Skip to main content


If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: Lame 3.95 vs 3.90.3 (Read 25891 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
Testname: BeautySlept --preset standard

Where can I get the sample?


SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021