encode / doesn't cause enough problems. I'd like to provide a similiar sample (same genre, female voice) that's harder to encode. In case you don't agree, please tell me - than I can stop spending time on this.

Oh, yes, please. It would be good to replace part of the samples, before people start getting tired of them.

Quote
2. It has been said before here and in another thread - and I noticed it with the files I encoded for testing: Latest Nero encoder seems to give too high bitrate at medium setting. (135... 145-155...165 kbps here). Is your decision about use of medium fixed already?


No, I didn't do the bitrate deviation analysis yet. I'm planning to do that this weeked. I'll probably settle for the bitrate that comes closer to 128.

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #123 –
OT discussion about results of multiformat tests split here. No more related discussion in this thread, please. Thank you.
____________________________________________

I've uploaded a sample to replace "experiencia" sample here .

Edit: I've tested it with 3 of the AAC codecs used in the test. This sample is comparable to the better ones in 128kbps lame test, I'd say. So I recommend to replace 'experiencia' by it.
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

AAC @ 128kbps listening test discussion

Reply #124 –
Thank-you tigre.

This is what I planned for sample replacements:

polonaise -> fossiles. Because everybody considered polonaise too damn hard in the MP3 test, let alone in this test.

Illinois -> fatboy. Illinois it a cool song, but it's also quite easy, and makes you sick of it too soon. Also, I want to see codecs bleed, that's why I want to replace it with fatboy  (although fatboy will probably lead to bitrate issues)

experiencia -> Quizás (read above posts) - again, a too easy sample.

EnolaGay -> OrdinaryWorld - by Duran Duran (a New Wave replacement) because in the MP3 test codecs got nearly all tied, I.E, the sample isn't good to diferentiate codecs, it seems. I hope the guitar play in the intro of Ordinary World will bring problems to some codecs.

@ErikS: I will look at the samples Guruboolez sent me to replace riteofspring. I'll upload it and post here as soon as I find something suitable.

Do I suck? Do I rule? Please post.

Regards;

Roberto.