Lame 3.96 (test version) pre-echo test
Reply #5 – 2004-01-21 14:18:17
ABC/HR results for the same sample:ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002 Testname: lame preecho - sample: quitate.wav 1L = N:\quitate_test_aps.wav 2R = N:\quitate_3.95.1_aps.wav 3R = N:\Quitate.3.90.3_aps.wav --------------------------------------- General Comments: for ABX used 0.0-1.5. For differences see rankings (sample 3 = 3.0 etc.) --------------------------------------- 1L File: N:\quitate_test_aps.wav 1L Rating: 4.0 1L Comment: preecho --------------------------------------- 2R File: N:\quitate_3.95.1_aps.wav 2R Rating: 3.6 2R Comment: preecho --------------------------------------- 3R File: N:\Quitate.3.90.3_aps.wav 3R Rating: 3.0 3R Comment: preecho --------------------------------------- ABX Results: Original vs N:\quitate_test_aps.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004 Original vs N:\quitate_3.95.1_aps.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004 Original vs N:\Quitate.3.90.3_aps.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004 N:\quitate_test_aps.wav vs N:\quitate_3.95.1_aps.wav 13 out of 15, pval = 0.004 N:\quitate_test_aps.wav vs N:\Quitate.3.90.3_aps.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004 N:\quitate_3.95.1_aps.wav vs N:\Quitate.3.90.3_aps.wav 8 out of 8, pval = 0.004 Note that ABXing the mp3 samples against each other was quite hard. The ratings 3.0 for 3.90.3 and 4.0 for 3.95.1 exaggerate the differences between them. The difference between the best mp3 and the original is still (I'd say 3 times) bigger than between the mp3s. I think it could be even possible, that other listeners rate the mp3s in another order.