Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps - OPEN Options

[Sebastian Mares]

Hello!

I would like to announce the launch of my public, multiformat listening test @ 128 kbps.

The encoders featured are:

• Nero AAC 3.1.0.2
• iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3
• LAME 3.97 Beta 2
• Ogg Vorbis AoTuV 4.51 Beta
• WMA Professional 9.1
• Shine 0.1.4 (Low Anchor)

For further information on how to participate, please visit the test announcement page:
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf_128_1.php

The test is scheduled to end on December 25th, 2005.

Update: The test was extended to end on January 13th, 2006.

Thank you!

Regards,
Sebastian Mares

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Dec 31 2005, 20:58

[Sebastian Mares]

That is true, too.

[naylor83]

That is true, too.

And you have to remember that the people taking a test like this probably vary a lot when it comes to training and skill, so the results can never be seen as representative for say 'average listeners' or 'pedantic listeners' - it's most likely a mix of all kinds.

[Sebastian Mares]

That is true, too.

And you have to remember that the people taking a test like this probably vary a lot when it comes to training and skill, so the results can never be seen as representative for say 'average listeners' or 'pedantic listeners' - it's most likely a mix of all kinds.

One thing I didn't consider - when person X says that sample Y has an artifact at postition 123, then person Z is going to keep testing and testing sample Y because he knows that it has an artifact.

[caligae]

One thing I didn't consider - when person X says that sample Y has an artifact at postition 123, then person Z is going to keep testing and testing sample Y because he knows that it has an artifact.

But this would only be unfair if that specific artifact is only spotable with encoder A, but encoder B has noticable artifacts at different positions. If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.

[rjamorim]

If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.

You also get artificial results, as people might listen again and again, paying much more attention than they normally would.

[naylor83]

If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.

You also get artificial results, as people might listen again and again, paying much more attention than they normally would.

But then again, that is true for any listening tests. Or do you suggest we just listen to every sample once, as if we were only 'enjoying the music', and then rate everything at 5.0?

However, I will respect Sebastians request not to ask/answer questions like that. And nobody has gone against him since he stated his opinion on the matter.

[Sebastian Mares]

If this is not the case it would be an improvement for the test results IMHO -- because you get real ratings instead of all 5.0s.

You also get artificial results, as people might listen again and again, paying much more attention than they normally would.

But then again, that is true for any listening tests. Or do you suggest we just listen to every sample once, as if we were only 'enjoying the music', and then rate everything at 5.0?

However, I will respect Sebastians request not to ask/answer questions like that. And nobody has gone against him since he stated his opinion on the matter.

No, it's OK to re-listen to the song as many times as you want.
However, when someone says that sample XYZ has an artifact, you are not going to let go until you spotted it because you know there is an artifact there.