IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN
Tiis
post Dec 7 2005, 09:29
Post #101





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13-July 04
From: Hanover
Member No.: 15415



Dosent't work for me..

Decompressed ABC-HR, than copyed and decompressed the Sample03 in the ABC-HR folder and run the batch for Sample03 (took me 5min searching around to find the batches, a hint in the readme.htm would be nice)

Then I loaded the sample03config and tried... no play button is working correctly, there is no sound coming out of my headphone or speakers! crying.gif
Foobar ist running perfectly..

Im using WinXp Pro Sp2, Audigy2 ZS 2.08 Drivers and Java 1.5.6

Edit:
Switching the Playbackdevice to the second Audigy Entry did the job!

This post has been edited by Tiis: Dec 7 2005, 09:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sTisTi
post Dec 7 2005, 09:33
Post #102





Group: Members
Posts: 385
Joined: 25-June 04
Member No.: 14895



QUOTE (Tiis @ Dec 7 2005, 09:29 AM)
Then I loaded the sample03config and tried... no play button is working correctly, there is no sound coming out of my headphone or speakers! crying.gif
Foobar ist running perfectly..
*

I had the same issue at the beginning. I changed the output device from "<Name Of My Soundcard>" to "primary device" (or the other way round, don't remember) in the ABC/HR options, then it worked.


--------------------
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caligae
post Dec 7 2005, 14:29
Post #103





Group: Members
Posts: 186
Joined: 23-January 02
Member No.: 1132



QUOTE (Shade[ST] @ Dec 7 2005, 10:26 AM)
QUOTE (caligae @ Dec 7 2005, 02:09 AM)
I don't think you can avoid this (except every listener being supervised by some authority during the test). Even if you use strong encryption, the sound has to go to the soundcard unencrypted sooner or later. It's just like with DRM.
*

It would be possible to implement a disk cache flushing mechanism that would make sure that both accesses take the same time. Or, on opposite levels, a cache mechanism that would make sure that no delays are heard when playing back sound. A sort of safety, like, don't start playing until all files are fully cached (at least the beginning of them, maybe 1-2 seconds, praps)
*


Of course that specific "click" issue can be fixed more or less easily. What I meant is that there will always be a way of successfully ABXing a track without actually hearing a difference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Raptus
post Dec 7 2005, 14:32
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 22-February 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 12191



I'm having some issues with ABC/HR, too.

- after opening several sessions I get short drop outs in sound (garbage collector issue?), forcing me to restart ABC/HR
- after some inactive time (like when you have to eat between tests tongue.gif ) moving the sliders won't update the rank number anymore
- when I start ABC/HR I get a blank window in most cases. With some luck I can open it after restarting the PC...

Latest JRE 1.5.0 under W2K.

Apart from that I'm two thirds through the test cool.gif
I'm unhappy with some sample choices but I'll leave that for later.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Dec 7 2005, 18:23
Post #105





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (IgorC @ Dec 6 2005, 08:52 PM)
In the last Guru's test  difference also was about 10% between result of Nero and Itunes.
*

dry.gif

CLASSICAL
AAC iTunes 133,33 kbps
AAC Nero 125,71 kbps

NON-CLASSICAL (short samples)
AAC iTunes 137,31 kbps
AAC Nero 134,10 kbps

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=38792

The difference is ~6% with classical and only 2,40% for non-classical (on average: I still forgot to add the bitrate table).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Dec 7 2005, 18:42
Post #106


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



@Guru - unfortunately bit-rate measurement from your previous test is not very relevant for the Nero encoder used in this test, as it is completely different.

Also, @All - I did Advanced-PEAQ analysis (with Opticom Opera) of the listening test samples, and did statistical analysis afterwards (ANOVA).

I will publish results when the test is over - it will be very interesting to measure correlation between Advanced PEAQ and real-world listening test results.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Dec 7 2005, 18:52
Post #107





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Dec 7 2005, 06:42 PM)
@Guru - unfortunately bit-rate measurement from your previous test is not very relevant for the Nero encoder used in this test, as it is completely different.
*

I know. I just answered to IgorC which didn't give correct information about my last personal listening test.

