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: New Listening Test (Read 105860 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New Listening Test

Reply #101 –
I would personally like to see WMA and WMA pro tested.  At the very least, WMA Pro.  I think that around here, there might be a lot of anti-microsoft and anti-WMA sentiment, and I think that it needs to be given the fair chance that other codecs get.

That way, when it turns out to suck, at least there is some quantitative and objective proof.

New Listening Test

Reply #102 –
Quote
It may be interesting to see how big the different between he-aac and other competitors is.
That is not interesting that is silly, I want real test with with good enemies where a little thing can change all war LOL

New Listening Test

Reply #103 –
Quote from: Dzamburu on
@Gabriel why to work with mp3 and LC-AAC when they can be good at that bitrate. And why doing this test when we know the winner. Vorbis or WMA 9 can't beat Nero HE-AAC now. Wait for WMA 10

Because those tests are not done just to know who is the winner. Relative rankings between codecs, changes of ranking according to samples and the likes are also very interesting. (at least top me)


Quote from: Dzamburu on
In this case can You provide here e-mail of copyright holders, maybe we(community) can write petition to them.

You need to get back into reality...

New Listening Test

Reply #104 –
Quote
Because those tests are not done just to know who is the winner
It is so hard to everyone see that mp3/LC-AAC is not good @ 48kbs. Better that do a test @ 80kbs becouse every codec in that bitrate can prove something.

New Listening Test

Reply #105 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Aren't Sony Ericsson phones able to play HE-AAC? AFAIK, W800i can, while I don't know about K750i.

They are playing it in hardware and not in software mode? Then I stand corrected.


Quote from: Dzamburu on
Quote
Because those tests are not done just to know who is the winner
It is so hard to everyone see that mp3/LC-AAC is not good @ 48kbs.

Answer is the same: those tests are not done just to know who is the winner.

New Listening Test

Reply #107 –
Quote
Answer is the same: those tests are not done just to know who is the winner.
So when WMA 10 or similar codec came out you will open new test @ 48kbs right.

New Listening Test

Reply #108 –
Quote
They are playing it in hardware and not in software mode? Then I stand corrected.


What is the difference anyway?  There is no "hardware" HE-AAC chip as far as I know of (except Nero's AAC and Digital Radio Mondiale IP core offerings)

So most of the decoders built in todays phones are just using standard ARM or TIC54x AAC decoders (software binary code, that is) running on typical host CPUs  (ARM9, ARM11, Freescale mx21/31, TI-OMAP, Intel XScale, etc...)  -  where exactly that decoder code reside;  in phone ROM, or somewhere on the memory storage has nothing to do with the "nature" of the codec - all these codecs are software codecs in their essenc.e and performance

Only difference is, as Garf pointed out - is this particular software package coming integrated on the phone by OxM / Carrier,  or do you need to download/install the module/application afterwards (e.g. after-market software)

Quote
So when WMA 10 or similar codec came out you will open new test @ 48kbs right.


I think there is an ongoing effort by Sebastian to try to get permission for testing of the WMA10 Pro codec, which is shipping with Vista CTP.

If that goes through and Sebastian manages to test  HE-AAC, Vorbis, WMA9 and WMA10  I seriously don't think that the proponents of stereo 48 kbps will change in the next 2 years(*) - this test will be a landmark.


(*) Unless we see Vorbis-II

New Listening Test

Reply #109 –
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
What is the difference anyway?  There is no "hardware" HE-AAC chip as far as I know of (except Nero's AAC and Digital Radio Mondiale IP core offerings)

I was thinking about usability because of the battery life.

New Listening Test

Reply #110 –
Quote
I think there is an ongoing effort by Sebastian to try to get permission for testing of the WMA10 Pro codec, which is shipping with Vista CTP
I have lastest beta of vista installed and i have WMA 10 but i can test becouse is only MP10 support him but nothing under 96kbs.

Quote
I seriously don't think that the proponents of stereo 48 kbps will change in the next 2 years
You think that any codec can defeat Nero until next 2 years. I newer work with vorbis so where i can download that vorbis 2, i wanna se how vorbis can beat Nero.

New Listening Test

Reply #111 –
Quote from: Gabriel on
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on

What is the difference anyway?  There is no "hardware" HE-AAC chip as far as I know of (except Nero's AAC and Digital Radio Mondiale IP core offerings)

I was thinking about usability because of the battery life.


Hmm - but if we have 2 decoders:

a) One shipped in the Phone ROM (firmware) running on, say ARM9

b) One shipped as software application (on, e.g. SD card), also running on ARM9

If these two codecs are equally optimized - what is the difference to the battery life then?

Quote from: Dzamburu on
Quote
I think there is an ongoing effort by Sebastian to try to get permission for testing of the WMA10 Pro codec, which is shipping with Vista CTP
I have lastest beta of vista installed and i have WMA 10 but i can test becouse is only MP10 support him but nothing under 96kbs.


This is not true - you are doing something wrong then.  I am quite sure you can get 48 kbps

Quote
Quote
I seriously don't think that the proponents of stereo 48 kbps will change in the next 2 years
You think that any codec can defeat Nero until next 2 years.


I think we don't have a clear communication - no I don't think "any codec can defeat Nero until next 2 years" but I have a sense that you wanted to say something else?

Quote
I newer work with vorbis so where i can download that vorbis 2, i wanna se how vorbis can beat Nero.


I wanna see that too at low bitrates

New Listening Test

Reply #112 –
Quote
I am quite sure you can get 48 kbps
Maybe i do some hack into registry i will see. It is not wrong becouse mp3 have range 128-256kbs.

