Download.com does an internal listening test |
  |
Download.com does an internal listening test |
 Jun 5 2005, 20:53
Post
#1
|
|
 dBpowerAMP developer Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 2653 Joined: 24-March 02 Member No.: 1615  |
Seems to be a blind listening test done with high end audoi gear in an audio studio:
http://www.download.com/Audio-Codec-Shoot-...20-5146271.html Results that Microsoft might be very happy with. -------------------- Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
|
 |
 
|
|
Jun 5 2005, 21:09
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 385 Joined: 25-June 04 Member No.: 14895 |
QUOTE (spoon @ Jun 5 2005, 11:53 AM) Seems to be a blind listening test done with high end audoi gear in an audio studio: http://www.download.com/Audio-Codec-Shoot-...20-5146271.html Results that Microsoft might be very happy with.  The fact that 128 encodes were very often considered to better than 192 ones makes me very sceptical of this test. WMA 128 better than Ogg 192? Come on...  I am not especially sensitive concerning compression artefacts, but the metallic ringing of a typical WMA@128 really hurts my ears...
This post has been edited by sTisTi: Jun 5 2005, 21:13 -------------------- 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) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2005, 21:13
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 31-July 04 Member No.: 15910 |
they should also have used LAME instead of iTunes to encode their MP3s
...and of course an up to date version of Vorbis, instead of "Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20030909" ^^ This post has been edited by iehova: Jun 5 2005, 21:14 -------------------- Friends don't let friends use lossy codecs. (char0n)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2005, 22:22
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 730 Joined: 5-January 04 Member No.: 10970 |
That the higher bitrate clips do worse seems to indicate that this is a test to find the codec "which sounds best to you". Not most true to the original.
Bring in another crowd an the results could be the complete opposite. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2005, 23:16
Post
#5
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1593 Joined: 24-March 02 From: Revere, MA Member No.: 1607 |
QUOTE The fact that 128 encodes were very often considered to better than 192 ones makes me very sceptical of this test. WMA 128 better than Ogg 192? Come on... tongue.gif I am not especially sensitive concerning compression artefacts, but the metallic ringing of a typical WMA@128 really hurts my ears. This is the stuff that pisses me off right here. I say we all petition and send them a nasty e-mail or something pathetic  . Who did they hire a Johnny Nothing off the street to do this? It says the test is "non-scientific" how would you expect anyone to take you seriously?
This post has been edited by HotshotGG: Jun 5 2005, 23:19 -------------------- College student/IT Assistant
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2005, 23:54
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 474 Joined: 1-December 02 Member No.: 3940 |
QUOTE (HotshotGG @ Jun 5 2005, 02:16 PM) ... I say we all petition and send them a nasty e-mail or something pathetic . Who did they hire a Johnny Nothing off the street to do this? It says the test is "non-scientific" how would you expect anyone to take you seriously?Got my vote! -------------------- Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited Speex for speech |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 00:42
Post
#7
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-August 04 From: Canada Member No.: 16174 |
Wonderful. You work your butt off sometimes (at least it feels that way) just to try an help folks you encounter around the net in understanding what lossy compression is really all about and why >proper< testing is important when deciding quality. There is already tons of misinformation floating around out there as it is, and I would say greater than 60% of the netizens out there have it completely wrong thanks to that fact. Then a totally irresponsible article like this one comes out and sets the world back even more, negating any progress we've clawed our way through. Personally I think this has nothing to do with which is better, or sounds more pleasant either, but a shady attempt and pusing more people to use Microsoft "product". It's feels like being pushed back into the dark ages. Oh well (heavy sigh) at least the good people of HA.org won't be fooled... right?
Edit: Fixed bad typo some might find offensive lol. This post has been edited by Digisurfer: Jun 6 2005, 00:44 |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 00:52
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1234 Joined: 5-October 01 Member No.: 220 |
Weird that in "Cherub Rock," Smashing Pumpkins, WMA@128kbps scored higher than WMA@192kbps.
And I would have thought OGG@Q6 would be transparent in most cases, much better than WMA@128kbps too. This post has been edited by westgroveg: Jun 6 2005, 00:53 |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 02:10
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: 6-July 02 Member No.: 2496 |
This thread has already mentioned that wierd listening test.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 11:01
Post
#10
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (Busemann @ Jun 5 2005, 10:22 PM) That the higher bitrate clips do worse seems to indicate that this is a test to find the codec "which sounds best to you". Not most true to the original. Bring in another crowd an the results could be the complete opposite. Apparently, no: QUOTE He also periodically played the WAV file for reference anytime a juror requested. http://www.download.com/Audio-Codec-Shoot-...20-5146328.html |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 11:54
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 407 Joined: 12-April 05 Member No.: 21399 |
If they couldn't differentiate between 128 and 192, then obviously 128 wins.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 11:58
Post
#12
|
|
 Moderator Group: Super Moderator Posts: 3934 Joined: 29-September 01 Member No.: 73 |
There was no mathematical analysis.
They probably did not hear any artifact in any file, and just thew random marks... Which explains why all codecs get nearly the same mark at all bitrates after summing up the results. 128 kbps got a better mark than 192 kbps 8 times, and 192 a better one than 128 12 times. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 12:20
Post
#13
|
|
|
dBpowerAMP developer Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 2653 Joined: 24-March 02 Member No.: 1615 |
It probabbly goes to show for anything > 128 Kbps 'normal' people are rubbish at listening tests.
-------------------- Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 11:41
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moderator Group: Super Moderator Posts: 3934 Joined: 29-September 01 Member No.: 73 |
QUOTE (spoon @ Jun 6 2005, 01:20 PM) It probabbly goes to show for anything > 128 Kbps 'normal' people are rubbish at listening tests. They were no "normal people", they were selected as "folks with audio expertise and high standards ", from Download.com and MP3.com crews. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2005, 12:03
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2080 Joined: 18-December 03 Member No.: 10538 |
For a test like this I'd really want some further descriptive statistics than just the average scores.
Also, I wonder how they enforced independence of listeners (who musnn't be allowed to influence each other) . At least they say right up front that it wasn't scientific. This post has been edited by krabapple: Jun 10 2005, 12:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 13:09 |
