I'm tired too, but confident.
I looped the original file, encoded it at --quality 10 (I'm very confident !), opened the waveform in cooledit, cut the third part, and saved it in .wav.
Then I opened ABC/HR, loaded the original, the looped too, and the previous --quality 10 (based on simple Jump.wav) at the same time.
I wasn't able to hear anything B)
I tried again, but at --quality 7 (--insane with mppenc 1.14).
ABX score are now interesting :
40/60 and 27/30 for the second mysterious file. Is one better than the other ? Why xx/60 ?
The details are instructive :
0 of 1, p = 1.000
1 of 2, p = 0.750
1 of 3, p = 0.875
2 of 4, p = 0.688
3 of 5, p = 0.500
4 of 6, p = 0.344
4 of 7, p = 0.500
5 of 8, p = 0.363
5 of 9, p = 0.500
6 of 10, p = 0.377
6 of 11, p = 0.500
7 of 12, p = 0.387
8 of 13, p = 0.291
9 of 14, p = 0.212
9 of 15, p = 0.304
9 of 16, p = 0.402
9 of 17, p = 0.500
9 of 18, p = 0.593
10 of 19, p = 0.500
11 of 20, p = 0.412
11 of 21, p = 0.500
11 of 22, p = 0.584
12 of 23, p = 0.500
13 of 24, p = 0.419
13 of 25, p = 0.500
14 of 26, p = 0.423
15 of 27, p = 0.351
16 of 28, p = 0.286
17 of 29, p = 0.229
18 of 30, p = 0.181
19 of 31, p = 0.141
19 of 32, p = 0.189
20 of 33, p = 0.148
21 of 34, p = 0.115
21 of 35, p = 0.155
22 of 36, p = 0.121
22 of 37, p = 0.162
23 of 38, p = 0.128
23 of 39, p = 0.168
23 of 40, p = 0.215
23 of 41, p = 0.266
24 of 42, p = 0.220
25 of 43, p = 0.180
26 of 44, p = 0.146
27 of 45, p = 0.116
28 of 46, p = 0.092
29 of 47, p = 0.072
30 of 48, p = 0.056
31 of 49, p = 0.043
32 of 50, p = 0.032
33 of 51, p = 0.024
34 of 52, p = 0.018
35 of 53, p = 0.013
35 of 54, p = 0.020
36 of 55, p = 0.015
37 of 56, p = 0.011
37 of 57, p = 0.017
38 of 58, p = 0.012
39 of 59, p = 0.009
40 of 60, p = 0.007
The first twenty are non-significative : 11/20. Then, the following ABX score are slightly better : 12/20 [on 21-40] and 20 last ABX are really good : 17/20.
I need a warm-up, like an athlete
In these conditions, it's difficult to conclude that SAMPLE 1 (40/60) is better than SAMPLE 2 (27/30). Sample 1 is the looped file, and the 'easiest' and second sample is the simple_jump file.
Nevertheless, I had a strong feeling that sample_2 different (and more degraded) was from sample_1. I tried to ABX 1 against 2 : 17/20. Details :
0 of 1, p = 1.000
1 of 2, p = 0.750
1 of 3, p = 0.875
2 of 4, p = 0.688
2 of 5, p = 0.813
3 of 6, p = 0.656
4 of 7, p = 0.500
5 of 8, p = 0.363
6 of 9, p = 0.254
7 of 10, p = 0.172
8 of 11, p = 0.113
9 of 12, p = 0.073
10 of 13, p = 0.046
11 of 14, p = 0.029
12 of 15, p = 0.018
13 of 16, p = 0.011
14 of 17, p = 0.006
15 of 18, p = 0.004
16 of 19, p = 0.002
17 of 20, p = 0.001
...A perfect 15/15 on the end of the test.
You were right : same audio informations can be encode differently !