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.

Poll

Which encoder would you like to see?

None
[ 24 ] (17.8%)
WMA Professional, VBR Q50
[ 65 ] (48.1%)
WMA Standard, VBR Q50
[ 16 ] (11.9%)
MusePack
[ 30 ] (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

Topic: Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test (Read 10213 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Hello!

Since WMA Standard 2-pass VBR at 128 kbps cannot be used on small samples and WMA Standard VBR Q75 produces files with a bitrate that is too high, we are left with the following options:

None: Feature 4 competitors and 1 low anchor only.
WMA Professional, VBR Q50: This codec and setting produces an average bitrate of 134 kbps. The drawback is that the format is not very popular yet (not used in music stores, no portable support).
WMA Standard, VBR Q50: Personally, I see no sense in testing WMA Standard at Q50 since it produces files with an average bitrate of 104 kbps which is way under the 10% tolerance. If WMA should lose, it would be meaningless since it was handicapped by the low bitrate compared to the other competitors.
MusePack: Include MusePack in the test, although it has a lot of disadvantages.

Edit: Could a moderator please make this a poll only? I don't want replies.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #2 –
Why not 2-pass cbr? They provide such function too.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #3 –
Quote
Why not 2-pass cbr? They provide such function too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345626"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What functions?  And didn't I say I don't want replies? Why can't people respect one's wishes?

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #5 –
My opinion is that we will get more meaningfull results if we don't try to test everything at the same time. There will be less results, less variation when the codec count goes up, and this is especially something to consider for 128kbps test. This wouldn't be so big problem for a low bitrate test.
Better would be to arrange another test relatively quickly after this and include some other codec/codecs, and keep the total codec count down.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #6 –
Quote
My opinion is that we will get more meaningfull results if we don't try to test everything at the same time. There will be less results, less variation when the codec count goes up, and this is especially something to consider for 128kbps test. This wouldn't be so big problem for a low bitrate test.
Better would be to arrange another test relatively quickly after this and include some other codec/codecs, and keep the total codec count down.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345650"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


IMO, that would be a waste of resources. When doing such a big public listening test, I think we should test as many encoders as we can and 5 seems reasonable to me.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #7 –
WMA Pro without a doubt

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #8 –
So much for the "No Replies" policy 

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #9 –
Quote
So much for the "No Replies" policy 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345660"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah...

At least I don't have to read 100 pages to see the outcome of this discussion.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #10 –
Well, in my opinion it is indeed waste of resources to try to make people find differences from 5 different codecs at 128kbps most of which are probably better than last time, because I can imagine it's hard for many people and that reflects to results.
Listening fatigue plays so big part here, I can say this from personal experience.
/my opinion
Juha Laaksonheimo

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #11 –
I have to agree somewhat with JohnV. If the time to participate was a bit longer than usual (some of us have lives elsewhere you know, we can't listen for several hours a day... <sniff>)

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #12 –
This is exactly why I wanted a damn poll only. I have the feeling that this is going to turn out into a huge bullshit like the other thread did.
Can't you people simply vote and shut up? 

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #13 –
Quote
I have to agree somewhat with JohnV. If the time to participate was a bit longer than usual (some of us have lives elsewhere you know, we can't listen for several hours a day... <sniff>)[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The test will be longer. It has been mentioned [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38723&st=0]AT THE VERY BEGINNING[/url] of the test discussion thread.


Also, WTF is wrong with you guys? Can't you respect a single request?
Quote
I don't want replies.

What part of that sentence didn't you understand? STFU already please.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #14 –
Quote
Also, WTF is wrong with you guys? Can't you respect a single request?
Quote
I don't want replies.

What part of that sentence didn't you understand? STFU already please.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345677"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


1st of all, not long enough to some of us

Second of all, what's wrong with discussion, calm down dear man

This is exactly the kind of attitude that keeps people away from this place. We just want to get along, so please calm down.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #15 –
Quote
Quote
Also, WTF is wrong with you guys? Can't you respect a single request?
Quote
I don't want replies.

What part of that sentence didn't you understand? STFU already please.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345677"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


1st of all, not long enough to some of us

Second of all, what's wrong with discussion, calm down dear man

This is exactly the kind of attitude that keeps people away from this place. We just want to get along, so please calm down.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345680"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but I asked you to please, please, PLEASE! not reply to the thread.

Edit: And 20 days is plenty. If you can't test all samples, you can test only half of them or whatever.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #16 –
Thread closed, you can bitch in the Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test, Pre-Test Discussion thread. I know I will.

Edit: OK, thread is open again, seems it's not possible to vote when the thread is closed. You will have to deal with the replies.

Edit2: OK, should be "vote only" now.

Fifth competitor for 128 kbps listening test

Reply #17 –
Quote
Thread closed, you can bitch in the Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test, Pre-Test Discussion thread. I know I will.

Edit: OK, thread is open again, seems it's not possible to vote when the thread is closed. You will have to deal with the replies.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345698"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If I am not mistaken, IPB supports creating polls only. I think you as moderator have the option to edit the poll only and tick a checkbox that reads "Make Poll Only" or something like that.