64kbps listening test, OPEN Options

[rjamorim]

Hello.

I'd like to invite all HydrogenAudio members to participate in my 64kbps public listening test, that starts now.

Please head to my listening tests page, instructions are there.
http://audio.ciara.us/test/

Test ends on September 21st.

Thanks for your attention.

Best regards;

Roberto.

Update: A Java version of ABC-HR has been released. Now, users of MacOS, Linux, Solaris, etc. can also participate.

Further details are available at the presentation page.

Regards;

Roberto.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Sep 18 2003, 03:39

[Audible!]

"Redirection limit for this URL exceeded...." are there obligatory cookies involved?

This post has been edited by Audible!: Sep 10 2003, 23:46

[mdmuir]

"Redirection limit for this URL exceeded...."  are there obligatory cookies involved?

I had the same error as well-in Mozilla. IE just wouldn't load the page-no error given.

[rjamorim]

"Redirection limit for this URL exceeded...."  are there obligatory cookies involved?

That's WEIRD!

Can you try now, starting at the test home page?

@verloren: Are you around? :B

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Sep 10 2003, 23:54

[mdmuir]

Goin to the test home page, and then to the 64kbps presentation worked!

[Digga]

IE just wouldn't load the page-no error given.

had the same problem, works now, just try again

*edit* all right, I was a little too late *edit*

This post has been edited by Digga: Sep 10 2003, 23:55

[rjamorim]

Goin to the test home page, and then to the 64kbps presentation worked!

Ah, much better. Thanks for checking it out

Still, something very weird is going on. Probably the server is misconfigured.

[mdmuir]

No problem Roberto,

Anything to help a dedicated hard working man such as yourself!

[Audible!]

Working now....that's some quick work!

[lexor]

just wondering, are you using that new compile of oggenc john33 posted recently? not that I really worried, just wondering

This post has been edited by lexor: Sep 11 2003, 02:31

[pseudoacoustic]

Just finished downloading the first sample set.... 12MB.... big on a 56k

One question, though: do we post test-results here?

Thanks. Looking foward to seeing what 64kbps format I should use for a little flash player if and when they support it.

EDIT: Disregard that first question for anyone who may have noticed it.....

This post has been edited by pseudoacoustic: Sep 11 2003, 02:45

[rjamorim]

just wondering, are you using that new compile of oggenc john33 posted recently? not that I really worried, just wondering

Yes, it is.

Unfortunately, I couldn't wait anymore for Vorbis 1.0.1. The Xiph schedules are not reliable enough, I was fearing I would have to conduce this test in december if I waited for it (I already wasted one week waiting). :B

One question, though: do we post test-results here?

No! Please! Don't even comment about your results here.

The instructions are in the readme. Send them to my e-mail.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Sep 11 2003, 03:16

[pseudoacoustic]

One question, though: do we post test-results here?

No! Please! Don't even comment about your results here.

The instructions are in the readme. Send them to my e-mail.

Heehee.... missed that part

[joey_m]

D'oh!

I was trying to find the real audio codec, until I realized the sample files were already encoded for the most part... <sigh>

I'll do my best to help out, downloading the samples now.


Cheers, Joey.

This post has been edited by joey_m: Sep 11 2003, 20:58

[tigre]

Great work, Roberto! It's really interesting to *hear* the differences between codecs I would have never bothered to test otherwise. I hope many people will participate.

[bond]

rjamorim,
thanks for all the work from my side too!

it's really interesting how absolutely different the codecs can sound...

[ViPER1313]

OOPS!!!!

This post has been edited by ViPER1313: Sep 11 2003, 20:53

[bond]

@ ViPER1313

better not post your results here

[askoff]

EDIT: So once again i'm too late... But i gues that's not so important afterall.

This post has been edited by askoff: Sep 11 2003, 20:59

[rjamorim]

Hehe

Well, sorry about that "rule", but that's needed to avoid people "comparing results".

Something like "oops, Guruboolez rated sample 4 2.2, I rated it 4.5. He has much better hearing, so I must be doing something wrong. Let me edit this result file..."

Also, by comparing results people might find out which codec is which. That is no good :B

Thanks for your comprehension

[pseudoacoustic]

Also, by comparing results people might find out which codec is which. That is no good :B

Hmmm.... hate to tell you this, but knowing the codecs involved, I can pick at least two of them out

Of course I'm completely objective

[rjamorim]

Hmmm.... hate to tell you this, but knowing the codecs involved, I can pick at least two of them out 

Of course I'm completely objective

Ah, of course, some of them are impossible to hide.

[00:37:49] <ff123> oh damn!  played the very first file for 1 second.  Found blade

But at least, People aren't announcing out loud "1 is XXX, 2 is YYY..."

[BadHorsie]

ok guys ... i help you to abx 64kbs files if you help me abx eac vs. cdparanoia rips

BadHorsie

[pseudoacoustic]

ok guys ... i help you to abx 64kbs files if you help me abx eac vs. cdparanoia rips 

Uhhhh....... to...... WAV files (as PCM blah blah)??? I think that's a losing battle.

[BadHorsie]

would you please do a quick abx test?

BadHorsie