Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Listening Tests => Topic started by: softrunner on 2012-07-19 19:17:24

Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-19 19:17:24
Small piece of Fighter Beat track, looped several times. It kills all lossy codecs on all beatrates.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: greynol on 2012-07-19 19:25:59
It's not enough to say it, you need to provide ABX logs in order to comply with our terms, especially when making incredible claims like the one you just made.

BTW what's a beatrate?
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: lvqcl on 2012-07-19 20:01:30
There was a thread where this track was mentioned: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57783 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57783) , posts 10-14
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-19 20:53:07
Quote
There was a thread where this track was mentioned: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57783 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57783) , posts 10-14

Yes, I know. I just looped the most hard for encoders part of it, so that the difference can be heard more clearly.
Quote
It's not enough to say it, you need to provide ABX logs in order to comply with our terms, especially when making incredible claims like the one you just made.

My iRiver player does not support lossless, so I use Vorbis q10, and I can hear the difference between it and Vorbis Q9, Musepack q10 and Nero AAC Q1 (max. bitrate). It looks like converted tracks sounds slightly quieter, almost indistinguishable. Dont know why, but on PC it is harder to hear this difference (maybe because it is AC97?). Probably, I should try test it more strenuously.
Anyway, this sample is the best I could find for testing audio codecs for myself, and I hope people who make listening tests pay attention to it.
Quote
BTW what's a beatrate?

LOL, the same as Fighter Bit.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: LithosZA on 2012-07-19 21:34:03
I quickly tested(Not ABX) the sample with Vorbis at 160Kbps and Opus at 160Kbps CVBR.
The Vorbis encode sounds very different from the original. With the Opus encode I don't know if I am actually hearing a difference or not. I probably will have to do an ABX.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: greynol on 2012-07-19 21:37:01
I quickly tried both Nero from 7-Feb 2006 using -q 0.3 -lc and Lame 3.98.4 -V3 and do not believe I would be able to pass an ABX test.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: mjb2006 on 2012-07-19 22:53:08
I quickly tried both Nero from 7-Feb 2006 using -q 0.3 -lc and Lame 3.98.4 -V3 and do not believe I would be able to pass an ABX test.

Same here; files I produced with these parameters all sound alike to me:

Oggenc 2.87/libVorbis 1.3.3 -q 0.5 [same as -b 160]
NeroAAC 1.5.1.0 -q 0.57
LAME 3.99.5 -b 320
Fraunhofer MP3S 1.5/lib4.01.01 -br 320000 -q 1

So yeah, "kills all lossy codecs on all btrates" is an overstatement. I have to question the reports in the aforementioned thread as well.

@softrunner - Please take the time to run ABX tests in foobar2000. In the meantime, I suggest this thread be retitled by an admin to just "Fighter Beat loop" with the subtitle "possible problem sample for Ogg Vorbis encoder; ABX testing needed". Or something along those lines.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: ExUser on 2012-07-19 23:05:42
5/5 first time with both LAME -V4 and Vorbis -q5, both the most recent rarewares releases. I actually got LAME backwards, 0/5, but I could tell the difference. The encode sounded marginally better than the original to me... >_>
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: Porcus on 2012-07-20 14:52:33
Never thought that such a regular sample could be that badass. Encoding with lame -V0 gives a bitrate of 314, so it certainly knows it is up against something. I've never seen anything like that.

Some of my highest-bitrate FLACs, do end up between 245 and 255 when lame -0'ed. Including the least-compressible harpsichord piece I have.

In the lossless department: TAK -p4m encodes at 1037.  FLAC -8 encodes at 978, that's 5.7% better. WavPack extra high at 837. That's a 14.5 percent better than FLAC -8 and 19 percent better than TAK -p4m.  I have never before seen any sample where TAK -p4m is beaten by 200 kb/s.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-20 23:47:18
Ok, now I've done an ABX test of MP3 on PC, because MP3 is too obviouse to recognize.
Codec is LAME3.99. Original file was converted into MP3 320 kbps (maximum quality) with Foobar2000:
(http://s12.postimage.org/5dnfqcpq1/111.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/5dnfqcpq1/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.13
2012/07/21 01:31:58