Furthemore, I don't agree with this: “It's not hard to assume iTunes will be better on this test due to quite big oversize”. During latest listening test, Nero Digital encodings were oversized compared to iTunes CBR, and the latter performed better. The assumption: "higher bitrate -> higher quality" isn't necessary true.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpacemanSpiff0x0
post Dec 7 2005, 20:25
Post #108





Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 15-November 05
Member No.: 25787



Ok, so i went to the other thread and searched for the settings.

QUOTE
# Settings are:

iTunes 6.0.1.3: 128 kbps, VBR
LAME 3.97b2: -V5 --vbr-new --noreplaygain
Nero 3.1.0.2 (only I have it ATM): Streaming Profile (make sure LC is selected!)
Shine 0.1.4: -b 128
AoTuV 4.51: -q 4.25 (or 4,25 depending on system settings)
WMA Pro 9.1 (using VBS): -a_codec WMA9PRO -a_mode 2 -a_setting Q50_44_2_24


One thing I noticed is that when Sebastian talked about the Nero files he mentioned that it was ABR. I was under the impression that it was VBR only.

Another question I had was why not use the built in "Calculate" function to produce a file that was truly 128Kb average?

If these are ignorant questions, I apologize, I'm only recently involved in these types of things.


--------------------
Just an average nerd!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 20:51
Post #109





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE (Tiis @ Dec 7 2005, 09:29 AM)
took me 5min searching around to find the batches, a hint in the readme.htm would be nice
*


It was mentioned in 4. all the time. smile.gif

QUOTE (SpacemanSpiff0x0 @ Dec 7 2005, 08:25 PM)
Ok, so i went to the other thread and searched for the settings.

QUOTE
# Settings are:

iTunes 6.0.1.3: 128 kbps, VBR
LAME 3.97b2: -V5 --vbr-new --noreplaygain
Nero 3.1.0.2 (only I have it ATM): Streaming Profile (make sure LC is selected!)
Shine 0.1.4: -b 128
AoTuV 4.51: -q 4.25 (or 4,25 depending on system settings)
WMA Pro 9.1 (using VBS): -a_codec WMA9PRO -a_mode 2 -a_setting Q50_44_2_24


One thing I noticed is that when Sebastian talked about the Nero files he mentioned that it was ABR. I was under the impression that it was VBR only.

Another question I had was why not use the built in "Calculate" function to produce a file that was truly 128Kb average?

If these are ignorant questions, I apologize, I'm only recently involved in these types of things.
*



The "Streaming" profile was used because it was recommended by the developers. Also, Juha mentioned something that it uses an updated core while the other settings don't.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpacemanSpiff0x0
post Dec 7 2005, 20:57
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 15-November 05
Member No.: 25787



Oh, thanks for the info!


--------------------
Just an average nerd!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 21:01
Post #111





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



I am receiving some e-mails from users who are bitching that the test is useless and that calling the test "... @ 128 kbps" is a lie because we are not even testing at 128 kbps.

I would like to make it clear again that the 128 kbps are supposed to be reached on a large collection of audio tracks and not on 18, usually hard-to-encode, 30 seconds samples. It's the nature of VBR to encode difficult parts of a song at a higher bitrate than less complex parts. Therefore, even when encoding one single track, chances are good to reach something like 128 kbps because the full track is usually a mixture of hard to encode parts and easy to encode parts. Our samples however contain the difficult parts of an audio track only.

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Dec 7 2005, 21:04


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 21:02
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE (SpacemanSpiff0x0 @ Dec 7 2005, 08:57 PM)
Oh, thanks for the info!
*


One more thing - according to Ivan, the encoder produces bitrates around 134 kbps which I can confirm after letting it encode my small music collection of 300 files. And 134 kbps is pretty close to 128 kbps. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Dec 7 2005, 21:03


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 21:34
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



Congrats to Raptus for finishing the whole sample set. Thanks! smile.gif

Also, thanks to the rest who also submitted results.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Raptus
post Dec 7 2005, 22:10
Post #114





Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 22-February 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 12191



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 12:34 PM)
Congrats to Raptus for finishing the whole sample set. Thanks! smile.gif

was I the first one to finish them all?
6 hours straight with pauses, now im exhausted laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 22:12
Post #115





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE (Raptus @ Dec 7 2005, 10:10 PM)
QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 12:34 PM)
Congrats to Raptus for finishing the whole sample set. Thanks! smile.gif

was I the first one to finish them all?
6 hours straight with pauses, now im exhausted laugh.gif
*



Yep. biggrin.gif


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 7 2005, 22:27
Post #116


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 06:01 PM)
I am receiving some e-mails from users who are bitching that the test is useless and that calling the test "... @ 128 kbps" is a lie because we are not even testing at 128 kbps.

