IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN
naylor83
post Dec 6 2005, 21:47
Post #76





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



QUOTE (ep0ch @ Dec 6 2005, 09:04 PM)
Doesn't telling everyone where the artifacts are kinda defeat the point of a listening test?
*


Well, I had listened at the beginning and I couldn't hear a thing, so it certainly didn't help me laugh.gif

Ok. I'll stop asking.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 6 2005, 21:52
Post #77





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



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 6 2005, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE (sTisTi @ Dec 6 2005, 08:37 PM)
QUOTE (ep0ch @ Dec 6 2005, 08:04 PM)
Doesn't telling everyone where the artifacts are kinda defeat the point of a listening test?
*

The whole procedure of a listening test kind of defeats itself if you think like this. Training yourself to hear artifacts also shouldn't be done then, because you then might recognize new artifacts you missed before, which would change the notation of the codecs. I think the important thing is whether you can hear artifacts are not. Without knowing what to listen for and preferably also in which parts of the music, I am pretty sure practically everybody would have to rate all codecs as 5.0 in this test.
*



Well, specifying the exact position and sample where an artifact is noticable is a bit unfair IMHO.
*



But I think sTisTi has a point all the same. If I can hear it, I can hear it. If I can't - as it turned out in this case - (I can't even single out the low anchor for Carbonelli...) then I can't. All the knowledge in the world probably couldn't help me find that artifact, and hence the sample to me is a 5.0.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 6 2005, 22:00
Post #78





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



That is true, too. smile.gif


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 6 2005, 22:13
Post #79





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



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 6 2005, 11:00 PM)
That is true, too. smile.gif
*


And you have to remember that the people taking a test like this probably vary a lot when it comes to training and skill, so the results can never be seen as representative for say 'average listeners' or 'pedantic listeners' - it's most likely a mix of all kinds.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 6 2005, 23:05
Post #80


Rarewares admin


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



Jesus Christ!

Discussing artifacts ist verboten. Please stop it at once, people!

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Dec 6 2005, 23:07


--------------------
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 6 2005, 23:06
Post #81





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



Edit: Roberto was faster.

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Dec 6 2005, 23:12


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 6 2005, 23:19
Post #82





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



QUOTE (naylor83 @ Dec 6 2005, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 6 2005, 11:00 PM)
That is true, too. smile.gif
*


And you have to remember that the people taking a test like this probably vary a lot when it comes to training and skill, so the results can never be seen as representative for say 'average listeners' or 'pedantic listeners' - it's most likely a mix of all kinds.
*



One thing I didn't consider - when person X says that sample Y has an artifact at postition 123, then person Z is going to keep testing and testing sample Y because he knows that it has an artifact.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caligae
post Dec 7 2005, 00:57
Post #83





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



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Dec 7 2005, 12:19 AM)
One thing I didn't consider - when person X says that sample Y has an artifact at postition 123, then person Z is going to keep testing and testing sample Y because he knows that it has an artifact.
*


But this would only be unfair if that specific artifact is only spotable with encoder A, but encoder B has noticable artifacts at different positions. If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Dec 7 2005, 01:48
Post #84


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (caligae @ Dec 6 2005, 09:57 PM)
If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.
*


You also get artificial results, as people might listen again and again, paying much more attention than they normally would.


--------------------
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
eisa01
post Dec 7 2005, 01:53
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 05
Member No.: 26229



My fear is that I'll only be able to figure out what the low anchor is tongue.gif

Have only tested two samples, and I've only managed to find one version that had artifacts.

This post has been edited by eisa01: Dec 7 2005, 01:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
markanini
post Dec 7 2005, 02:28
Post #86





Group: Members
Posts: 550
Joined: 22-December 03
From: Malmö, Sweden
Member No.: 10615



So far I've done three samples and sure it's difficult to spot artefacts on other than the low anchor but it's not totally impossible. A quiet enviroment and adjusting the volume moderately loud for each sample helps. The hard parts is probably that you need to be in a focused state of mind and you'll have to listen to all the samples more than a few times to spot the artefacts.

Just a few observations I made. Not that I've done many listening teste before...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Oliver
post Dec 7 2005, 03:09
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 26042



QUOTE (eisa01 @ Dec 6 2005, 08:53 PM)
My fear is that I'll only be able to figure out what the low anchor is tongue.gif
*
Hi eisa01,

I have the same fear! I plan to use the practice files, in the hope that they will improve my ability to hear the problems.

Oliver

Practice files http://ff123.net/64test/64kbsPractice.zip
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 7 2005, 03:12
Post #88


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



It has already been requested twice that people stop discussing their experience of the listening test itself while the still is still being carried out.

Please respect that, otherwise it is likely that this thread will be closed so as to maintain test integrity.

