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: lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread (Read 311503 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #250 –
I understand - it wouldn't help me though as I have not yet found a problem with --portable in all of the hours of play on my DAP.

So, it now seems to be the time for a call for samples (say 6 at the most) to be tested.

Following David's suggestion, these could be processed at --portable and --standard in the first instance, to which I would add --quality 0. Using --quality 0 results in the most likely case where artifacts will be identified and could be use as the initial learning tool for the higher quality presets.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #251 –
I can't keep up with all the different releases - which one do you want us to test Nick?

EDIT: another "problem" is that even -q 0 isn't obviously bad to me. In fact, let me be bluntly honest here: I can't hear a difference! This is 24dB more noise than BORK has ABXed with -I.

When I was first playing with lossyFLAC (using quite a different algorithm for judging the amount of noise to add I suppose) the difference between "transparent" and "awful" was about 12dB. Your tweaks make it much harder to simply add too much noise (also, there's no threshold shift to brute force it higher), so it's not a fair comparison back to those days.

Even so, with almost any audio codec in existence, you wouldn't expect 24dB difference between what two people think is "transparent". If you increase the coding noise in a "good" mp3 by 24dB, it'll make your ears bleed!

Just rambling/sharing - not really trying to make any particular point (other than the fact that this might be quite difficult!).

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #252 –
Beta v1.1.2f and beta v1.1.2g are essentially the same other than the inclusion of the --randombits parameter, so I would recommend that beta v1.1.2g be used for testing.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #253 –
OK.

Does anyone have any samples that are problematic at -q 2.5? Or -q 0.0?

I fear these might be quite different from the type of samples that BORK has been ABXing, but we have to start somewhere.

Nick, can -q go negative? I know it can't now, but what I mean is, is it possible to do worse than -q 0? Just to hear how the thing goes wrong?

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #254 –
I can certainly create a negative extension to the scale for the purposes of evaluation. I would expect this to go down to -q -2.0 or --nasty (). I will extrapolate the parameters a bit more steeply than the delta from -q 2.0 to -q 0.0.

From memory Sauvage78 can ABX "01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole" at -q 1.5.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #255 –
lossyWAV beta 1.1.2h attached to post #1 in this thread.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #256 –
Even -N is quite subtle - I'm not complaining though.

Where's "01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole"?

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #257 –
ygem.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #258 –
There's a bug in beta v1.1.2h which causes the quality selection mechanism not to work properly. I would suggest that any testing is performed using beta v1.1.2g in the interim until I can find and fix the problem which should be rectified in beta v1.1.2i.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #259 –
Nick C.

I am redoing the test files NOW with the G version as requested,
and starting testing with testers today.

I gather using ONLY --standard as an option is what you want, if other parameters needed please tell me now.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #260 –
I would recommend only using the available quality presets at present. As David has indicated to train the listeners with respect to types of artifacts it may be necessary to use --portable or even --zero in the first instance.

As indicated in the post immediately above your, I am currently bug-hunting and would request that you use beta v1.1.2g in the interim. (Now again available at post #1 in this thread)
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #261 –
lossyWAV beta v1.1.2i attached to post #1 in this thread.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)
 

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #262 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
lossyWAV beta v1.1.2i attached to post #1 in this thread.


Thanks for all the hard work Nick !
First All test File Links:

new 2496 File : http://rapidshare.com/files/197392375/3_vi...ANDARD.rar.html

not sure if these can still be downloaded , if anyone that downloaded them can put these somewhere for other testers thatll be great.

Samba e Amor http://rapidshare.com/files/194915589/112e...ping_0.rar.html
First Three Files : http://rapidshare.com/files/191350600/TEST_FILES.rar.html

Here is today's test results:
Tester was 28 years old, female , non audio pro, non musician (scientist), with music listening habits that consist of 90% in car only music listening, mostly radio.

Did play an instrument at a young age , as a hobby, quit around 14.

Tests were done with a training phase beforehand , with a mandatory 10 run training or more,to get accustomed to the music.

None of the tracks playe were familiar to her.
After the first non trial , I explained what to listen for for each track tested,
& sometimes suggested start points.

These are the tester's first ever AB tests.