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Fighter_Beat_Loop.mp3

01:31:58 : Test started.
01:37:11 : 01/01  50.0%
01:39:35 : 02/02  25.0%
01:55:14 : 03/03  12.5%
01:57:05 : 04/04  6.3%
01:59:20 : 05/05  3.1%
02:01:50 : 06/06  1.6%
02:04:59 : 07/07  0.8%
02:08:29 : 08/08  0.4%
02:09:40 : 09/09  0.2%
02:13:03 : 10/10  0.1%
02:16:46 : 11/11  0.0%
02:18:15 : 12/12  0.0%
02:19:17 : 13/13  0.0%
02:20:25 : 14/14  0.0%
02:23:11 : 15/15  0.0%
02:23:46 : 16/16  0.0%
02:25:42 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 16/16 (0.0%)

(http://s16.postimage.org/uoqrqdimp/image.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/uoqrqdimp/)

The difference in files is that in the original sample there is a sharp background scratch, and in the mp3 sample it is smoothed so that I just cannot here this information there.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-22 17:56:05
Here is another test:
Vorbis Q7 (333 kbps)
(http://s13.postimage.org/nqfo6pqub/q7_file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/nqfo6pqub/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/22 20:38:10

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Vorbis q7).ogg

20:38:10 : Test started.
20:38:57 : 00/01  100.0%
20:39:15 : 01/02  75.0%
20:39:57 : 02/03  50.0%
20:40:07 : 03/04  31.3%
20:41:05 : 04/05  18.8%
20:41:44 : 05/06  10.9%
20:42:25 : 06/07  6.3%
20:42:45 : 07/08  3.5%
20:43:44 : 08/09  2.0%
20:45:22 : 09/10  1.1%
20:46:22 : 10/11  0.6%
20:48:02 : 11/12  0.3%
20:48:55 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/12 (0.3%)

The same story: no sharpness in the background noise (right channel).
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: LithosZA on 2012-07-22 18:02:48
Have you tried Opus with this sample?
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-22 18:14:11
Vorbis q8 (bitrate 376 kbps):

(http://s18.postimage.org/gjn62bfat/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/gjn62bfat/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/22 21:01:15

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Vorbis q8).ogg

21:01:15 : Test started.
21:02:51 : 01/01  50.0%
21:03:28 : 02/02  25.0%
21:05:15 : 03/03  12.5%
21:05:52 : 04/04  6.3%
21:06:21 : 05/05  3.1%
21:07:00 : 06/06  1.6%
21:08:19 : 07/07  0.8%
21:08:46 : 08/08  0.4%
21:09:16 : 09/09  0.2%
21:10:01 : 10/10  0.1%
21:10:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)

Quote
Have you tried Opus with this sample?

I'll do it later.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: greynol on 2012-07-22 21:26:02
Provide results for mpc and aac and I think we've got our bases covered.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-23 00:26:52
Musepack q8 (350 kbps)
(http://s12.postimage.org/re5mcim5l/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/re5mcim5l/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 03:16:51

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Musepack q8).mpc

03:16:51 : Test started.
03:17:42 : 01/01  50.0%
03:18:15 : 02/02  25.0%
03:18:29 : 03/03  12.5%
03:19:18 : 04/04  6.3%
03:19:48 : 05/05  3.1%
03:20:04 : 06/06  1.6%
03:20:40 : 07/07  0.8%
03:21:03 : 08/08  0.4%
03:21:34 : 09/09  0.2%
03:22:03 : 10/10  0.1%
03:22:13 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-23 01:05:46
Nero AAC q0.9 (374 kbps)
(http://s11.postimage.org/6t466eubz/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/6t466eubz/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 03:36:14

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Nero AAC q0.9).m4a

03:36:14 : Test started.
03:37:01 : 01/01  50.0%
03:38:30 : 02/02  25.0%
03:40:04 : 03/03  12.5%
03:41:25 : 04/04  6.3%
03:42:28 : 05/05  3.1%
03:44:08 : 06/06  1.6%
03:45:40 : 07/07  0.8%
03:47:36 : 07/08  3.5%
03:48:16 : 07/09  9.0%
03:48:52 : 08/10  5.5%
03:49:19 : 09/11  3.3%
03:50:36 : 10/12  1.9%
03:52:06 : 11/13  1.1%
03:53:02 : 12/14  0.6%
03:53:29 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/14 (0.6%)

It looks like the amplitude of a saw-like sound in aac sample is lower than in an original one.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: Soap on 2012-07-23 02:08:51
It looks like the amplitude of a saw-like sound in aac sample is lower than in an original one.


