Public AAC Listening Test @ ~96 kbps [July 2011]: Results, Results and post-test discussion Options

[IgorC]

After the long time of preparations, discussions and realization of the test the results are finally here.

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html

Summary: Apple won, FhG is the second, Coding Technologies is the third and Nero is the last

I appreciate all people who has supported the test and participated in it.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 23 2011, 20:12

[Gecko]

First, thank you IgorC and everyone involved!

How do I perform and interpret the analysis on a different set of data (e.g. only my personal results)?. Here's what I got so far:
1. From the provided results.zip copy the "Sorted by sample" folder to a new location and delete all unwanted test results (e.g. keep only 34_GECKO_test??.txt).
2. Use chunky to gather the ratings: chunky.py --codecs=1,Nero;2,CVBR;3,TVBR;4,FhG;5,CT;6,ffmpeg -n --ratings=results --warn -p 0.05 --directory="d:\foo"
3. Take chunky's output "results.txt" and feed it to bootstrap: bootstrap.py --blocked --compare-all -p 100000 -s 100000 results.txt > bootstrapped.txt

a) Do I need to look at "Unadjusted p-values:" or "p-values adjusted for multiple comparison:" if I am just checking my own results? In other words: does the "multiple comparisons" refer to multiple listeners or multiple samples (or something else)?
b) Can step 1. be done more efficiently?
c) How do I run chunky over all results to get one merged results file like "results_AAC_2011.txt" in results.zip? Right now I get per sample results averaged over all listeners (and results for individual samples which could be merged by hand)

[IgorC]

First, thank you IgorC and everyone involved!

Thank You too for your complete 20 results.

How do I perform and interpret the analysis on a different set of data (e.g. only my personal results)?. Here's what I got so far:
1. From the provided results.zip copy the "Sorted by sample" folder to a new location and delete all unwanted test results (e.g. keep only 34_GECKO_test??.txt).
2. Use chunky to gather the ratings: chunky.py --codecs=1,Nero;2,CVBR;3,TVBR;4,FhG;5,CT;6,ffmpeg -n --ratings=results --warn -p 0.05 --directory="d:\foo"
3. Take chunky's output "results.txt" and feed it to bootstrap: bootstrap.py --blocked --compare-all -p 100000 -s 100000 results.txt > bootstrapped.txt

a) Do I need to look at "Unadjusted p-values:" or "p-values adjusted for multiple comparison:" if I am just checking my own results? In other words: does the "multiple comparisons" refer to multiple listeners or multiple samples (or something else)?
b) Can step 1. be done more efficiently?
c) How do I run chunky over all results to get one merged results file like "results_AAC_2011.txt" in results.zip? Right now I get per sample results averaged over all listeners (and results for individual samples which could be merged by hand)

a) Both are fine. Though I'm also interested to hear Garf on this subject.
b) Yes, there is easier way. There is "Sorted by listener" folder. Find folder with your results ("34_GECKO"), rename it to "Sample01" and run chunky on it.
c) You should copy-paste all results (results01, results02, ... , results20) to results_AAC_2011.txt. Without spaces or comments. You will have 280 results totally: sample01 - 21 results, sample02 - 20 results, ... etc. -> summary: 280 results. If you have any issues then see "results_AAC_2011.txt".



mjb2006
I do not accept the results after the closure of the test (evening 20 Aug).
Your results would be discarded anyway.
Your results for samples 03 and 04 are invalid. Two invalid results from your total 5 results (01,02,03,04,05)-> means complete discard. Read the rules.txt
I've repeated many times to send single results as soon as possible to re-do them in case of errors.
And your results are dated by 26 July. There is nobody to blame.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Aug 26 2011, 03:47

[mjb2006]

I do not accept the results after the closure of the test (evening 20 Aug). Your results would be discarded anyway.

I'm not upset, and I did not wish to imply that I was arguing about whether my results should have been considered valid. Clearly they are not.

Besides, I see now what happened. On 20 Aug I realized I would not have time to do more tests, so I checked the thread, and you had not yet made your post saying the test was closed, so I RARed my old results (file modification time 16:04:09-0600) and sent them (email time 16:05:34). I see now that you posted in that very short interval (post time 16:04:xx).

And I didn't realize that you would be contacting people about errors and offering them the chance to re-do those tests. This meaning is not at all obvious when you said that sending results early "helps to prevent some simple errors related to ABC-HR application or any other at early stage," which sounds like you're referring to logistical issues and also seems to be the only time you mentioned it in the test thread, not something you "repeated many times."

Anyway, is it normal for ~27% of listeners to have their results discarded?