Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 03:49:21

Poll
Question: What codecs should be featured besides Nero/iTunes/FAAC?
Option 1: Compaact and Winamp votes: 57
Option 2: Compaact and NCTU votes: 19
Option 3: Winamp and NCTU votes: 4
Option 4: Real and Compaact votes: 11
Option 5: Real and Winamp votes: 42
Option 6: Real and NCTU votes: 13
Option 7: Other? (please post) votes: 4
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 03:49:21
Hello.

I'm creating this poll so users can choose what codecs to be features at the AAC test.

Three codecs are already decided: iTunes, Nero and Faac.

So, please vote on the remaining two AAC codecs. The anchor will be decided in another poll.

Thank-you.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: Cey on 2004-02-09 03:59:31
I vote for Winamp because it is *very* widely available.  It has more relevancy than the others.  The whole idea is to test encoders people use and/or have easy access to.  Winamp fits that quite well.

For the other codec... I don't really care.  I don't know anything about comaact so I can't comment on that.  And I don't like Real, their programs or their company, so I can't really endorse that either.  (And their program is currently beta, is the codec stable?)  Make yourself happy....

Edit:  For the record, I voted for 'other' because of those listed, I only see WinAmp as being widely important.  I don't really care what the second codec would be.

If you end up not using WinAmp, then I don't care what the other codecs are.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: mdmuir on 2004-02-09 04:01:39
Winamp and Real, only because of pervasive availability for "joe average"
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: guest0101 on 2004-02-09 04:05:20
Agree with mdmuir, WinAmp and Real to represent these commonly used programs by users out there.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: MGuti on 2004-02-09 04:09:58
compaact and winamp: AFAIK real aac can't really be used outside of realplayer 10 unless you purchase gold. if i can't transcode to anything i want with it stay away!
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: kl33per on 2004-02-09 04:11:44
compaact, because (As far as I know) it's completely in-house devloped, which could potentially make for a very interesting comparison.  Not overly worried about the other encoder, NCTU or Winamp would be my pick though.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: harashin on 2004-02-09 04:20:46
I'd like to see a FhG's encoder in the test. I got iisMP4serv demo version last year, on fatboy, I found it's the best encoder I've tried at 128kbps. Hence I vote for other. I don't care another anyway.

Edit: You can download the sample here (http://cyberquebec.ca/harashin/aac/FhG_iisserve.mp4).
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 04:50:12
Something worth mentioning (so that later people don't say I'm changing the rules to adapt the results to my fancy)

This is how results will be calculated: Each vote actually weights for two (except votes to the other choice, with explanation)

So, as I write this, we have:
(C = Compaact, W = Winamp, R = Real, N = NCTU)

Code: [Select]
           C   W   R   N
C and W   8   8
C and N   4           4
W and N       1       1
R and C   1       1
R and W       7   7
R and N           1   1
          -------------
Sum       13  16  9   6


What would mean Compaact and Winamp are going to be tested.

Votes going to "other" will be weighted after I read the posts of users that voted for other. So, if you voted for it, please make it clear at the body of your message and explain what would be your choice(s).

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: saratoga on 2004-02-09 05:02:46
What is winamp's decoder?  Completely new or based on Dolby?
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-09 09:13:07
looks like people want winamp in either way and the decision has to be made between real and compaact

i voted for real because they are going to start an own online music shop with aac in .ra container (according to first news, i hope they change this to .mp4) and own drm
as real is going to use 192kbps (claiming that this should be better quality than apples 128kbps) i am really interested in how their codec does compared to apple


damn normally i would have voted for winamp, real and compaact, but as rjamorim doesnt want to use one codec more (or drop the anchor/take faac as "potential" anchor)... 
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: WEST on 2004-02-09 09:45:17
Rjamorim, please test Nero AAC Encoder 2.6.1.9
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: blessingx on 2004-02-09 10:18:08
Real because I think it could have a greater impact on the acceptance of AAC in the corp world. Plus their online store.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: tigre on 2004-02-09 10:21:10
Winamp, Real and Compaact, no anchor instead.