Please reassure me that I'm reading this wrong, or somehow out of context.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: saratoga on 2012-07-23 02:28:43
I couldn't ABX lame -v2.  But its a hard sample (for me at least) because its so noise-like. 

Looking at it in the time domain is very interesting though.  With the lowpass disabled, the time domain versions of the MP3 and lossless look nearly identical, with just a tiny bit of extra quantization noise in the lossy version.  I would have expected the impulses to give the transform more trouble, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: itisljar on 2012-07-23 09:51:37
I can't do it with AAC at v-5.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-23 13:31:11
Quote
Please reassure me that I'm reading this wrong, or somehow out of context.

This is just the turn of speech. What I meant is that the wavy signal, that sounds like a power-saw, in AAC has less max. volume than in the original sample.

Opus 192 kbps (289 kbps in real) (libopus 0.9.11-119-g1a50ad0-exp_analysis)
(Converted via "opusenc.exe --music --bitrate 192")
(http://s13.postimage.org/vuo77728z/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/vuo77728z/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 15:42:38

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Opus 192 kbps).opus

15:42:38 : Test started.
15:43:31 : 01/01  50.0%
15:44:57 : 01/02  75.0%
15:45:39 : 02/03  50.0%
15:46:22 : 03/04  31.3%
15:48:02 : 04/05  18.8%
15:48:25 : 05/06  10.9%
15:48:51 : 06/07  6.3%
15:50:28 : 06/08  14.5%
15:50:56 : 07/09  9.0%
15:51:55 : 08/10  5.5%
15:53:07 : 08/11  11.3%
15:54:06 : 09/12  7.3%
15:56:30 : 10/13  4.6%
15:58:24 : 11/14  2.9%
15:59:46 : 12/15  1.8%
16:03:34 : 13/16  1.1%
16:03:39 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 13/16 (1.1%)

Quote
I couldn't ABX lame -v2.

Quote
I can't do it with AAC at v-5.

You can focus your eyes on some object, but the most information still comes from peripheral seeing. The same in hearing. Dont try to focus on particular sounds, otherwise you will miss the most information. That's how I do it: just trying to listen via unfocused peripheral hearing, and the sound shows its difference itself.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: Porcus on 2012-07-23 13:46:43
Now I'm getting curious: can you nail down a freeformat@640?
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: 2012 on 2012-07-23 14:23:18
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 15:42:38

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\?????-?????\NEW\Converter\input\Fighter_Beat_Loop.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\?????-?????\NEW\Converter\output\Fighter_Beat_Loop (Opus 192 kbps).opus


I haven't  used Windows in years. But from what I read here, fb2k outputs Opus files at 48000Hz.

So, how does foo_abx handles files with different sample rates?
Or is that irrelevant because the audio reaching the output device is mixed with a certain sample rate supported by the device?
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-23 17:55:49
Quote
can you nail down a freeformat@640?

If you mean "lame.exe --freeformat -b 640 *.wav", I cannot find how to decode it. Anyway, it must be useless.

Quote
I haven't used Windows in years. But from what I read here, fb2k outputs Opus files at 48000Hz.

So, how does foo_abx handles files with different sample rates?
Or is that irrelevant because the audio reaching the output device is mixed with a certain sample rate supported by the device?

If you decode it into wav, it will be 44kHz, so I think it is ok.

Musepack q9 (382 kbps)
(http://s9.postimage.org/b43bn6ri3/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/b43bn6ri3/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/23 20:17:12

File A: D:\@Portable@\Audio\@Encoders@\test.wav
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\test (Musepack q9.0).mpc

20:17:12 : Test started.
20:19:18 : 01/01  50.0%
20:20:50 : 02/02  25.0%
20:21:50 : 03/03  12.5%
20:23:14 : 04/04  6.3%
20:27:34 : 05/05  3.1%
20:28:29 : 06/06  1.6%
20:29:12 : 07/07  0.8%
20:35:04 : 08/08  0.4%
20:35:52 : 08/09  2.0%
20:37:59 : 09/10  1.1%
20:41:08 : 10/11  0.6%
20:41:12 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: db1989 on 2012-07-23 18:21:12
No, Opus will not decode at 44100 Hz by default. 2012 is correct; please actually read what people say, rather than just waving it away.

