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: Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN (Read 36994 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #50 –
Quote
Quote
The whole thing is a pseudoscience wannabe filled to the brim with vendors lauding useless gear before gullible fools. I will not participate.

Are you really surprised?

The discussion there has actually been pretty civil so far, considering /.'s standards.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #51 –
Quote
Quote

(b) Why isn't Real Audio 10, VP6, and normal Vorbis in the test?

Best regards,
Martin

Normal Vorbis was tested in the previous 128 kbps test and has not had any quality improvements since then.  Many of the third party tunings have fixed some of the problems in the Xiph version and according to the Vorbis Listening Test, they all outperformed the Xiph version.

Right. Besides, 6 codecs is more than enough. Testing more than that at 128kbps would be painful and mean.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #52 –
Some interesting comments:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9144780
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9144833
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9144785
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9144976  <-- r3mix ruelez!!!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9145079
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9144713
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107516&cid=9146187

I wonder if the guy that submitted the news article did that to hurt me  (j/k)

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #53 –
You say having good quality cans is important.  Is something like a Grado SR-60 good enough to hear the differences?

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #54 –
Man if you look, i've responded to all of those threads, and been moderated -1 pretty much every time 

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #55 –
Quote
You say having good quality cans is important.  Is something like a Grado SR-60 good enough to hear the differences?

I guess so. Even my very crappy Philips HP250 can catch artifacts here and there.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #56 –
Quote
Man if you look, i've responded to all of those threads, and been moderated -1 pretty much every time 

Quote
Are you really surprised?


Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #57 –
Quote
You say having good quality cans is important.  Is something like a Grado SR-60 good enough to hear the differences?

Absolutely.  I have those headphones and I was able to ABX nearly all the samples in the last 128k test.

Quote
Some interesting comments:

It's been a while since I've read slashdot - It's amazing how bad it's gotten.  My brain was making this terrible squealing noise because of the pain I inflicted by even looking at some of those comments.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #58 –
Amazing. harashin finished all samples again

Congratulations, man. Now go get some sleep.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #59 –
Quote
Don't forget to listen once you've seeded the torrents!

ff123

you mean we're supposed to do something once i've downloaded it? i just download/burn/delete

Quote
I've listened to 3 samples so far and just wanted to comment that the test is definitely doable (i.e., not impossibly difficult).


*pets his shiny new HD590s* 


edit: omg, began the test. i'm going to cry... these are truely kicking my ass 

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #60 –
Roberto, would it be usefull for me to mirror the sample packages on my server?
Our firewall won't allow me to use BitTorrent, but I would be more than happy to help take some of the load off rarewares.org.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #61 –
Quote
Roberto, would it be usefull for me to mirror the sample packages on my server?

Well, so far, RW has been managing to keep hosting the packages.

Actually, I guess that we pumped so much data today, that it broke the host's bandwidth meter. It's reporting 910Mb transferred, while on a normal day (without distributing samples, RareWares alone), about 2Gb are consumed.

Besides, it seems people are going really mad on BitTorrent instead of HTTP. More than 50Gb (!!!!) transferred so far.

Anyway, yes, it would be good to have an emergency place in case my host goes down again (wouldn't surprise me, I bet it has never been Slashdotted)

But be prepared to transfer a handful of gigabytes/day.

Thank-you.

Regards;

Roberto.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #62 –
Quote
As far as I can tell they all sound like wave files at this bitrate, so won't the result just be random, as people can't tell the difference?


The results will be deeply analyzed. If people can't tell the difference and the results are random, the analysis will show it.

For example, look at the results of the old test : http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

The analysis at the bottom showed that the results were indeed random exept for MP3, thus the other codecs were rated equal.

Quote
Quote
Some interesting comments:

It's been a while since I've read slashdot - It's amazing how bad it's gotten.  My brain was making this terrible squealing noise because of the pain I inflicted by even looking at some of those comments.

It's the first time I go to slashdot. I don't understand what you find bad it these links. The first one about frequency plots is actually better than all the FAQs we have had about it here. It covers quite all the reasons why graphs shouldn't be used to compare codecs.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #63 –
I started doing the test. Only three samples done so far.

Some samples are much too hard for me. Will probably have to leave 5/5 for those samples as a quick listening doesn't reveal anything to my quite untrained ear. For more thorough work I can only do about 2 sample sets a day. This is hard work.