Quote
I think we don't have a clear communication - no I don't think "any codec can defeat Nero until next 2 years" but I have a sense that you wanted to say something else?
You understand me but i don't understand you so my mistake

Quote
I wanna see that too at low bitrates
What is name of that algorithm which use vorbis to beat SBR. So where to find that vorbis 2

When this test will be openend?

New Listening Test

Reply #113 –
No offense, but whenever I read one of Dzamburu's posts, I get very confused.

There is no Vorbis 2. As far as I understood Ivan, he pointed out that there won't be any major changes at 48 kbps unless something like a Vorbis 2 comes out and therefore there is no need to do any additional 48 kbps tests in the near future (after this one).

New Listening Test

Reply #114 –
Having just got a k750i I can say that it supports playback of he-aac via the inbuilt media player, and are treated exactly the same as any other sound file (mp3, midi, etc).  It also supports mp4 video, but I haven't investigated this feature fully.

I assume that the addition of mp4 support, is because the phone networks will be using it to deliver content via GPRS or 3G.

New Listening Test

Reply #115 –
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
Hmm - but if we have 2 decoders:

a) One shipped in the Phone ROM (firmware) running on, say ARM9

b) One shipped as software application (on, e.g. SD card), also running on ARM9

If these two codecs are equally optimized - what is the difference to the battery life then?

In this case, there is no difference.
I just think that on devices supporting AAC-LC using decoding hardware, there is a battery advantage against the same device decoding HE-AAC in software, and so AAC-LC might have some advantages in some cases (due to the lack of HE decoding chip).
Let's consider iPods or some old Nokia phones: they have AAC-LC decoding chips, but if you want to add support for HE-AAC to them, it must be done using a software player. In this case, AAC-LC (using chip) will provider better battery life.

All this just to explain that to me there is an interest in including AAC-LC in the test (could be the low anchor)

New Listening Test

Reply #116 –
Just a small clarification - there is no LC-AAC decoding chip, either (unless one I mentioned, in IP-core form)

So, even a LC-AAC is done in software in any case.  Of course, this still means what you claimed - that HE-AAC will consume more battery, but purely to the algorithm complexity itself.

For example, one state-of-the-art decoder known to me works like this:

LC-AAC, Stereo 44.1 kHz:  24 MHz
HE-AAC, Stereo 44.1 kHz:  78 MHz

This is the test done on the real ARM9 powered device, with real memory (no marketing-tuned benchmarks done on ARMulator with simulation of zero-wait-state memory, etc...) and real AAC content (not some "benchmark signal")

So, it is to be expected that HE-AAC will consume more battery than LC-AAC, but this could be tested only in the real-world conditions - it could also be possible that this MHz impact does not play significant rule (some other parts of the DAP consume more battery - e.g. display + sound amplifier + in case of mobile phone RF chipset, etc..)

New Listening Test

Reply #117 –
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
Just a small clarification - there is no LC-AAC decoding chip, either (unless one I mentioned, in IP-core form)

So, even a LC-AAC is done in software in any case.

So I was totally wrong then. I thought that the aac/mp3 decoding done on the N-Gage was using a specific decoding chip, not a "generic" DSP. (for sure it's not done on the main ARM processor, although it would be fast enough))

New Listening Test

Reply #118 –
Most likely, if the multimedia applications processor is TI-OMAP, as it is in many phones (dunno for Nokia)  MP3/AAC code is usually executed on the C54x/C55x part of the Chip. 

As you migh know, OMAP chips have "dual" core - one is ARM9/11 and other is DSP C54x/C55x - so it is possible to shift decoding to whatever is more suitable for the particular use case of the product - and leave the other unit to do something else (e.g. render video

New Listening Test

Reply #119 –
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
- Scoring from 0 to 100, istead of 1 to 5


Damn, I find it hard already to decide if a codec gets 4.3 or 4.4. Having a range between 0 and 100 is overkill IMHO.

Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
- Rearranging the panel so there are just test samples and hidden reference,  not a hidden reference paired with each sample (useless IMO for 48 kbps, as differences are clearly bigger than a need to blindly identify the orignal against each sample - it just puts too much efforts for the testers without a particular need)


My hearing is not the best (it sucks actually), but there were several encodes in Gabriel's listening test that I barely distinguished from the reference file. Also, having the reference grouped with the encoded sample makes it easier for me to see if someone didn't actually move the sliders randomly.

New Listening Test

Reply #120 –
Quote
Damn, I find it hard already to decide if a codec gets 4.3 or 4.4. Having a range between 0 and 100 is overkill IMHO.
I agree with you, range 0-100 is silly.

So what gona be

Nero HE-AAC
Vorbis 2 this Aotuv beta 5
WMA 9 is not good oppontent so can we use WMA 10. i can force vista and MP10 to use 48kbs

New Listening Test

Reply #121 –
Quote
I agree with you, range 0-100 is silly.


It is the range standardized in ITU for the ITU-R BS.1534 recommendation - testing of audio signals with large impairment, such as codecs at 48 kbps.

I will comment later on that subject.

New Listening Test

Reply #122 –
I think 0-100 is a good choice -- if no fractional increments are allowed.  The low anchor would probably be around 10-20, generally, and transparency is at 100.  Different levels of annoyance are in between, and if it has NOTHING to do with the original signal, it's 0.

New Listening Test

Reply #123 –
Quote
It is the range standardized in ITU for the ITU-R BS.1534 recommendation
But if that recommendation valid should be then used on test.