112e Insane Shaping 0 results

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/12 21:48:50

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

21:48:50 : Test started.
21:49:14 : 01/01  50.0%
21:49:29 : 02/02  25.0%
21:50:36 : 03/03  12.5%
21:52:14 : 04/04  6.3%
21:53:34 : 04/05  18.8%
21:54:03 : 05/06  10.9%
21:54:24 : 05/07  22.7%
21:54:42 : 06/08  14.5%
21:54:53 : 06/09  25.4%
21:55:08 : 07/10  17.2%
21:55:30 : 07/11  27.4%
21:55:48 : 07/12  38.7%
21:56:16 : 08/13  29.1%
21:57:09 : 08/14  39.5%
21:57:58 : 09/15  30.4%
21:58:20 : 09/16  40.2%
21:58:57 : 09/17  50.0%
21:59:29 : 09/18  59.3%
22:00:01 : 10/19  50.0%
22:00:23 : 11/20  41.2%
22:00:39 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 11/20 (41.2%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/12 22:01:30

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:01:30 : Test started.
22:02:19 : 01/01  50.0%
22:02:33 : 02/02  25.0%
22:02:47 : 02/03  50.0%
22:03:07 : 02/04  68.8%
22:03:33 : 02/05  81.3%
22:03:39 : 03/06  65.6%
22:03:58 : 04/07  50.0%
22:04:10 : 05/08  36.3%
22:04:55 : 06/09  25.4%
22:05:33 : 06/10  37.7%
22:05:52 : 06/11  50.0%
22:06:24 : 07/12  38.7%
22:06:39 : 07/13  50.0%
22:06:55 : 07/14  60.5%
22:07:15 : 08/15  50.0%
22:07:27 : 08/16  59.8%
22:07:41 : 08/17  68.5%
22:08:03 : 09/18  59.3%
22:08:26 : 09/19  67.6%
22:08:36 : 09/20  74.8%
22:09:02 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 9/20 (74.8%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/12 22:09:15

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:09:15 : Test started.
22:09:35 : 01/01  50.0%
22:09:41 : 01/02  75.0%
22:09:45 : 02/03  50.0%
22:09:50 : 03/04  31.3%
22:09:58 : 04/05  18.8%
22:10:03 : 05/06  10.9%
22:11:55 : Trial reset.
22:12:40 : 00/01  100.0%
22:12:52 : 01/02  75.0%
22:13:03 : 02/03  50.0%
22:13:12 : 03/04  31.3%
22:13:28 : 04/05  18.8%
22:13:38 : 05/06  10.9%
22:13:49 : 06/07  6.3%
22:14:16 : 06/08  14.5%
22:14:31 : 06/09  25.4%
22:14:41 : 06/10  37.7%
22:14:51 : 07/11  27.4%
22:15:00 : 08/12  19.4%
22:15:09 : 09/13  13.3%
22:15:55 : 09/14  21.2%
22:16:49 : 10/15  15.1%
22:17:00 : 11/16  10.5%
22:17:08 : 12/17  7.2%
22:17:18 : 12/18  11.9%
22:17:32 : 13/19  8.4%
22:17:36 : 13/20  13.2%
22:17:53 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 18/26 (3.8%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/12 22:18:29

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\112e Insane Shaping 0\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:18:29 : Test started.
22:19:02 : 00/01  100.0%
22:19:16 : 00/02  100.0%
22:19:21 : Trial reset.
22:19:56 : 01/01  50.0%
22:20:03 : 02/02  25.0%
22:20:08 : 03/03  12.5%
22:20:13 : 04/04  6.3%
22:20:25 : 05/05  3.1%
22:20:34 : 06/06  1.6%
22:20:48 : 06/07  6.3%
22:20:58 : 06/08  14.5%
22:21:05 : 07/09  9.0%
22:21:15 : 08/10  5.5%
22:21:22 : 08/11  11.3%
22:21:34 : 08/12  19.4%
22:21:40 : 09/13  13.3%
22:21:45 : 09/14  21.2%
22:21:57 : 09/15  30.4%
22:22:05 : 10/16  22.7%
22:22:11 : 11/17  16.6%
22:22:18 : 11/18  24.0%
22:22:25 : 12/19  18.0%
22:22:33 : 12/20  25.2%
22:22:49 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 12/22 (41.6%)


1.1.2g --STANDARD Results, conducted AFTER the above
Note she kept hitting the wrong reset button sometimes to choose a new start point,
but the results ARE INCLUDED in the logs , & are added to the overall score,
(I was not paying enough attention monitoring the progress.)

