IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
64kbps public listening test, FINISHED
Mac
post Sep 24 2003, 10:04
Post #101





Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 28-July 02
From: B'ham UK
Member No.: 2828



CODE
7R File: .\Sample09\Polonaise_8.wav
7R Rating: 3.0
7R Comment: It all sounds subtly different.  Couldn't tell on a casual listen through.


I noticed on a couple of samples that if you listened through the whole 20 seconds, Vorbis sounded just fine to me, but if you start listening to short 1 second chunks and concentrated, you noticed a staggering difference between it and the original?

Would it be over-optimistic to suggest this was the intention, make a codec that sounds better in every-day use than on short bursts of concentration? smile.gif

ps. Roberto - 1) Awesome test, badbwoy! 2) Thankyou for 4 mentions on the funnies list biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Mac: Sep 24 2003, 10:05


--------------------
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Sep 24 2003, 10:45
Post #102





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



QUOTE (Mac @ Sep 24 2003, 05:04 AM)
I noticed on a couple of samples that if you listened through the whole 20 seconds, Vorbis sounded just fine to me, but if you start listening to short 1 second chunks and concentrated, you noticed a staggering difference between it and the original?

Interesting concept...Subliminal Transparency. You only *think* it's transparent if you hear it enough.

Wait...my whole collection is in Vorbis....-q 4.25..............Those Vorbis programmers fooled me!!!.......:fingers in ears:.....LALALALALALALALA.....not listening....not thinking about this.....it really IS transparent....all of it!!!......it's not just subliminal....

Especially worrisome considering I rated Vorbis below the low-anchor overall (8th out of 8). unsure.gif

But seriously, I'm going to train myself to hear artifacts better before I pull out all my CDs and the FLAC encoder. This test was a *big* wake up call for me. But it's actually a big difference between 64kbps nominal and 136kbps nominal, so I'm not losing sleep either.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
webwonk
post Sep 24 2003, 16:36
Post #103





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 24-September 03
Member No.: 8990



Which CODEC was used for the Real test. Cook or ATRC0? Thanks.

webwonk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ErikS
post Sep 24 2003, 16:40
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 8-October 01
Member No.: 247



QUOTE (webwonk @ Sep 24 2003, 04:36 PM)
Which CODEC was used for the Real test. Cook or ATRC0? Thanks.

webwonk

AFAIK Cook.

see http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=13127
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 24 2003, 16:47
Post #105


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (ErikS @ Sep 24 2003, 12:40 PM)

Yes, Cook.

AKA Real Audio Gecko.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Sep 24 2003, 17:03
Post #106


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=1&t=13531
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
c_haese
post Sep 24 2003, 17:05
Post #107


Xiph.org Ogg Traffic editor


Group: Developer
Posts: 72
Joined: 7-July 02
Member No.: 2500



QUOTE (Garf @ Sep 24 2003, 11:03 AM)
Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

I'd like to point out, for the record, that it was not I who started the flaming.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Sep 24 2003, 17:08
Post #108


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (c_haese @ Sep 24 2003, 06:05 PM)
QUOTE (Garf @ Sep 24 2003, 11:03 AM)
Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

I'd like to point out, for the record, that it was not I who started the flaming.

Thanks.

Nobody ever claimed so.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Sep 24 2003, 17:10
Post #109





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE (c_haese @ Sep 24 2003, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE (Garf @ Sep 24 2003, 11:03 AM)
Split Vorbis discussion/flamewar

I'd like to point out, for the record, that it was not I who started the flaming.

Thanks.

Well.. I don't think there was/is any flamewar, we are strictly discussing in non-personal level. However, I'm expecting the promised clarification to the patent search issue (meaning documents or such online):
Please continue this discussion here (thread split):
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=13531


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
phong
post Sep 25 2003, 06:54
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 346
Joined: 7-July 03
From: 15 & Ryan
Member No.: 7619



QUOTE (phong @ Sep 23 2003, 04:07 AM)
...I've produced a spreadsheet of the results.  You can download it in OpenOffice (yay!) format here.  You can also get it in Excell (boo!) format here....

I've updated the spreadsheet - it now has a section on the far right that lets you get a summary of all the results of any one listener and compare to the averages. Just enter a listener's handle (where it says "garf" in blue right now) and it will show all their scores and the difference between their scores and the averages. It even highlights lows/highs for each codec in different colors.

ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf. :-) His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.

This post has been edited by phong: Sep 25 2003, 06:55


--------------------
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/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Sep 25 2003, 18:02
Post #111


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE (phong @ Sep 24 2003, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (phong @ Sep 23 2003, 04:07 AM)
...I've produced a spreadsheet of the results.  You can download it in OpenOffice (yay!) format here.  You can also get it in Excell (boo!) format here....

I've updated the spreadsheet - it now has a section on the far right that lets you get a summary of all the results of any one listener and compare to the averages. Just enter a listener's handle (where it says "garf" in blue right now) and it will show all their scores and the difference between their scores and the averages. It even highlights lows/highs for each codec in different colors.

ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf. :-) His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.

Cool thing to play with - thanks!


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 4 2003, 22:42
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 4972
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



Any reason the link doesn't work?

I'd really like to take a look at the site.

QUOTE
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
verloren
post Oct 4 2003, 23:45
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 28-March 02
From: Hants, UK
Member No.: 1637



QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Oct 4 2003, 03:42 PM)
Any reason the link doesn't work?

I'd really like to take a look at the site.

No reason at all - I just tried it and it came up fine. Perhaps you could post what happens and I'll try to sort it out.

Cheers, Paul
audio.ciara.us sponsor laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Oct 4 2003, 23:56
Post #114


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (tigre @ Sep 25 2003, 07:02 PM)
ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf.  :-)  His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.


If I interpret the results correctly, for me HE-AAC is a clear winner with MP3Pro second, followed at some distance by WMA and only then Vorbis, which did only marginally better than RealAudio.

There's a goofy result in that I rated the low anchor up to 5.0 in one test, while giving the high anchor a 3.8.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScorLibran
post Oct 5 2003, 02:35
Post #115





Group: Banned
Posts: 769
Joined: 1-July 03
Member No.: 7495



QUOTE (Garf @ Oct 4 2003, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (tigre @ Sep 25 2003, 07:02 PM)
ps: I don't mean to pick on Garf.  :-)  His scores were quite average so they produce a nice "typical" chart.


If I interpret the results correctly, for me HE-AAC is a clear winner with MP3Pro second, followed at some distance by WMA and only then Vorbis, which did only marginally better than RealAudio.

There's a goofy result in that I rated the low anchor up to 5.0 in one test, while giving the high anchor a 3.8.

I had something similar, rating the low anchor at 5.0 on one sample, though the lowest rating I gave the high anchor was a 4.3.

Ironic it seems to me is that I rated Vorbis at this bitrate the lowest overall, slightly under the low anchor. Ironic, since my entire collection is encoded in Vorbis, although at a bitrate that I tested on many tracks and found to be generally transparent to my ears. Someone proposed that it may be that since I have listened to more Vorbis than any other codec recently, I may be more "tuned" to pick out artifacts with Vorbis. I would have thought it would be the other way around...automatically tuning out Vorbis artifacts more than those of other codecs since I listen to Vorbis encodings every day.

Interesting psychoacoustic phenomena either way...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
webwonk
post Oct 6 2003, 15:20
Post #116





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 24-September 03
Member No.: 8990



Thanks to Both ErikS & rjamorim for their replies to my query (Was the Real CODEC cook or atrc0 - it was Cook), now the follow-up. Was there a reason for not including ATRC0 (Real's 66kbs ATRAC3 implementation) - besides, of course, the obvious difference of 66 and 64kbs. As they are so close, It would be interesting to see how ATRC0 compares to HE-AAC. Has anyone tried this? Any insight would be most appreciated. Thanks again for a very interesting test and subsequent discussion.

Sincerely,

Webwonk.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tigre
post Oct 6 2003, 18:13
Post #117


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE (webwonk @ Oct 6 2003, 06:20 AM)
Was there a reason for not including ATRC0 (Real's 66kbs ATRAC3 implementation) - besides, of course, the obvious difference of 66 and 64kbs. As they are so close, It would be interesting to see how ATRC0 compares to HE-AAC. Has anyone tried this? Any insight would be most appreciated.

There is a pre-test thread with discussion about what codecs to include etc, you might find some answers there.


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
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: 23rd September 2014 - 16:07