IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Personal Listening Test of MP3 encoders at 224kbps, ABC/HR blind test, 1 Listener
halb27
post May 24 2013, 23:16
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



But as you can see they can be encoded transparently @224 kbps.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 24 2013, 23:17


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dynamic
post May 24 2013, 23:49
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 819
Joined: 17-September 06
Member No.: 35307



QUOTE (greynol @ May 24 2013, 19:45) *
It would help since Guruboolez's data is classical-centric, and, quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing his results get raised during discussions where they aren't a good fit.


After most of the week stuck with GPRS mobile internet at 20kbps, I've finally made the edit to the Wikipedia Codec listening test / Results section.

Feel free to edit, of course.


--------------------
Dynamic the artist formerly known as DickD
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kamedo2
post May 25 2013, 18:03
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 16-November 12
From: Kyoto, Japan
Member No.: 104567



QUOTE (Gecko @ May 25 2013, 06:07) *
I'm only familiar with some of the samples, but would you say that most of them contain hard transients? The "speech" and "vocal" samples don't but still are not transparent.

Kamedo, could you maybe elaborate a little on the problems you heard?

I tend to hear smearing effects in breathiness at 4-10kHz. We need to hear what we don't hear usually and it will need skill. The high frequency breath noise like 'hhhhhh...' collapses, and go unnatural.
If you don't hear those, please make your room as quiet as you can, and practice at lower bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kamedo2
post Jun 4 2013, 19:27
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 16-November 12
From: Kyoto, Japan
Member No.: 104567



I plotted bitrate vs quality distribution of those individual samples(25 samples per encoder).
LAME3.100 V2+ really is a cvbr behavior. No samples go below 210kbps.
LAME 3.98.4 CBR is a total CBR; bitrate barely changes and only quality differs.
Helix has more distribution to the lower bitrates but surprisingly keeps quality at these low bitrates.
And Helix has the most VBR-ish distribution; narrow quality distribution and wide bitrate fluctuation.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 05:32