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/12 22:40:18

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:40:18 : Test started.
22:40:53 : 01/01  50.0%
22:41:05 : 01/02  75.0%
22:41:14 : 01/03  87.5%
22:41:53 : 01/04  93.8%
22:42:10 : 02/05  81.3%
22:42:50 : 02/06  89.1%
22:43:19 : 03/07  77.3%
22:43:26 : 03/08  85.5%
22:43:31 : 03/09  91.0%
22:43:39 : Trial reset.
22:43:50 : 01/01  50.0%
22:43:57 : 02/02  25.0%
22:44:05 : 03/03  12.5%
22:44:10 : 03/04  31.3%
22:44:22 : 03/05  50.0%
22:44:29 : 03/06  65.6%
22:44:34 : 03/07  77.3%
22:45:05 : 04/08  63.7%
22:45:12 : 04/09  74.6%
22:45:16 : 05/10  62.3%
22:45:23 : 06/11  50.0%
22:45:30 : 07/12  38.7%
22:45:36 : 08/13  29.1%
22:45:42 : 09/14  21.2%
22:45:47 : 09/15  30.4%
22:45:54 : 10/16  22.7%
22:46:03 : 10/17  31.5%
22:46:08 : 10/18  40.7%
22:46:17 : 10/19  50.0%
22:46:23 : 10/20  58.8%
22:46:43 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 13/29 (77.1%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/12 23:31:44

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Off The Wall.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Off The Wall.lossy.flac

23:31:44 : Test started.
23:32:11 : 00/01  100.0%
23:32:14 : Trial reset.
23:32:26 : 00/01  100.0%
23:32:27 : Trial reset.
23:33:14 : 01/01  50.0%
23:33:33 : 02/02  25.0%
23:33:39 : 03/03  12.5%
23:33:53 : 03/04  31.3%
23:34:01 : 03/05  50.0%
23:34:10 : 04/06  34.4%
23:34:18 : 04/07  50.0%
23:34:37 : 05/08  36.3%
23:35:01 : 05/09  50.0%
23:35:08 : 06/10  37.7%
23:35:18 : 06/11  50.0%
23:35:31 : 07/12  38.7%
23:35:50 : 08/13  29.1%
23:35:56 : 09/14  21.2%
23:36:01 : 10/15  15.1%
23:36:06 : 11/16  10.5%
23:36:12 : 12/17  7.2%
23:36:21 : 12/18  11.9%
23:36:27 : 12/19  18.0%
23:36:32 : 13/20  13.2%
23:36:46 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 13/22 (26.2%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/13 00:10:24

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bob Berg - Oleo.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bob Berg - Oleo.lossy.flac

00:10:24 : Test started.
00:10:43 : 01/01  50.0%
00:11:22 : 02/02  25.0%
00:11:46 : 03/03  12.5%
00:12:06 : 04/04  6.3%
00:12:13 : 05/05  3.1%
00:12:19 : 06/06  1.6%
00:12:26 : 07/07  0.8%
00:12:32 : 07/08  3.5%
00:12:43 : 08/09  2.0%
00:12:48 : 08/10  5.5%
00:13:55 : 09/11  3.3%
00:14:03 : 10/12  1.9%
00:14:23 : 11/13  1.1%
00:15:06 : 11/14  2.9%
00:15:15 : 12/15  1.8%
00:15:35 : 13/16  1.1%
00:15:46 : 13/17  2.5%
00:15:58 : 14/18  1.5%
00:16:12 : 14/19  3.2%
00:16:21 : 14/20  5.8%
00:16:50 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 14/20 (5.8%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/13 00:17:17

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\3 Views 2496.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\3 Views 2496.lossy.flac

00:17:17 : Test started.
00:18:19 : 01/01  50.0%
00:19:49 : 02/02  25.0%
00:19:54 : 02/03  50.0%
00:20:05 : 03/04  31.3%
00:20:16 : 03/05  50.0%
00:20:22 : 03/06  65.6%
00:20:50 : 04/07  50.0%
00:20:55 : 05/08  36.3%
00:21:08 : 06/09  25.4%
00:21:16 : 07/10  17.2%
00:21:22 : 07/11  27.4%
00:21:29 : 08/12  19.4%
00:22:00 : 09/13  13.3%
00:22:15 : 10/14  9.0%
00:22:27 : 11/15  5.9%
00:23:05 : 12/16  3.8%
00:23:12 : 12/17  7.2%
00:23:32 : 12/18  11.9%
00:23:39 : 12/19  18.0%
00:23:44 : 12/20  25.2%
00:23:59 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 12/20 (25.2%)


