IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Listening test using 2013-03-09 build
RobertM
post Mar 9 2013, 10:49
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 17-February 13
Member No.: 106691



I completed a listening test against Opus files encoded with the latest build (as of 2013-09-03). This time I've actually been more thorough - ABX test results from foobar2000 are attached along with the Opus-encoded files. I also took azaqiel's advice and updated the version reported by the encoder, to prevent any confusion.

"Sample 01" from the page below was used for the test. May repeat the test later with other difficult samples.
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/opus/ha2011/


Summary:

Results were very much as expected. Opus quality has definitely improved over time and gets closer to transparency with higher bitrate.

1. 64kb/s from the above page (old opus version) and 64kb/s from the newest Opus version

There was a noticeable improvement in quality with the new Opus version

2. 64kb/s vs original

It was fairly easy to tell the difference, but still quite good quality

3. 96 kb/s vs original

Could still tell the difference but artifacts were noticably improved from the 64kb/s file

4. 128 kb/s vs original

Still can hear a very subtle artifact introduced by the codec (which appears on the note between 2.155 seconds and 2.423 seconds) but had to strain to hear it.

5. 256 kb/s vs original

Very close to transparent. I managed to tell the difference sometimes by listening very hard for the artifact. However, my ability to tell the two apart was far from perfect.

6. 500 kb/s vs original

This was transparent to me.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  sample01_RM.txt ( 3.73K ) Number of downloads: 149
Attached File  Test1.zip ( 1.17MB ) Number of downloads: 168
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
RobertM
post Mar 11 2013, 10:05
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 17-February 13
Member No.: 106691



In an effort to be "fair" to the Opus encoder, I've chosen a sample which Opus was quite good at but the other codecs had trouble with - "Sample 16".
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/opus/ha2011/

Samples from the new encoder and ABX results attached.

Summary:

These results surprised me - I wasn't able to detect any improvement due to the new encoder, but originally I thought the sample was transparent at 64kb/s. After listening many times, I was able to detect a slight difference on the first guitar chord at some bitrates.

1. 48kb/s vs original

A small amount of distortion on the guitar notes at this bitrate, but still good quality

2. 64kb/s from the above page (old opus version) vs original

It took me a long time to be able to differentiate these two but when I spotted the tiny difference in the first guitar chord, I was able to repeatedly identify it.

3. 64kb/s vs original

As above, was able to hear a slight difference

4. 64kb/s from the above page (old opus version) vs 64kb/s from the newest Opus version

Was unable to differentiate these two, indicating no major difference between the new encoder and old encoder for this sample.

5. 96kb/s vs original

This was transparent to me. The ABX results swing slightly towards a small difference, but I think it was due to chance.

This post has been edited by RobertM: Mar 11 2013, 10:06
Attached File(s)
Attached File  sample16_RM.txt ( 3.13K ) Number of downloads: 94
Attached File  Test2.zip ( 207.98K ) Number of downloads: 98
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- RobertM   Listening test using 2013-03-09 build   Mar 9 2013, 10:49
- - zerowalker   Isnīt that pretty bad, to not be able to reach tra...   Mar 10 2013, 22:44
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (zerowalker @ Mar 10 2013, 16:44) I...   Mar 10 2013, 22:56
|- - jmvalin   QUOTE (saratoga @ Mar 10 2013, 16:56) Its...   Mar 11 2013, 00:05
- - db1989   Yes, it was a sample that is known to be difficult...   Mar 10 2013, 22:55
|- - zerowalker   QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 10 2013, 22:55) Yes, ...   Mar 10 2013, 23:00
- - IgorC   RobertM, Let me comment two things. First, one s...   Mar 10 2013, 23:53
|- - RobertM   QUOTE (IgorC @ Mar 11 2013, 09:53) Robert...   Mar 11 2013, 08:30
- - eahm   Is there a Windows compiled 2013-09-03?   Mar 11 2013, 00:26
- - wswartzendruber   Is there a place that houses updated builds of the...   Mar 11 2013, 02:51
- - RobertM   In an effort to be "fair" to the Opus en...   Mar 11 2013, 10:05
- - kabal4e   Thanks to RobertM I have an opus-tools build from ...   Mar 12 2013, 02:54
|- - jmvalin   QUOTE (kabal4e @ Mar 11 2013, 20:54) Than...   Mar 12 2013, 03:17
|- - kabal4e   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Mar 12 2013, 15:17) As m...   Mar 12 2013, 03:34
||- - jmvalin   QUOTE (kabal4e @ Mar 11 2013, 21:34) Howe...   Mar 12 2013, 03:45
|- - jmvalin   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Mar 11 2013, 21:17) Wow...   Mar 12 2013, 18:45
|- - RobertM   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Mar 13 2013, 03:45) QUOT...   Mar 12 2013, 20:14
|- - jmvalin   QUOTE (RobertM @ Mar 12 2013, 15:14) I...   Mar 12 2013, 20:44
|- - kabal4e   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Mar 13 2013, 08:44) I hi...   Mar 12 2013, 23:39
|- - db1989   QUOTE (kabal4e @ Mar 12 2013, 22:39) Foob...   Mar 13 2013, 00:13
|- - jmvalin   QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 12 2013, 19:13) QUOTE...   Mar 13 2013, 03:04
|- - db1989   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Mar 13 2013, 02:04) If t...   Mar 13 2013, 09:35
|- - bawjaws   QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 13 2013, 00:35) QUOTE...   Mar 14 2013, 17:54
- - db1989   Please explain how a bit-comparison provides any i...   Mar 14 2013, 18:49
- - jmvalin   QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 14 2013, 13:49) Can a...   Mar 14 2013, 21:38
- - db1989   I definitely don’t disagree, and I can appre...   Mar 14 2013, 22:00
- - jmvalin   QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 14 2013, 17:00) I def...   Mar 14 2013, 23:09
- - kabal4e   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Mar 15 2013, 11:09) What...   Mar 15 2013, 00:15
- - db1989   I do apologise if I misread anything or underestim...   Mar 15 2013, 01:33


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: 2nd September 2014 - 02:10