I presume foo_abx intelligently resamples, probably both files to a common rate (the higher of the two?); I would certainly welcome confirmation.

Anyway: Thanks for all the tests! They make TOS #8 happy.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: skamp on 2012-07-23 18:49:31
No, Opus will not decode at 44100 Hz by default. 2012 is correct; please actually read what people say, rather than just waving it away.


Opusdec will decode at 44.1kHz, if the opus file was sourced from a 44.1kHz WAV. Maybe that's what softrunner meant.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: Porcus on 2012-07-23 19:04:24
Quote
can you nail down a freeformat@640?

If you mean "lame.exe --freeformat -b 640 *.wav", I cannot find how to decode it.


fb2k cannot play it. I am not on my home computer right now, but ... tried lame.exe --decode and then comparing the WAV's? Though, according to http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/freeformat.html (http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/freeformat.html) , older Lame couldn't decode the highest-bitrate freeformats, but MAD can. http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/ (http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/)



Anyway, it must be useless.


Absolutely, except possibly for this particular purpose.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-23 22:40:20
Quote
Opusdec will decode at 44.1kHz, if the opus file was sourced from a 44.1kHz WAV. Maybe that's what softrunner meant.

Exactly. Surprisingly, foobar2000 decodes at 48kHz.

Quote
... tried lame.exe --decode and then comparing the WAV's?

It looks like it works:

d:\@Portable@\Audio\@Encoders@> lame.exe --decode test_freeformat_640.mp3
Input file is freeformat.
hip: bitstream problem, resyncing skipping 2088 bytes...
input:  test_freeformat_640.mp3  (44.1 kHz, 2 channels, MPEG-1 Layer III)
output: test_freeformat_640.wav  (16 bit, Microsoft WAVE)
skipping initial 1105 samples (encoder+decoder delay)
skipping final 1015 samples (encoder padding-decoder delay)
Frame#  308/308    168 kbps  MS

I'll try it later.
-----------------
To all. You may not believe me, but I've passed ABX test of Vorbis Q10 (619 kbps) 
(http://s8.postimage.org/h0hqwgm8x/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/h0hqwgm8x/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/24 00:58:35

File A: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\input\test.flac
File B: S:\320 GB HDD\Аудио-тесты\NEW\Converter\output\test (Vorbis q10,0).ogg

00:58:35 : Test started.
01:02:12 : 01/01  50.0%
01:04:00 : 01/02  75.0%
01:04:31 : 02/03  50.0%
01:05:51 : 03/04  31.3%
01:07:24 : 04/05  18.8%
01:08:09 : 05/06  10.9%
01:08:36 : 06/07  6.3%
01:08:59 : 07/08  3.5%
01:09:12 : 08/09  2.0%
01:10:02 : 09/10  1.1%
01:10:58 : 10/11  0.6%
01:11:39 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

The difference in signals is that in the original sample the background flow of noise is not interrupted, but in Vorbis it is got interrupted somehow, other signals overlap it, so that I am loosing it (cannot hear it constantly).
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-24 21:14:14
Quote
can you nail down a freeformat@640?

I've met some difficulties with it. I know that the difference is there (original sounds sharper), but I can't get enought percent in abx test for posting it (as I remember, I had 9 of 10 but then made some mistakes). For me it is painfull to search this difference, so I'd better focus on testing Opus.
In Opus tests I got stuck at 200+ kbps (300+ real bitrate), but on portable player I recognize at least 224 kbps (converted in vorbis q10), so have to try it more.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: shadowking on 2012-07-25 02:19:43
I wonder how a hybrid format would perform on this. Do you mind trying wavpack -b256hx4 or even -b352hx4
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: greynol on 2012-07-25 02:23:11
LossyWAV, too.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: Nick.C on 2012-07-25 12:47:33
lossyWAV (standard) yields a bitrate of 907kbit/s compared to FLAC 1013kbit/s [attached]....
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: Case on 2012-07-25 13:22:32
I'm curious, what sound card do you have, softrunner? I remember back in the old days my Sound Blaster Audigy, that was also AC'97 compatible, mutilated the output enough to make lossy codecs much easier to ABX.
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-07-27 01:57:26
Quote
I wonder how a hybrid format would perform on this. Do you mind trying wavpack -b256hx4 or even -b352hx4

Quote
lossyWAV (standard) yields a bitrate of 907kbit/s compared to FLAC 1013kbit/s [attached]....

