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: [TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014) (Read 5331 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: IgorC on
It came 2ºd, right after Apple AAC.  The result will be same.

First, Apple did not win.

Second, what makes you so sure the results will be identical?  I can provide random data for the contenders and not have my results tossed so long as I don't do anything stupid in ranking the anchors with respect to the contenders.  These tests are subjective, after all.  Also, even if people who participated in both tests gave the same results (don't hold your breath on that) what about people who participated in one test, but not the other?

Third, I see no reason to dismiss this test which don't give the exact* same result:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=100525

(*) Maybe it did if you actually pay respect to the error bars for both tests (just between Apple and FhG, they are actually statistically tied over-all in both tests!).


Greynol,

These questions should be made to people, not to me. They will judge.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #1 –
Quote from: IgorC on
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: IgorC on
It came 2ºd, right after Apple AAC.  The result will be same.
First, Apple did not win.

Second, what makes you so sure the results will be identical?  I can provide random data for the contenders and not have my results tossed so long as I don't do anything stupid in ranking the anchors with respect to the contenders.  These tests are subjective, after all.  Also, even if people who participated in both tests gave the same results (don't hold your breath on that) what about people who participated in one test, but not the other?

Third, I see no reason to dismiss this test which don't give the exact* same result:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=100525

(*) Maybe it did if you actually pay respect to the error bars for both tests (just between Apple and FhG, they are actually statistically tied over-all in both tests!).

Greynol,

These questions should be made to people, not to me. They will judge.
You're the one making the claim that the results will be the same, not other people, IgorC.

I struck my first point.  The second and third stand just fine without it.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #3 –
Quote from: jensend on
I'm already familiar with the SE test

So you get to be wrong. 

Quote from: jensend on
O Most Worshipful Know-It-All.

Who's being the troll here?

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #4 –
Quote from: IgorC on
Apple AAC will be always be on top of other AAC encoders.

I don't think you're in any position to prove this.

...and somehow I'm the troll for calling bullshit.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #5 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: IgorC on
Apple AAC will be always be on top of other AAC encoders.

I don't think you're in any position to prove this.

...and somehow I'm the troll for calling bullshit.

IgorC doesn't have to prove it, the data already prove it for him. The point of only declaring statistically significant results is that we can be confident that such results are repeatable.

You're dismissing the best available listening evidence for no reason at all except to gain points in a silly browbeating of IgorC. Grow up.
 

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #6 –
Quote from: jensend on
You're dismissing the best available listening evidence

You're dismissing the SE result which doesn't exactly agree.  I guess I'll have to take you at your word as to why that is.

The whole point of this is that FhG could beat Apple in a re-match, especially when it tied Apple in a perfectly valid test, personal attacks against me aside.

I would like to see such a re-match.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #7 –
Quote from: greynol on
The whole point of this is that FhG could beat Apple in a re-match, especially when it tied Apple in a perfectly valid test, personal attacks against me aside.

Doesn't a method with a scientific approach mean a repeatability?   

As I have posted
Quote
There were 3 public tests. Roberto's Sebastian's and mine. All of them have shown that HE-AAC is better than Vorbis.


Now speaking of scientic approach.
You take as an argument Sound Expert test? Is it ABX? Is it ABC/HR? http://soundexpert.org/testing-room
No, it's not.

Greynol, it's the severe violation of our own principles of methodology (ABX, ABC/HR)!

Quote from: greynol on
First, Apple did not win.
Please, don't change your comments. Once You have said something, it's here.

Edit:grammar

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #8 –
I conceded the point that your last test showed that Apple CVBR had only an extremely slight edge in your test, that you chose to selectively quote is not my problem.

I have no issues with the way that particular SE test was conducted.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #9 –
Quote from: greynol on
I have no issues with the way that particular SE test was conducted.


Well, I do!  And  99.9% of people on this forum will agree with me.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #10 –
While I wouldn't feel comfortable speculating as to what 1000 other people think, especially in a discussion where statistical figures are supposed to have real meaning, it's your party, IgorC.

Clearly you don't agree with me and that's fine.

A word of advice, if you're having a problem with the direction of your discussion, you have the opportunity to steer it elsewhere through your communication.  The reality is that it was already starting to move more in the direction you probably would have liked to see it go after I was done commenting the last time around.  I'm surprised you felt the need to engage me once again.

All this because I would like to see the pretty much the same contenders as eahm?  I disagree with a comment (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter) and then members with an axe to grind start getting abusive?

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #11 –
Please, I'm asking admins to fork all discussion since the first greynol comment.

We will talk about what people think about Sound Expert tests.

Thank You.

Quote from: greynol on
Clearly you don't agree with me and that's fine.

Sir, that it's not only me who is arguing with You lately. 


Quote from: greynol on
All this because I would like to see the pretty much the same contenders as eahm?  I disagree with a comment (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter) and then members with an axe to grind start getting abusive?

What? You didn't propose anything to test. And now trying to put me in bad light. How is that coming

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #12 –
Quote from: greynol on
SE's test results didn't agree with yours so they must be wrong,

Hahahah.  It's only You who think SE worth anything. Don't You see?


I would be intereseting to hear what people think about SE. Jensend was already clear on that more than enough.

People, please, express your opinion about SE.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #13 –
Edit: Personal attack deleted. If you're part of a discussion forum you'll have to live with people disagreeing and discussing with you.

[TOS #2] From: New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014)

Reply #14 –
^^^ This seems unreasonable.