Really, until the test is finished, the only things that should be discussed in this thread, in my opinion (Sebastian can add something here if he doesn't agree), are metaissues such as discussion about obtaining or distributing the files, announcing the test at other places, or discussion about problems with the abc/hr program.

If you can't hear any differences, fine. That is just as useful of a result for the purposes of the test. Please don't ask other people to tell you if they hear differences or to describe their testing experience.

By the way, if Sebastian requests it, I will remove previous posts discussing any of this from the current thread.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Dec 7 2005, 04:10
Post #89





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



I found an issue with the delivered ABC/HR program :

DISCLAIMER - DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU ARE PERFORMING THE OPEN TEST - IT MAY INFLUENCE YOUR RESULTS.

PM me for details.

This post has been edited by Shade[ST]: Dec 7 2005, 19:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ErikS
post Dec 7 2005, 04:32
Post #90





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



QUOTE (Shade[ST] @ Dec 7 2005, 05:10 AM)
I found an issue with the delivered ABC/HR program :
[...]hear a click[...]
*

Make sure you're using JRE v1.5. If you haven't upgraded, clicks in the sound is an issue which is already known. Perhaps there should have been a warning or something when abc/hr falls back on older JRE... well well...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Dec 7 2005, 05:03
Post #91





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



I am using the latest JRE. I reformatted two days ago.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 7 2005, 06:51
Post #92





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



QUOTE (Shade[ST] @ Dec 7 2005, 06:03 AM)
I am using the latest JRE. I reformatted two days ago.
*


Me too.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naylor83
post Dec 7 2005, 06:54
Post #93





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



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 7 2005, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (caligae @ Dec 6 2005, 09:57 PM)
If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.
*


You also get artificial results, as people might listen again and again, paying much more attention than they normally would.
*



But then again, that is true for any listening tests. Or do you suggest we just listen to every sample once, as if we were only 'enjoying the music', and then rate everything at 5.0?

However, I will respect Sebastians request not to ask/answer questions like that. And nobody has gone against him since he stated his opinion on the matter.


--------------------
davidnaylor.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Dec 7 2005, 06:59
Post #94





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



QUOTE (naylor83 @ Dec 7 2005, 06:54 AM)
QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 7 2005, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (caligae @ Dec 6 2005, 09:57 PM)
If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.
*


You also get artificial results, as people might listen again and again, paying much more attention than they normally would.
*



But then again, that is true for any listening tests. Or do you suggest we just listen to every sample once, as if we were only 'enjoying the music', and then rate everything at 5.0?

However, I will respect Sebastians request not to ask/answer questions like that. And nobody has gone against him since he stated his opinion on the matter.
*



No, it's OK to re-listen to the song as many times as you want.
However, when someone says that sample XYZ has an artifact, you are not going to let go until you spotted it because you know there is an artifact there.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lyx
post Dec 7 2005, 07:03
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 3353
Joined: 6-July 03
From: Sachsen (DE)
Member No.: 7609



QUOTE
But then again, that is true for any listening tests. Or do you suggest we just listen to every sample once, as if we were only 'enjoying the music', and then rate everything at 5.0?

This is not a black/white issue. Some "artificial" training is necessary - but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And you now know where it is.

- Lyx


--------------------
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
plonk420
post Dec 7 2005, 07:57
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 312
Joined: 6-October 01
Member No.: 227



RareWares seems to be sending .TORRENT files as wrong MIME type. browser normally opens them to download or launch (and trust me, i use a LOT of torrent sites ;). RareWares causes my firefox to display them as text files...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpacemanSpiff0x0
post Dec 7 2005, 08:01
Post #97





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



Holy crap, I just finished the test and I must say, I am really impressed by the quality of these samples. It's phenominal.

I have one question and I will not in any way be aggrevated if it is not answered (for some test reason).

The question I have is, what were the specific settings for the Nero encoded files. Was it one of the default LC profiles. Perhaps VBR/Stereo - Transparent [110-150]? Or was it a custom setting?

Thanks.


--------------------
Just an average nerd!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Dec 7 2005, 08:09
Post #98





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



QUOTE (SpacemanSpiff0x0 @ Dec 7 2005, 01:01 AM)
I have one question and I will not in any way be aggrevated if it is not answered (for some test reason).
*

You can read the whole discussion about the choice of samples in the pre-test thread. just search for it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caligae
post Dec 7 2005, 09:09
Post #99





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



QUOTE (Shade[ST] @ Dec 7 2005, 05:10 AM)
I found an issue with the delivered ABC/HR program :


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.

Yesterday I could easily abx a file without even the sound turned on within a few seconds.

So we just have to trust that no one wants to ruin the test by sending in manipulated results. Since the encoders and settings are also available, it would even be possible to favor/bash a specific codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Dec 7 2005, 09:26
Post #100





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



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)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 17th September 2014 - 07:14