IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Multiformat listening test @ ~64kbps: Results, Results and post-test discussion
NullC
post Apr 22 2011, 13:31
Post #101





Group: Developer
Posts: 200
Joined: 8-July 03
Member No.: 7653



QUOTE (IgorC @ Apr 21 2011, 14:52) *
NullC,
h*tp://www.mediafire.com/?s7i9usu2qr27pcg
The bitrate is slightly lower.


66.29 -> 65.82 Good. As expected. Not quite enough to get it lower than Vorbis— but lower than the AAC encoders.

Thanks for testing that.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Apr 28 2011, 17:38
Post #102





Group: Members
Posts: 1582
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Some statistics of this public test
18 listeners were kind to answer the questions. All of them are men. There was at least one woman but she hasn't answered the questions.

Age:
Min – 20
Max – 46
Average – 28.61

Some observation by groups of age:
20-25 years. A few young participants. Good performance.
26-29 years. Good performance as well. Good observation. Excelent.
30-34 years. Very accurate observation with patience. They take their time to perform the test. The results are as good as of the younger groups (and maybe a bit better in overall).
>35 years. They were too few participants. But they have performed good too. smile.gif

At least for this test there is no connection between the quality of the results and age. It's more about experience.


Headphones/speakers:
78% - headphones
11% - speakers
11% - headphones and speakers

Most of participants had Sennheiser headphones. ( 44.4%)
Some of participants have realized that headphones are better for spoting artifacts.

Soundcard:
Most of users had on-board soundcards. (59%). It's perfectly fine at least for me. Nowdays on-board solutions are actually very good.

Operating System:
7 – 52.9%
Vista – 11.8%
XP – 23.5%
Linux – 5.9%
Mac OS X – 5.9%

Computer:
Desktop – 52.9%
Mobile (laptop-like) – 41.2%
HTPC – 5.9%

The noise of fans:
Low – 76.5%
High – 17.6%
Less or more – 5.9%

Quite room:
1) Yes – 58.9%
2) Moderate – 23.5%
3) No – 17.6%

Time of testing:
Morning – 10%
Afternoon – 16.7%
Evening – 36.7%
Night - 30%
Varios – 6.7%

The place (room):
Home – 70.6%
Office – 11.8%
Computer room – 11.8%
Treated room – 5.9%

Previous participation in public tests:
For 58.9% of people it was the first time when they have participated in such test but allmost all of them have performed their own blind tests.
5.9% - previously have participated in 1 past public test
17.6% - in 3 of them
17.6% – in 6 or more

This post has been edited by IgorC: Apr 28 2011, 17:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Sheep of DEA...
post May 5 2011, 07:34
Post #103





Group: Developer
Posts: 175
Joined: 16-April 06
Member No.: 29596



Hi all. I might be behind on the times, but was this test intended to replace the 80kbps test proposed last year? I ask because I'm unsure whether to continue tuning GXLame (a project I started as a proof of concept and also to be somewhat competitive at lower bitrates). Thanks, and my profoundest apologies if it is deemed that I am going off-topic.

This post has been edited by The Sheep of DEATH: May 5 2011, 07:35


--------------------
Copy Restriction, Annulment, & Protection = C.R.A.P. -Supacon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post May 5 2011, 21:45
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 1582
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Hi, DS

QUOTE (The Sheep of DEATH @ May 5 2011, 03:34) *
Hi all. I might be behind on the times, but was this test intended to replace the 80kbps test proposed last year?

Do you mean 128 kpbs AAC public test that was postponed? It wasnīt cancelled totally.
As far as I know there are too many competitive AAC encoders (Nero, CT, Apple, possibly FhG) and next public test should be only for AAC encoders (maybe at 96 kbps). Only then multiformat public test can be conducted.

Those were my thoughts. It can be different. Itīs up to all hydrogenaudio. Maybe other members want to conduct the next test. It will be great if we can work all together because I couldnīt conduct this test without help of Garf. It is time consuming and not easy.

QUOTE (The Sheep of DEATH @ May 5 2011, 03:34) *
I ask because I'm unsure whether to continue tuning GXLame (a project I started as a proof of concept and also to be somewhat competitive at lower bitrates)

There was interest in your tunings. Some people have reported in your topic. I will give a shot too.
Any available codec can be included in public test if there is enough interest.

This post has been edited by IgorC: May 5 2011, 21:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snadge
post Jun 9 2011, 14:08
Post #105





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5-March 11
From: UK
Member No.: 88709



just want to say thanks for all your hard work in doing these tests for us to refer too..

THANK YOU


--------------------
www.dslbuddy.net - Broadband Tech Support
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post Jun 15 2011, 22:55
Post #106





Group: Developer
Posts: 694
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



QUOTE (The Sheep of DEATH @ May 5 2011, 08:34) *
Hi all. I might be behind on the times, but was this test intended to replace the 80kbps test proposed last year? I ask because I'm unsure whether to continue tuning GXLame (a project I started as a proof of concept and also to be somewhat competitive at lower bitrates). Thanks, and my profoundest apologies if it is deemed that I am going off-topic.

Sheep, allow me to redirect you here.

Chris


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
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: 28th December 2014 - 00:04