Hydrogenaudio Forums > [OFFENSIVE] trolling split

Full Version: [OFFENSIVE] trolling split

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Misc. > Recycle Bin

XXX

May 25 2004, 01:13

QUOTE(JohnV @ May 24 2004, 04:44 AM)

QUOTE(XXX @ May 24 2004, 01:12 PM)

This particular test should be called, "The 128 kbps test for iTunes/WMA, and the low-130 test for AC3 and LAME, and the close-to-160 test for MPC/Vorbious.

Leahy iTunes MPC Vorbis Lame WMA Atrac3

bitrate 128 155 149 133 128 132

Score 4.34 4.41 4.68 4.11 4.37 3.76

I am aware of the rationalization. I am aware of the overall average. But let this be a n"oh?" to those that don't and aren't.

See here how the average bitrates were decided for this test (personally I'm not absolutely sure if it was enough). Obviously those settings in the table close to 128 were used:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=207203

Also the correct average bitrates for the 18 samples tested are (instead of what you said):

CODE

iTunes MPC aoTuV Lame WMA Atrac3
128 136 135 134 128 132

First, I already replied to this but it was removed.

Second, if you look at the table, it clearly shows the test.

Third, if a test takes hard samples and encoders boost their bitrate to deal with those, and then get thrown a few simple samples so their bitrate averages get reduced, what you have is, what we call in the legal system, a sham.

Let me give you an example:

hard samples: 140-160 kbps
simple samples: 90-100 kbps

Average: 134 kbps

Now look at the given reasoning for the simple samples: To make the average bitrates "closer". Yeah, that's a sham, all right.

And really, only a sample count of 11? Std. dev. of typically +/- 1? That's bad swaying considering it's 40%.

XXX

May 25 2004, 01:24

Fourth, and I've said this before, if you have six players and two tie for first, the next place is third, not second (there is no second if two tie for first).

If you have six players players and five tie for first, the last place is just that, sixth place, not second.

rjamorim

May 25 2004, 01:34

Good Lord. It's so painful...

XXX

May 25 2004, 02:06

You live, you learn. Pain is all in the mind anyway. Control your destiny.

(Why do I waste the effort when this will be deleted?)

May 25 2004, 02:11

QUOTE(XXX @ May 25 2004, 08:13 AM)

QUOTE(XXX)

Third, if a test takes hard samples and encoders boost their bitrate to deal with those, and then get thrown a few simple samples so their bitrate averages get reduced, what you have is, what we call in the legal system, a sham.

Isn't this what vbr is all about....?

PoisonDan

May 25 2004, 02:28

XXX, when will you conduct a listening test? You are obviously a bigger expert in this field than Roberto, David Robinson, ff123 and others.

I really don't understand why you didn't post any of these concerns in the listening test discussion thread. That thread was active long enough before the actual test started, so you had every chance to do so.

rajas

May 25 2004, 03:05

QUOTE(cookie @ May 25 2004, 02:11 AM)

QUOTE(XXX @ May 25 2004, 08:13 AM)

QUOTE(XXX)

Isn't this what vbr is all about....?

Roberto,

With so many people misinterpreting the validity of the bitrates perhaps you could add a statement in the results near where the bitrate calculation is shown, and clarify the issue. (i.e. the bitrates seemed raised for VBR encoders as they are VBR encoders and will adjust bitrates for difficult portions of music, and the samples used are difficult portions of music, the bitrate for the whole song will be close to 128kbps).

My concern here is that too many people will use this as an excuse to disregard the test. Adding some clarifying comments will nip the problem at the bud (and reduce a lot of noise on these forums.)

And thank you for a great job on conducting these tests. I'm really looking forward to the 48kbps test.

Rajas

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.