Classical samples suit
Reply #18 – 2003-10-27 22:29:32
I've just finished my tests. I will see later for the decoded file (please, precise for which encoder). ##1 ##2 ##3 ##4 | slow | 2.5.5.8 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.3 | 2.5 2.5.6.2 2.5 4.0 3.0 3.3 | 3.5 2.5.6.3 3.0 4.0 2.5 2.8 | 3.5 2.5.6.8 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 | 1.3 2.5.6.9 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 | 1.0 2.5.7.4 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 | 1.4 2.5.7.5 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 | 1.4 2.5.7.6 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.5 | 1.3 The four first tests were made very quickly: I called them blitztest. Purpose of these tests are to see if I'm able to immediatly detect the encoded one, and to give a very approximate notation. Hierarchy isn't reliable, because perception chage a lot between first file and last one. Nevertheless, I tried to be slightly more precise on test #3 and test #4. It appears that two encoder are really better : 2.5.6.2 and 2.5.6.3. Both are followed by official 2.5.5.8 All encoders released with and after 2.5.6.8 are in my mind horribly distorted. With the lest test I performed the notation was more precise. I took my time for listen them many times, in order to draw a precise hierarchy. Again, two winners I couldn't differenciate (2.5.6.2/6.3) and another one, behind but less annoying than all others (2.5.5. The five last releases I have are clearly worse here. 2.5.6.9 is possibly worse than others. I'm not really able to differenciate four of them. P.S. I focused my attention on two first seconds (blitz test) of QUESTO_CORE sample, the more destroyed. Some parts of this sample are not "awful" with latest encoder. Nevertheless, my overall impression is very, very negative.