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: Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3 (Read 29311 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #50 –
Tried one of my own samples at preset standard: "Cirillo - Cristallo" from the "Eye Trance 04" sampler. It has a relatively quiet section with sharp attacks which are slightly reverbed.

I blindly ranked 3951 lower but I later tried abxing it against 3903 without getting any significant results (I also felt like I was guessing). I stopped at 3/8.
3903.mp3 ... 635079 bytes
3951.mp3 ... 626224 bytes

Code: [Select]
ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: cirillo lame aps test

1R = G:\NewMP3s\lame-aps\cirillo\3951_dec.wav
2L = G:\NewMP3s\lame-aps\cirillo\3903_dec.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1R File: G:\NewMP3s\lame-aps\cirillo\3951_dec.wav
1R Rating: 3.0
1R Comment: pre-echo worse than the other sample
---------------------------------------
2L File: G:\NewMP3s\lame-aps\cirillo\3903_dec.wav
2L Rating: 4.0
2L Comment: pre-echo
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs G:\NewMP3s\lame-aps\cirillo\3951_dec.wav
    8 out of 8, pval = 0.004
Original vs G:\NewMP3s\lame-aps\cirillo\3903_dec.wav
    8 out of 8, pval = 0.004

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']edit: was missing an "r"[/span]

Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3

Reply #51 –
Quote
Testname: BeautySlept --preset standard

Where can I get the sample?
ruxvilti'a