I would like to make it clear again that the 128 kbps are supposed to be reached on a large collection of audio tracks and not on 18, usually hard-to-encode, 30 seconds samples. It's the nature of VBR to encode difficult parts of a song at a higher bitrate than less complex parts. Therefore, even when encoding one single track, chances are good to reach something like 128 kbps because the full track is usually a mixture of hard to encode parts and easy to encode parts. Our samples however contain the difficult parts of an audio track only.
*



OMFG! Julius!


--------------------
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
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 22:28
Post #117





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 7 2005, 10:27 PM)
QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 06:01 PM)
I am receiving some e-mails from users who are bitching that the test is useless and that calling the test "... @ 128 kbps" is a lie because we are not even testing at 128 kbps.

I would like to make it clear again that the 128 kbps are supposed to be reached on a large collection of audio tracks and not on 18, usually hard-to-encode, 30 seconds samples. It's the nature of VBR to encode difficult parts of a song at a higher bitrate than less complex parts. Therefore, even when encoding one single track, chances are good to reach something like 128 kbps because the full track is usually a mixture of hard to encode parts and easy to encode parts. Our samples however contain the difficult parts of an audio track only.
*



OMFG! Julius!
*



Exactement. happy.gif


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 7 2005, 22:35
Post #118





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 19-June 05
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Member No.: 22842



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE

OMFG! Julius!
*


Exactement. happy.gif
*



Sounds like HA.org has its own house troll...


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 22:44
Post #119





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



Does anyone know how to post on Shlashdot? I am pretty lost. blush.gif


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 7 2005, 23:17
Post #120





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 19-June 05
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Member No.: 22842



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 11:44 PM)
Does anyone know how to post on Shlashdot? I am pretty lost. blush.gif
*


Do we really want that? wink.gif

Only kidding. I could do it.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 7 2005, 23:17
Post #121


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (naylor83 @ Dec 7 2005, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE

OMFG! Julius!
*


Exactement. happy.gif
*



Sounds like HA.org has its own house troll...
*



Nah, he's more like a homeless troll from the r3mix days.

He posted here only once, and was banned on sight. Claims to have a proxy'ed account now...


--------------------
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
naylor83
post Dec 7 2005, 23:42
Post #122





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 19-June 05
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Member No.: 22842



QUOTE (naylor83 @ Dec 8 2005, 12:17 AM)
QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 11:44 PM)
Does anyone know how to post on Shlashdot? I am pretty lost. blush.gif
*


Only kidding. I could do it.
*



Ok. Here's a suggestion. Unless anyone has any strong objections or suggestions I will post this in 20 minutes:

(Converted to forum code.)

Sebastian Mares has launced a new audio encoder test for the 128 kbps range. The listening test includes Ogg Vorbis, MP3, AAC (Nero and iTunes) and WMA Pro - all using the latest and greatest encoders available.

Some self-proclaimed audio 1337 may think that 128 kbps isn't worth the effort, but having given the test a try myself I can say that distinguishing 128 kbps encodes from the originals is no simple task these days. Dig out those golden ears and go help them out - the more testers the merrier.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 7 2005, 23:52
Post #123


Rarewares admin


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



Sebastian Mares has launcHed

Other than that, sounds excellent smile.gif


--------------------
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
Shade[ST]
post Dec 7 2005, 23:57
Post #124





Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144



I think you should also say that they're VBR ranges, and they remain RANGES, not exact bitrates - they spread out on collections, etc.. what has been said on this topic, to prevent seb's email getting spammed with "USELESS, not 128!!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 8 2005, 00:17
Post #125





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 19-June 05
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Member No.: 22842



QUOTE (Shade[ST] @ Dec 8 2005, 12:57 AM)
I think you should also say that they're VBR ranges, and they remain RANGES, not exact bitrates - they spread out on collections, etc.. what has been said on this topic, to prevent seb's email getting spammed with "USELESS, not 128!!"
*


I could try adding a little something about that. Not to much though - people wont ever get through it all...

@Rjamorim: noted.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Closed 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: 18th September 2014 - 04:23