END

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #263 –
I'd like to help with ABXing. I've not had much success in the past with identifying shortcomings in Lossywav. I think that may be partly due to my PC audio setup not being ideal - the environment is a bit too noisy and my headphones are open-backed so computer fans etc are audible when I'm wearing them. I'd like to do the testing on my main hifi but can't connect my PC to my hifi (it's 20 meters away with two brick walls in between). If I were to burn the test files to CD - say 10 times - and use the random play facility of my CD player with my wife noting which track was actually playing while I was listening  (the CD player is behind me so I can't see the display myself) would that be satsifactory? It seems to be double-blind to me.

Are we going to compile a set of tesfiles or use Bork's? I could provide some "simple" recordings - solo harp, acoustic guitar unaccompanied voices (renaissance choral). Alternatevly I've got the usual mix of pop, rock, folk, classical etc if anybody wants to suggest something

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #264 –
Quote from: B0RK on
...Here is today's test results:
Tester was 28 years old, female ...

To me the 1.1.2g --standard result on Oleo is pretty impressive.
I'd really like to see a comparison between version 1.1.0 (or 1.1.0b) and 1.1.2g, both using --shaping 0, because IMO it would be good to see proven wrong or confirmed what so far is my personal suspicion due to the significantly more audible noise of 1.1.2 with Amor e Samba compared to 1.1.0.
Can you please suggest to your tester to repeat the test using both 1.1.0 and 1.1.2, both with --standard --shaping 0?
LossyWAV's signal analysis did change from 1.1.0 to 1.1.2, and though it seems not very likely that this change was essential we don't really know until a meaningful comparison was made (my own comparison wasn't meaningful).

Thank you for all your efforts.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #265 –
Quote from: halb27 on
To me the 1.1.2g --standard result on Oleo is pretty impressive.
It is, but it needs repeating (by the same listener, or another). Why? Because there's 8 tests. The chance of at least one of them hitting 5% is about 1/3rd due to pure chance (I think - someone who did stats less than 15 years ago can correct me on this!).


FWIW I've tried to ABX Oleo at -q 0 -s 0 with both 1.1.0 and 1.1.2i, and I can't hear any difference. Both are transparent to me.

EDIT:

Whereas 01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole.wav has audible hiss added at -q 0 -s 0 in both 1.1.0 and 1.1.2i. It's in the drum hits just before the guitar chord (e.g. 6.3 seconds). There's already a little burst of hiss there in the original - lossyWAV just makes it louder.

Of course -q 0 isn't supposed to be transparent - it's the lowest possible setting (until Nick added --nasty!)

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2
2009/02/13 15:56:15

File A: D:\audio\audio\codec testers\lossyWAV\01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole.wav
File B: C:\Program Files\lw112i\01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole.lossy 112i -q 0 -s 0.wav

15:56:15 : Test started.
15:56:54 : 01/01  50.0%
15:57:01 : 02/02  25.0%
15:57:06 : 03/03  12.5%
15:57:16 : 04/04  6.3%
15:57:32 : 05/05  3.1%
15:57:38 : 06/06  1.6%
15:57:47 : 07/07  0.8%
15:58:12 : 08/08  0.4%
15:58:13 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2
2009/02/13 15:59:09

File A: D:\audio\audio\codec testers\lossyWAV\01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole.wav
File B: C:\Program Files\lw110\01 - Ginnungagap - The Black Hole.lossy 110 -q 0 -s 0.wav

15:59:09 : Test started.
15:59:41 : 01/01  50.0%
15:59:50 : 02/02  25.0%
15:59:59 : 02/03  50.0%
16:00:09 : 03/04  31.3%
16:00:15 : 04/05  18.8%
16:00:20 : 05/06  10.9%
16:00:33 : 06/07  6.3%
16:00:41 : 07/08  3.5%
16:00:42 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 7/8 (3.5%)


I couldn't hear any difference between 1.1.0 and 1.1.2i - both had the same amount of the same artefact.