Can't pass it. For me they sound like lossless.
By the way I have ABXed Musepack q10 to be sure I have not lost my sensitivity due to listening the same sample that much.

Musepack Q10 (420 kbps)
(http://s12.postimage.org/3w0ng2dh5/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/3w0ng2dh5/)
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.14 beta 1
2012/07/27 04:02:32

File A: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\input\test.flac
File B: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\output\test (Musepack q10.0).mpc

04:02:32 : Test started.
04:16:17 : Trial reset.
04:17:35 : 01/01  50.0%
04:18:35 : 02/02  25.0%
04:20:18 : 02/03  50.0%
04:20:58 : 03/04  31.3%
04:21:56 : 04/05  18.8%
04:22:43 : 05/06  10.9%
04:23:38 : 06/07  6.3%
04:24:37 : 07/08  3.5%
04:26:31 : 08/09  2.0%
04:26:58 : 09/10  1.1%
04:29:16 : 10/11  0.6%
04:29:21 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

(it sounds smoothed on the background in the right channel)

Quote
I'm curious, what sound card do you have, softrunner?

It is just standard AC97 (ALC850).
Title: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: softrunner on 2012-12-29 01:55:16
Opus 256 kbps (326 kbps) (git version from 10.11.2012)
(http://s14.postimage.org/rifklxyot/file.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/rifklxyot/)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.16
2012/11/19 04:32:08

File A: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\output\FighterBeatLoop\FighterBeatLoop.flac
File B: D:\@Portable@\Audio\LossyAudioTester\output\FighterBeatLoop\FighterBeatLoop (Opus 256 kbps).opus

04:32:08 : Test started.
04:32:28 : 01/01  50.0%
04:32:53 : 02/02  25.0%
04:33:18 : 03/03  12.5%
04:35:05 : 03/04  31.3%
04:36:00 : 04/05  18.8%
04:37:36 : 05/06  10.9%
04:37:53 : 05/07  22.7%
04:38:14 : 06/08  14.5%
04:38:51 : 06/09  25.4%
04:39:56 : 07/10  17.2%
04:42:56 : 08/11  11.3%
04:45:31 : 09/12  7.3%
04:46:25 : 10/13  4.6%
04:47:15 : 11/14  2.9%
04:48:35 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/14 (2.9%)

Encoded sample sounds slightly poorer then the original one, with less amplitude of a saw-like sound.
Title: Re: Fighter Beat looped (killer sample)
Post by: magicgoose on 2018-04-01 11:42:15
Sorry to bump this, but this statement (kills all lossy codecs) looked too interesting.
Is anyone able to reproduce this now in 2018 with Opus, or any other lossy codecs?
I tested this sample with Opus (version: opus-tools 0.1.10 using libopus 1.2.1, parameters: "--padding 0 --bitrate 185") and Musepack (mppenc  1.30.0, default settings), resulting file size was 235151 for Opus and 234736 bytes for MPC, in neither case could I hear any differences, and it looks like Musepack was not even updated since 2009, and people were able to hear the difference even at MPC max quality settings, so does that mean I am just deaf and should give it up? Or is it okay no not hear this if I am 27 years old?

I also tried Opus --bitrate 128, it seems it's at the edge of my ability, it could be that the rhythmic scratching sound is made less sharp, but I am not completely sure I hear it or it might be guessing, in ABX testing training mode I got 7/7 (it took about 10 minutes of careful listening with too much loudness) and then I failed 8th try. I am not sure I am able to 100% correctly pass it to post a worthy log, and it's too painful.
The difference becomes really obvious with Opus --bitrate 64 (and the actual average bitrate is 82 then). So the transition for me must be somewhere in between.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019