Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN (Read 164202 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #100 –
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!
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!

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #101 –
Quote
Then I loaded the sample03config and tried... no play button is working correctly, there is no sound coming out of my headphone or speakers!
Foobar ist running perfectly..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348265"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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)

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #102 –
Quote
Quote
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.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348261"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348264"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #103 –
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  ) 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 
I'm unhappy with some sample choices but I'll leave that for later.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #104 –
Quote
In the last Guru's test  difference also was about 10% between result of Nero and Itunes.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

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

[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38792]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=38792[/url]

The difference is ~6% with classical and only 2,40% for non-classical (on average: I still forgot to add the bitrate table).

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #105 –
@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.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #106 –
Quote
@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.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348354"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #107 –
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!

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #108 –
Quote
took me 5min searching around to find the batches, a hint in the readme.htm would be nice
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348265"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It was mentioned in 4. all the time.

Quote
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.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348376"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #109 –
Oh, thanks for the info!
Just an average nerd!
 

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #110 –
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.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #111 –
Quote
Oh, thanks for the info!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348385"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #113 –
Quote
Congrats to Raptus for finishing the whole sample set. Thanks!

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

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #114 –
Quote
Quote
Congrats to Raptus for finishing the whole sample set. Thanks!

was I the first one to finish them all?
6 hours straight with pauses, now im exhausted 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348407"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yep.

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #115 –
Quote
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.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348387"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



OMFG! Julius!

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #116 –
Quote
Quote
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.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348387"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



OMFG! Julius!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348416"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactement. 

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #117 –
Quote
Quote

OMFG! Julius!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348416"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactement. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348418"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #119 –
Quote
Does anyone know how to post on Shlashdot? I am pretty lost.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348428"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Do we really want that?

Only kidding. I could do it.
davidnaylor.org

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #120 –
Quote
Quote
Quote

OMFG! Julius!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348416"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactement. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348418"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sounds like HA.org has its own house troll...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348424"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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...

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #121 –
Quote
Quote
Does anyone know how to post on Shlashdot? I am pretty lost.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Only kidding. I could do it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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

(Converted to forum code.)

[a href="http://maresweb.org/]Sebastian Mares[/url] 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

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #122 –
Sebastian Mares has launcHed

Other than that, sounds excellent

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #123 –
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!!"

Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN

Reply #124 –
Quote
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!!"
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348450"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


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

@Rjamorim: noted.
davidnaylor.org