(The different score is due to me staring out of the window with boredom and clicking the wrong part of the screen! (Play B instead of Play Y - so "Y" sounded like "B", whereas Y was actually A!))

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #266 –
2BDecided, I agree with you that in case there is something wrong it should be clearly audible using -q 0.

So I wanted to try on my own your ABX test of Oleo using 1.1.0 and 1.1.2i with -q 0 -s 0.
Well, to me too both results were very good, but they are not identical. At second 2.8...4.9 I could ABX the 1.1.2i result 7/10 with my first test and 8/10 with my second. I could not ABX the 1.1.0 result. The difference of 1.1.2i compared with the original doesn't sound like hiss or noise to me, to me it sounds like the balance of the various frequencies has changed a tiny bit, probably the same thing BORK described with other words.

EDITED:
Text about error signal removed - I must have been victim to placebo. After trying to ABX the error signals I can't say there is an audible difference to me. I reencoded OLEO at quality --insane. Now I can ABX differences between the 1.1.0 and the 1.1.2i error signal but without being able to prefer one error signal over the other. I found a spot where to me the 1.1.0 error is a little bit less pronounced, but at another spot it was the other way around. Differences are subtle anyway.
Which made me wonder whether the changed analysis of the last 1.1.2 versions is closer to that of 1.1.0. So I encoded Samba e Amor with 1.1.2i --insane --shaping 0. The error of 1.1.2i is in this case easy to ABX as being louder than that of 1.1.0, as was in my previous 1.1.2 vs. 1.1.0 test. Difference is not subtle.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #267 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: halb27 on
To me the 1.1.2g --standard result on Oleo is pretty impressive.
It is, but it needs repeating (by the same listener, or another). Why? Because there's 8 tests. The chance of at least one of them hitting 5% is about 1/3rd due to pure chance (I think - someone who did stats less than 15 years ago can correct me on this!).


Well, I guess we might have some difference of perception of the interpretation of the test results and even tests goals.

AB tests are notriouly known (& more widely used) as a better tool to disprove something, rather then prove it.

When used 'positively' , like promoting a competitor product for example,
no one minds them , but that's not the case usually.

Our case is different, (at least The way I see it  ..), In our case we are trying to test if casual testers can identify the compressed wavefile with any kind of consistency  AT ALL, once he is made aware of the difference in the files, & given an example of it,& a verbal description.

If what we aim here to show that a tester has higher failure rates percentage wise,
then we can stop testing right now,(as that is the most common AB test result) cause all we need to do is have 20 runs in a row, that'll take care of it...


so My baseline for the tests was to find out if a tester with good ears,
but no experience, can show ANY consistency identifying the differences in more then a single 'lucky' run.

I don't believe in a 'lucky' run of 14/20.
For me the test ended there, and had the tester failed 20 complete failures afterwards,
I would have some doubt in the validity of the score , but still regard it as a 'win' for him/her, as the odds are just too slim for that to happen to a pro,
ont to mention a casual listener.

If a few of these listeners can do it in one of the most important modes we want to perfect lossywav for , then maybe improvements are in order

The other results may help show what's the tester's average,if need be.


For the hell of it , I did 3 runs of MINDLESS CLICKING short 20 trial tests:
THESE ARE NOT REAL ABXs - I just clicked without even listening.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/13 22:58:09

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:58:09 : Test started.
22:58:16 : 00/01  100.0%
22:58:17 : 01/02  75.0%
22:58:17 : 02/03  50.0%
22:58:18 : 03/04  31.3%
22:58:19 : 03/05  50.0%
22:58:20 : 03/06  65.6%
22:58:21 : 03/07  77.3%
22:58:21 : 03/08  85.5%
22:58:23 : 03/09  91.0%
22:58:25 : 03/10  94.5%
22:58:26 : 03/11  96.7%
22:58:28 : 03/12  98.1%
22:58:29 : 03/13  98.9%
22:58:30 : 04/14  97.1%
22:58:31 : 04/15  98.2%
22:58:32 : 04/16  98.9%
22:58:33 : 04/17  99.4%
22:58:34 : 05/18  98.5%
22:58:35 : 06/19  96.8%
22:58:36 : 06/20  97.9%
22:58:40 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 6/20 (97.9%)