The 0-5 ABC/HR scale is associated with terms anyway (Very Annoying ... Imperceptible) - and I know when something sounds e.g. 'Perceptible, but not annoying' to me, so anchors are quite useless IMHO.

Edit: I've voted 'Other', but if I'd had to choose 2, it would be Winamp and Compaact.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: unmake on 2004-02-09 10:27:17
Is it more important to test encoders which might supposedly be used widely by other people, or those which might be widely used by HA members? Seems to me like anyone with half a brain cell in their head would steer clear of anything related to Real.

Then again, if their software does turn out to be up to snuff, I'd much rather have someone else installing it on their computer in order to make that discovery.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: kotrtim on 2004-02-09 12:14:25
Null Vote
I suggest testing all the widely available codecs and also all the worth testing codecs

EDIT: I'm a bit confuse now,  widely available and wide used, is it the same thing?????

add a few wont harm right

bcoz currently there are only 3 types on the list
adding 3 or 4 more wont hurt?

exercising the eardrum will not damage it             

just my op
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: p0l1m0rph1c on 2004-02-09 12:25:04
I'd choose FhG's codec and compaact. Hence i voted other.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 13:55:44
Hello. Menno just shouted at me on ICQ:

Quote
m&no (05:36 AM) :
DON'T ADD WINAMP TO THE AAC TEST BEFORE THEY FIX THEIR BUGS!!!!
m&no (05:36 AM) :
their TNS is broken, at least in their decoder, but prolly they have matched bugs in encoder and decoder
m&no (05:37 AM) :
meaning that if you use a correct decoder on their files Winamp will completely loose this test
m&no (05:37 AM) :
which is not very fair, Winamp is prolly going to fix this soon
m&no (06:31 AM) :
hmm, maybe it's not that bad
Leviathan (11:53 AM) :
Well, OK...


So, I think it's a wise idea to give up Winamp? I would personally love to test it, but if it's unfair in the end...
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-09 14:01:33
maybe someone who has a clue about that should test whether this bug is also in their encoder (i guess their decoder wouldnt have been used in the test anyways)

i would love to know how winamp does
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 14:06:04
I'm creating two test sets, one with AAC files encoded by Winamp and decoded by Winamp, other with files encoded by Winamp and decoded by Faad2.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 15:07:50
OK, I created a package. Samples are encoded with Winamp, then decoded with Winamp or Faad2.
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/quicktest.rar (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/quicktest.rar) (26.6Mb)

No need for very fancy testing methods, just somehow compare _1 to _2 and post if you find any noticeable difference and, in that case, what sounded better.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Regards;

Roberto.

PS: Why RAR instead of ZIP? Because RAR compresses audio files much better. You can get freeware decompressors for nearly every platform here (http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm).
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: tigre on 2004-02-09 15:34:16
Posts by brucewillis violating TOS #2 and #8 are split here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18538&).
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: Alexander Lerch on 2004-02-09 15:42:06
Quote
No need for very fancy testing methods, just somehow compare _1 to _2 and post if you find any noticeable difference and, in that case, what sounded better.

I had only a quick look at that files; version 1 seems often to clip. That might be the (one?) reason for differences in the high frequency range.

Alexander
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: john33 on 2004-02-09 16:13:07
You don't ask for scientific evaluation, so, 2 sounds much better to me.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: tigre on 2004-02-09 16:35:49
ABC/HR results
Quote
ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: DaFunk

