Public AAC Listening Test @ ~96 kbps [July 2011], Nero, Apple, Fraunhofer and Coding Technologies (CT) Options

[kennedyb4]

This is the 1st listening test that I am trying to do and I found it hard !! I am impressed !! It is extremely difficult to hear differences.

Go slow and take lots of breaks. Whatever you do, don't guess because the rules are strict about ranking the reference in error. The encoders are really great at this bitrate aren't they?

[IgorC]

The test is extended until August 5.

We need more participants.

[Zarggg]

Just sent off my results.

[mjb2006]

If the deadline is approaching and we can't get through all 20 samples, is it OK to send results for just the tests we've completed?

I had already saved my results files before realizing I could've put my nickname in them. Is it possible to add the nickname to the files after-the-fact?

[Alexxander]

Yes, every single result is very helpful.

Haven't you saved the individual Sessions? If you did, you can reopen it and add your nick, but I don't know how much work it would save for IgorC.

[mjb2006]

Haven't you saved the individual Sessions?

No, once I was done setting all the sliders for a sample, I didn't think there'd be any reason to save the session. There was no mention of it in the readme or the practice page. Oh well. I am just kind of curious to know e.g. how much better/worse I am than others at noticing certain differences.

Is it necessary or meaningful to use the ABX features?

[IgorC]

Is it possible to add the nickname to the files after-the-fact?

The results of anonymous listener will be named as 01_anon.txt

If the listener put the name during the session or says that he wants to put the name then the results will be like 01_John.txt

Is it necessary or meaningful to use the ABX features?

If You aren't sure 100% that You actually hear the difference then You should use ABX button.
After successful ABX session in Testing Mode (5 valid tries is minimum - 5/5) ABC-HR application will show you which is reference and which is compressed. It will lock the the slider of the reference. This way it's impossible to make a mistake.

Some useful guides
http://www.ecodis.de/audio/guideline_high.html
and
http://ff123.net/64test/practice.html

[lvqcl]

I noticed that faac doesn't support gapless decoding and adds up to 1600 samples to the beginning of WAV files. IMHO this should be avoided in future listening tests.

[Alex B]

ABC/HR for JAVA has the Calculate Offsets feature. It should be able to handle the encoder and decoder delays (assuming the feature was used when the encrypted test configuration files were created).


IgorC,

Thanks for the extension. I have been on vacation, but I can do at least some testing during the next weekend.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Jul 28 2011, 19:20

[lvqcl]

Thanks for clarification.

[IgorC]

I noticed that faac doesn't support gapless decoding and adds up to 1600 samples to the beginning of WAV files. IMHO this should be avoided in future listening tests.

The low anchor is ffmpeg's AAC encoder which is not FAAC.

ABC/HR for JAVA has the Calculate Offsets feature. It should be able to handle the encoder and decoder delays (assuming the feature was used when the encrypted test configuration files were created).

Yes, the offsets were calculated + additional offset (ABC/HR application) that cuts first 1 second of the sample.

[lvqcl]

The low anchor is ffmpeg's AAC encoder which is not FAAC.

I meant decoder faad...

[IgorC]

Many listeners ask for some extra time. I guess it's because of the holidays.

Probably it won't be bad to extend the test during the weekend. The new listeners are still required.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 2 2011, 17:39

[Larson]

Just a note guys, Quicktime has been updated on Windows as well, 7.7 like on Lion; I don't know if it contains changes to AAC encoding, but for those who are testing for the listening test it may be interesting.

[Gecko]

I'm through most samples but prematurely aborted some due to fatigue. I would like to return to them but can not do so before the weekend.

[no404error]

Just a note guys, Quicktime has been updated on Windows as well, 7.7 like on Lion; I don't know if it contains changes to AAC encoding, but for those who are testing for the listening test it may be interesting.

QuickTime 7.7 improves security. That's all.

[IgorC]

The test is extended at least until August 8, Monday (9:00 of GMT -3:00)

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 5 2011, 00:30

[Alexxander]

I have done 7 so far, but this week I have days off and would be able to do possibly all samples befor next weekend. So if it's possible to extend a bit more...

[IgorC]

The test is extended until August 20 as some listeners are sending their partial results in these days. New participants are required.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 8 2011, 13:18

[albertoh]

Hi. I am new in this forum.

I'd like to know where I would send the results of the listening test.

Thank you in advance.

[lvqcl]

I'd like to know where I would send the results of the listening test.

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...96-a/readme.txt

7. After you finish the test, save the results, (7-)ZIP, RAR or ACE them together and mail the file to listening.tests.ha@gmail.com

[albertoh]

Thank you

[dispatcher7007]

Hi, this is the first listening test i participate in, and I must admit, I find it very hard. Most of the times I cant even tell the difference for sure, in which times i prefer to do nothing. Except for this, one example is obviously very bad.

And the more natural a source sounds, the easier is it to tell the difference. Half of the Samples are sythesizer/MIDI-generated or othewise highly distorted music, where i almost never can tell a difference between reference and coded.

Is it useful to submit my results, if they are most of the times 5,0 to 5,0? Isn't there a piece of organ-music? I bet I would find more significant results in that.

[Gecko]

See post #32 in this thread for some useful links and information:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=764406

All properly attained results are meaningful, including 5/5 rankings.

One of the samples -- the low anchor -- is intentionally bad. It helps to put things into perspective.

[IgorC]

Half of the Samples are sythesizer/MIDI-generated or othewise highly distorted music, where i almost never can tell a difference between reference and coded.

The samples contain the different music genres + female and male speech. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=763168
Synthesizer's samples are reasonably presented in the test. Totally 5 samples (03, 04, 08, 10, 13)
Most of them are actually hard samples.

Is it useful to submit my results, if they are most of the times 5,0 to 5,0?

Some codecs can be transparent for some samples. So it's ok if You can't tell the difference for few samples.
But You should be able to spot artifacts for most of the other samples. You can leave the highest score (5.0) if You can't ABX some of the competitors.
The low anchor should be always ranked.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 13 2011, 18:42