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/13 22:58:50

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:58:50 : Test started.
22:58:52 : 00/01  100.0%
22:58:53 : 01/02  75.0%
22:58:54 : 01/03  87.5%
22:58:56 : 01/04  93.8%
22:58:57 : 02/05  81.3%
22:58:58 : 03/06  65.6%
22:58:59 : 03/07  77.3%
22:59:00 : 03/08  85.5%
22:59:01 : 04/09  74.6%
22:59:02 : 05/10  62.3%
22:59:03 : 06/11  50.0%
22:59:04 : 06/12  61.3%
22:59:06 : 06/13  70.9%
22:59:07 : 07/14  60.5%
22:59:08 : 07/15  69.6%
22:59:09 : 07/16  77.3%
22:59:11 : 07/17  83.4%
22:59:12 : 07/18  88.1%
22:59:13 : 07/19  91.6%
22:59:14 : 07/20  94.2%
22:59:16 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 7/20 (94.2%)

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/13 22:59:28

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1.1.2g --STANDARD\Bebel Gilberto - Samba e Amor - SLICE.lossy.flac

22:59:28 : Test started.
22:59:30 : 00/01  100.0%
22:59:31 : 01/02  75.0%
22:59:32 : 02/03  50.0%
22:59:33 : 02/04  68.8%
22:59:33 : 02/05  81.3%
22:59:34 : 03/06  65.6%
22:59:36 : 04/07  50.0%
22:59:37 : 04/08  63.7%
22:59:39 : 04/09  74.6%
22:59:40 : 04/10  82.8%
22:59:42 : 05/11  72.6%
22:59:43 : 06/12  61.3%
22:59:44 : 06/13  70.9%
22:59:45 : 06/14  78.8%
22:59:46 : 06/15  84.9%
22:59:47 : 07/16  77.3%
22:59:48 : 07/17  83.4%
22:59:49 : 07/18  88.1%
22:59:50 : 07/19  91.6%
22:59:51 : 07/20  94.2%
23:00:00 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 7/20 (94.2%)


As this is mindless clicking , no REAL ERRORS can be made,
real world tests where real errors can be made ,can even end up looking worse.
Looking at 3 or more consecutive results like the above using foobar , can suggest no differences are found by the tester.

In other words , when a tester cannot hear it , you probably will not get 8 results like the (Real) ones posted in my previous post.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #268 –
BORK,

With purely random clicking and a fixed number of trials, you'll get a result which yields 5% or lower (i.e. "significant") 1 time in 20 (on average). That's what 5% is - 1 in 20.

"The chance of hitting this purely by chance is 5%" - that's what it means - no more, no less.


That's my understanding anyway. There are far far far smarter statisticians around here.


I'm not discounting it though - far from it - taken together with your results, it really is significant.

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #269 –
@halb27,

Thanks for that test report, and for giving other people an idea of what/where/when to listen.

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #270 –
lossyWAV beta 1.1.2j attached to post #1 in this thread.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #271 –
Thanks a lot, Nick.
I prefer the old spreading function (though nothing is really known whether it is better in a general view -  there's just an isolated suspicion for this),  but I'd also like to stay with current development and not remain with 1.1.0.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #272 –
Quote from: halb27 on
Thanks a lot, Nick.
I prefer the old spreading function (though nothing is really known whether it is better in a general view -  there's just an isolated suspicion for this),  but I'd also like to stay with current development and not remain with 1.1.0.

Just tried Samba e Amor -I -s 0 -O. Error signal is now essentially the same as was when using 1.1.0 -I -s 0. Thanks again.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #273 –
Excuse my lack of knowledge on this subject but:

I know this is an old language but how could I go about coding to play both 4 or 8-bit Riff Wave files in 8-bit assembly langauge?   

I would need the loading process, converting to either 4 or 8-bit process, and the playing process.

I have a hobby with an older 8-bit computer I would like to try this on, I assume your coding here must be C code. 

I have looked quite a bit with Google and came upon this forum and decided to ask.   

Laugh at me if you want to but I want to learn the skill of learning 6502 assembly and would like to try playing Wave files.   

Thank you.
traymond

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #274 –
You can find links to WAV format specification documents on en.wikipedia.org;

ps. lossyWAV is coded in Delphi (Pascal) with a liberal sprinkling of IA-32 / x87 assembly language.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)