1L = N:\DaFunk_1.wav
2R = N:\DaFunk_2.wav

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

---------------------------------------
1L File: N:\DaFunk_1.wav
1L Rating: 3.5
1L Comment: 0.0-3.3: flanging, clackling noise, difference gets easily lost during quick ABXing
3.3-16.0: differences less obvious/annoying
16.0-20.6: differences similar to the beginning
---------------------------------------
2R File: N:\DaFunk_2.wav
2R Rating: 2.5
2R Comment: 0.0-3.3: flanging, 'airy' bumping noises added, very obvious, annoying
3.3-16.0: differences less obvious/annoying
16.0-20.6: differences similar to the beginning
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs N:\DaFunk_1.wav
    11 out of 15, pval = 0.059
Original vs N:\DaFunk_2.wav
    6 out of 6, pval = 0.016
N:\DaFunk_1.wav vs N:\DaFunk_2.wav
    6 out of 6, pval = 0.016

Quote
ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: Gone

1L = N:\gone_2.wav
2L = N:\gone_1.wav

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

---------------------------------------
1L File: N:\gone_2.wav
1L Rating: 3.0
1L Comment: 2.5-5.0: background noise brighter + changed (bumping)
---------------------------------------
2L File: N:\gone_1.wav
2L Rating: 3.0
2L Comment: 2.5-5.0: similar to 1, there seems to be a difference, but hard to tell which is better
starting at 9.0 there's flanging (cymbal sounds), again different between 1 and 2 but impossible to tell which is better for me.
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs N:\gone_2.wav
    6 out of 6, pval = 0.016
Original vs N:\gone_1.wav
    12 out of 16, pval = 0.038
N:\gone_2.wav vs N:\gone_1.wav
    6 out of 6, pval = 0.016
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: JohnV on 2004-02-09 16:48:20
We had a problem with a troll registering lots of fake accounts and voting certain choice in this poll. One of the examples is here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18538).
Maybe Roberto should consider starting the poll again in order to get valid results.

I've disabled new registrations for now.

Edit. This kind of behaviour makes me think that maybe there should be encryption used when saving results from ABC/HR.
Seems that zealotry could be a problem here.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: Alexander Lerch on 2004-02-09 17:02:32
Quote
We had a problem with a troll registering lots of fake accounts and voting certain choice in this poll. One of the examples is here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18538).
Maybe Roberto should consider starting the poll again in order to get valid results.

I just want to make clear that I am not associated with that brucewillis, and I do not know who he is. Of course I would like to see compaact! in the listening test, but not with such votes.
I would be very sorry if you would associate such users with compaact!.

Best regards,
Alexander
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: JohnV on 2004-02-09 17:09:21
Quote
I just want to make clear that I am not associated with that brucewillis, and I do not know who he is. Of course I would like to see compaact! in the listening test, but not with such votes.
I would be very sorry if you would associate such users with compaact!.

Best regards,
Alexander

Don't worry Alexander. I know you are not associated with him. Unfortunately it seems this person comes from my home country (Finland) and we have had trouble with him earlier already.. 

My opinion here is that Compaact and Real should be included. Another option imo is to think what bond and tigre suggested. No anchor and include Compaact, Real and Winamp.
I think we should give credit that developers from zPlane and Real attend to the community discussions, so that should be counted as positive thing when deciding this.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-09 17:30:01
Quote
what tigre suggested

Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: kwanbis on 2004-02-09 17:40:05
Quote
My opinion here is that Compaact and Real should be included. Another option imo is to think what bond and tigre suggested. No anchor and include Compaact, Real and Winamp.
I think we should give credit that developers from zPlane and Real attend to the community discussions, so that should be counted as positive thing when deciding this.

second that
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: kwanbis on 2004-02-09 17:44:13
Quote
Quote
what tigre suggested


its probably related to my total ignorance on this, but, why is it an anchor needed? i mean, on the soccer (futbol) world championship, you don't include a bad team just to prove the others are good ... i agree with tigre ... and LAME -APS could be the one
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: Peter on 2004-02-09 17:44:53
Quote
Edit. This kind of behaviour makes me think that maybe there should be encryption used when saving results from ABC/HR.
Seems that zealotry could be a problem here.