One question:

Does anybody know of a way around the Java ABC/HR limitation that it only allows the standard Windows Directsound output to be used?

I can't use my better gear, because it really is good only through ASIO and I can't select that from ABC/HR. Not that better sound card would change the results, but I'd just like to use the gear that I'm used to.

regards,
halcyon

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #64 –
Quote
Quote
You say having good quality cans is important.  Is something like a Grado SR-60 good enough to hear the differences?

Absolutely.  I have those headphones and I was able to ABX nearly all the samples in the last 128k test.

Okay great.  I got everything installed last night and I am going to try and do the test over the weekend.  I am using Linux so it took me a little longer to get everything set up, but it is still pretty easy.

FWIW, I am using Mandrake 10.0 and there were packages for everything but the mpc decoder (although the xmms plugin was available), so I had to use the precompiled binary from the link in the readme.  The decode script ran flawlessly.

Also, why did my post with the question get deleted/modded.  Is it against the TOS to call headphones cans?

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #65 –
Quote
It's the first time I go to slashdot. I don't understand what you find bad it these links. The first one about frequency plots is actually better than all the FAQs we have had about it here. It covers quite all the reasons why graphs shouldn't be used to compare codecs.

It wasn't necessarily those comments in particular.  There were a bunch of comments along the lines of "Just some guy trying to hock useless expensive audio gear" or "You can get the same size file with a much higher bitrate using codec X" or "mp3 sounds like AM radio even at 368kbps" or other nonsense.  Of course, the most nonsensical ones were modded way up.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #66 –
Yeh, and i got modded down as overrated for countering that the --alt-preset setting achieves transparency at only around 190kbps. I even mentioned that this was verified in double-blind tests found on the linked-to webpage.

*sigh* oh well, many /.ers seem to have their minds made up on certain issues and mod you down when you don't support their preconceived notions.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #67 –
Quote
Also, why did my post with the question get deleted/modded.  Is it against the TOS to call headphones cans?

I can still see your post :B

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #68 –
Quote
Quote
Also, why did my post with the question get deleted/modded.  Is it against the TOS to call headphones cans?

I can still see your post :B

Clearly visible here.
Cans are as good as any word for the earcups IMO

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #69 –
Quote
The results will be deeply analyzed. If people can't tell the difference and the results are random, the analysis will show it.


How can you tell whether people can't tell the difference and thereby just choose something, or the codecs are equally good?

As I see it, it is a statistical problem, that can't be ignored when the bitrate is this high.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #70 –
Quote
Normal Vorbis was tested in the previous 128 kbps test and has not had any quality improvements since then.  Many of the third party tunings have fixed some of the problems in the Xiph version and according to the Vorbis Listening Test, they all outperformed the Xiph version.

I see. Will any of the third parties versions be ported to the Xiph version?

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #71 –
Quote
Right. Besides, 6 codecs is more than enough. Testing more than that at 128kbps would be painful and mean.

Could VP6 and Real Audio 10 be considered for the next test?

I wouldn't be supprised if they preform very well at both low and high bitrates.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #72 –
Quote
How can you tell whether people can't tell the difference and thereby just choose something, or the codecs are equally good?

When they choose to rank a sample out of guessing, there's 50% chance of picking the reference. Multiply that for 6 samples, and you'll see that the chance of picking the reference in one of the six samples is pretty high.

Result files with ranked reference are discarded.

Quote
I see. Will any of the third parties versions be ported to the Xiph version?


It only depends on Xiph themselves. But my guess is no. From the past experience, they always chose to ignore tunings done by third parties and go their own way instead.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #73 –
Quote
Could VP6 and Real Audio 10 be considered for the next test?

The next test performed by me will be at 48kbps. Real Audio 10 is under consideration.

About VP6: do you mean this?

I can see nowhere to download that codec.

Multiformat@128kbps public listening test - OPEN

Reply #74 –
Quote
When they choose to rank a sample out of guessing, there's 50% chance of picking the reference. Multiply that for 6 samples, and you'll see that the chance of picking the reference in one of the six samples is pretty high.

Result files with ranked reference are discarded.


Why? That's puts very good codecs in a bad light.

If someone indeed can't tell the difference between the original and the compressed, the compressed must thereby be VERY good.