IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Closed TopicStart new topic
graph shows 320 kbps LAME 'never achieves transparency'?
db1989
post Aug 31 2011, 23:02
Post #51





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (MichaelW @ Aug 31 2011, 22:56) *
BTW, perceptually indistinguishable to whom, under what circumstances, always, sometimes?

To quote your previous post:
QUOTE
"transparent" means that in a particular (series of) test(s), particular listener(s) were unable to tell the difference between specific lossily-coded sample(s) and their original(s).

That or in the general sense: a given setting producing lossy encodes indistinguishable from their sources for most material, as hopefully represented in a subset; when listened to by most individuals, as hopefully represented by the cross-section of users participating in the sum total of listening tests previously performed on that setting.

I mean, you specifically qualified both of these, so are we just nit-picking for its own sake now? All this really shows is that both listening and language are subjective. So? I would say that Hydrogenaudio and all other similarly evidence-based initiatives are doing a pretty good job despite these inherent and ineradicable limitations, if you want to call them that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 31 2011, 23:21
Post #52





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Nitpicking indeed!

I'm being asked to qualify something in a post with information I provided only two posts prior? It's also being suggested that I'm having difficulty with reading comprehension? Now that would be pretty rich.

smile.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 1 2011, 00:07


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Notat
post Sep 1 2011, 00:28
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 581
Joined: 17-August 09
Member No.: 72373



QUOTE (halb27 @ Aug 31 2011, 13:18) *
A practical definition of a codec's transparency could mean that there was no listener so far who was able to successfully ABX a sample. Sure the quality of this kind of transparency depends heavily on the number of listeners (and their ABXing abilities) trying hard to find non-transparent (in the personal sense above) samples.

You'd probably also want to put some constraints on the test material. I believe it is easy to contrive an artificial "killer sample" that would crowbar an encoder.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Sep 17 2011, 04:06
Post #54





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3361
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



This graph really, really needs to go! A graph with an axis labeled "quality" with nothing more than a single developer's whimsical numerical evaluations of quality as data, along with the sizes of one album for file size? This is Hydrogenaudio. We should really hold ourselves to a higher standard. I know it's informal, but I've just had a big argument with someone over on another forum regarding this bloody graph. With all due respect to Gabriel's numbers, I still think we need to pull it. I'm gonna go ahead and do just that. If anyone feels the need to revert it, please do so, but I'd like to hear reasons why you think it should stay. The graph is at odds with everything that I value in this community.

Edit: Also, I'm moving this to Wiki Discussion.

This post has been edited by Canar: Sep 17 2011, 04:08


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bennetng
post Sep 17 2011, 04:21
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 224
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26587



My perceived quality is that v0 is equal to b320.
For some (maybe less than 1%) audio files I can ABX v0 vs lossless or b320 vs lossless, but I can never ABX v0 vs b320.
I would like to listen to some killer samples showing that b320 is better than v0.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest_smpltn_*
post Nov 16 2011, 01:31
Post #56





Guests






Do you mind removing that graph from the site? People are still able to link and cite the graph as fact elsewhere, and I'm really sick of seeing it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 16 2011, 01:55
Post #57





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



The graph was already taken down. Are you suggesting that someone removes it from the discussion that was linked? If so, this is not going to happen.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: 20th September 2014 - 09:07