[USELESS] Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44, transparent for you? |
Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules - No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service
[USELESS] Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44, transparent for you? |
  Jul 11 2004, 20:18
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Banned Posts: 27 Joined: 8-July 04 Member No.: 15155  |
Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 transparent for you?
I mean YOUR music, not special killer samples. If it is not transparent, please tell me in what? |
 |
 
|
 |
|
Jul 11 2004, 21:32
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 1813 Joined: 24-July 02 Member No.: 2776 |
8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.
-------------------- foobar2000.audiohq.de
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2004, 21:56
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 27 Joined: 8-July 04 Member No.: 15155 |
QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 11:32 PM) 8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations.  Well, read carefully. People select CLOSEST answer. Purpose of this topic is to answer how aoTuV b2 at 4.44 works for normal use, that`s why blind test SHOULD NOT BE USED, i dont ask for results of blind test... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2004, 22:00
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 09:56 PM) QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 11:32 PM) 8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations. Well, read carefully. People select CLOSEST answer. Purpose of this topic is to answer how aoTuV b2 at 4.44 works for normal use, that`s why blind test SHOULD NOT BE USED, i dont ask for results of blind test... People answered for "non-transparency". This statement could be questioned. ABX test should prove the validity of that. People answered for "full-transparency". ABX tests could bring them to reconsider an optimistic feeling (artifacts might be revealed by an attentive comparison, ruining their immediate "transparency" feeling). |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2004, 22:06
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 27 Joined: 8-July 04 Member No.: 15155 |
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 12 2004, 12:00 AM) QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 09:56 PM) QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 11:32 PM) 8 people have voted so far, which would mean that 8 people are actually using 4.44 or have at least verified their claims in various blind tests. Now, how realistic is that? I rather smell eight TOS#8 violations. Well, read carefully. People select CLOSEST answer. Purpose of this topic is to answer how aoTuV b2 at 4.44 works for normal use, that`s why blind test SHOULD NOT BE USED, i dont ask for results of blind test... People answered for "non-transparency". This statement could be questioned. ABX test should prove the validity of that. People answered for "full-transparency". ABX tests could bring them to reconsider an optimistic feeling (artifacts might be revealed by an attentive comparison, ruining their immediate "transparency" feeling). They wote for (non)transparency of their music in everyday use. It is very possible that ABXing will cause to change vote. This poll is not to answer - "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transparent for all?" or "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transparent for each user after ABXing?" but "is aoTuV b2 at 4.44 transaprent (or not) when people run their foobar/winamp/etc. and play compressed music and hear difference or not... w/o trying to hear these differences" |
|
|
|
Celsus [USELESS] Is Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 Jul 11 2004, 20:18
Latexxx Why q 4,44? Jul 11 2004, 20:20
Celsus QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jul 11 2004, 10:20 PM)Why q ... Jul 11 2004, 20:23 Dibrom QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 11:23 AM)QUOTE (... Jul 11 2004, 20:56 Celsus QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2004, 10:56 PM)QUOTE (... Jul 11 2004, 21:02 DreamTactix291 I suppose aoTuV b2 at 4.44 would be transparent en... Jul 11 2004, 21:06 analogy For portable use, I'll encode at Q0 to save sp... Jul 11 2004, 21:08 Latexxx What bitrate does q 4,44 represent? Jul 11 2004, 21:14 DreamTactix291 Nominal of 142.1kbps. Jul 11 2004, 21:15 Celsus QUOTE (DreamTactix291 @ Jul 11 2004, 11:15 PM... Jul 11 2004, 21:17 Latexxx Why q 4.44 why not 4, 4.5 or 5? Jul 11 2004, 21:21 Celsus QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jul 11 2004, 11:21 PM)Why q ... Jul 11 2004, 21:28 guruboolez QUOTE (Frank_Bicking @ Jul 11 2004, 09:32 PM)... Jul 11 2004, 21:35 guruboolez QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 10:06 PM)but ... Jul 11 2004, 22:15 DeeZi A few preecho optimations should be done.
Like in ... Jul 11 2004, 21:33 eagleray 4.99 would make more sense to me as that is the cu... Jul 11 2004, 22:11 Celsus Ok, so we advice all people to do ABX But poll is... Jul 11 2004, 22:30 guruboolez QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 10:30 PM)Ok, so ... Jul 11 2004, 22:34 Celsus I think that problem is on reader side. If poll is... Jul 11 2004, 22:51 indybrett QUOTE (Celsus @ Jul 11 2004, 04:51 PM)I don... Jul 11 2004, 23:26 Atlantis QUOTE (indybrett @ Jul 12 2004, 12:26 AM)QUOT... Jul 12 2004, 07:54 Celsus Well, everyone here has right to have his opinion.... Jul 12 2004, 09:25 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 03:07 |