The "problem user" we have is clearly working to improve compaact!'s public rating (known most popular nicks: Azo-999, Mathias_M). Their employee perhaps ? If we include compaact!, he will most likely try to send fake results, maybe we should exclude it. Compaact!'s rating in this poll is clearly his deed (at least 8 votes sent from his accounts today, I didn't bother removing them).
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: netnichols on 2004-02-09 17:54:36
Quote
Their employee perhaps ? If we include compaact!, he will most likely try to send fake results, maybe we should exclude it.

Pretty serious accusation, especially since Alexander just tried to disassociate himself with such users.  Pretty serious 'resolution' as well.. perhaps you work for Real?
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: menno on 2004-02-09 17:59:07
About this Winamp issue:

It is not clipping.

And the error is bandlimited between 5 kHz and 15 kHz, this is why I thought it would be something with TNS.

Menno
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: Alexander Lerch on 2004-02-09 18:24:51
Quote
Their employee perhaps ?

Do you know how "big" zplane is?
I repeat what I have posted:
I can assure that nobody from zplane is this user and that I don't know who he is and who he might be.

If you want to remove his votes do it. If you want to start a new poll do it. If you want to exclude compaact! a priori, well, that seems a bit unfair.

Regards,
Alexander

P.S.: If you believe that I am behind this user, please remove my account also.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: tigre on 2004-02-09 18:38:36
Quote
P.S.: If you believe that I am behind this user, please remove my account also.

No need for dramas here, I think

Since the test was planned to be open for everyone, the problem is that brucewillis probably will send several manipulated test results biased towards Compaact.  Excluding Compaact would be a working sollution for this, but surely a bad one. Do you have a better suggestion how to avoid this kind of manipulation? If one of ABC/HR developers adds encryption, that's fine, but we can't expect it - so we need to look for other ideas.

Mine: Limit the test to hydrogenaudio users that have a certain post count or have been member for a certain time. I don't know how many people who are not HA members participated in rjamorim's last tests - very few, I assume. <- Rjamorim?
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: JohnV on 2004-02-09 18:38:51
Quote
Quote
Their employee perhaps ?

Do you know how "big" zplane is?
I repeat what I have posted:
I can assure that nobody from zplane is this user and that I don't know who he is and who he might be.

If you want to remove his votes do it. If you want to start a new poll do it. If you want to exclude compaact! a priori, well, that seems a bit unfair.

Regards,
Alexander

P.S.: If you believe that I am behind this user, please remove my account also.

zPlane has nothing to do with this troll, period. I'm absolutely sure about that.

Zealots are zealots: they don't usually work for the company they support, but they become zealots anyway..
Peter went too far by suggesting otherwise.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: Peter on 2004-02-09 18:40:03
I don't personally care which codecs are included in the test as long as results are interesting. I would probably prefer compaact! included in it than e.g. NCTU which has widely known issues.
It's just that banning some loser 10 times a day gets somewhat tiring, and I don't want such people to interrupt the test - which he will most certainly do if we allow him to.
I suppose this poll could be reset, now that he can't register new accounts anymore.
If you are sure that you have nothing to do with this person then please disregard my original statement.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: JohnV on 2004-02-09 18:45:10
Quote
If one of ABC/HR developers adds encryption, that's fine, but we can't expect it - so we need to look for other ideas.

Maybe schnofler can add encryption to Java ABC/HR. I got the impression that ff123 isn't so enthusiastic to edit his version anymore, but I think it is apparent that we will need encryption in the future.
Title: Choice of AAC codecs for listening test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-09 18:56:04
Quote
If one of ABC/HR developers adds encryption, that's fine, but we can't expect it

It's already there, dude

Java ABC-HR supports encryption.

Anyway, the outcome of this whole enchilada: (I hope I can please everyone with this)

-The codecs tested will be Compaact! and Real
-NCTU will serve as anchor (and God help it doesn't become another Xing)
-The test will be encrypted

Thank-you very much for those that voted without screwing the system.

Please continue discussion at the original thread. (including discussion of this post)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=18474&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18474&hl=)

Best regards;

Roberto.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019