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?

Why q 4,44?

Well, I have to choose - codec itself is not transparent or not transparent - we can choose option in such poll only for certain bitrate.

PLEASE SELECT CLOSEST ANSWER - so if you use Q=5 and it is transparent, select first option etc.

Umm.. if this is for yourself, why don't you do your own listening tests and determine that?

It doesn't seem to make much sense to ask this kind of question, especially if you're asking people to listen "with their own music and not killer samples."

I mean not "labolatory" environment, but how Ogg Vorbis aoTuV b2 Q=4,44 do its job in normal, everyday purposes. My music on my sennheiser headphones is transparent for me, no need to make "listening test" with killer samples - question is how it works for each user in his music.

I suppose aoTuV b2 at 4.44 would be transparent enough (odd quality setting though) but I've always used -q6 and currently am using Megamix. Feels comfortable to me.

Side note: Megamix -q6 on my iHP-120 is a very good thing

For portable use, I'll encode at Q0 to save space. While I could certainly ABX it, there aren't any actual annoying artifacts. The music still sounds good, just slightly lower-fi.

Q4 is pretty much transparent for me, though. I don't have bat ears, I can't ABX it.

What bitrate does q 4,44 represent?

Nominal of 142.1kbps.

150.9 for megamix...

Why q 4.44 why not 4, 4.5 or 5?

Well, don`t know, just selected 4.44...

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.

A few preecho optimations should be done.
Like in Megamix but with less bitrate increasing

Seven. I've voted for "never transparent".
The results of a listening test including Megamix on "usual" samples will follow in the next hours.

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"

4.99 would make more sense to me as that is the cut-off point in the recommended settings/codecs list. At 4.99 aotuv is transparent to me as well as the new vorbis 1.1 rc1. Actually, it is hard for me to tell most codecs apart which is why I don't tune codecs and (I don't mean to start a codec war) also why I mostly use Lame. In my case compatibility is the deciding factor, but I definitely think there is room for several formats.

ABX tests are needed, at least for people claiming for an audible difference. For an extreme exemple, I've found people claiming about audible and obvious degradation while playing lossless encoding music (compared to CD). But I never saw from the same people any ABX test proving the validity of their claims...

I wonder: what's the purpose of this poll? Simple curiosity?

Ok, so we advice all people to do ABX But poll is about what they think (maybe they are wrong, I don`t care)...

You don't care maybe, but I remind you that HA is place with some restrictive rules. And one of this rule prevent members to launch rumors and statments on biased impressions or placebo feelings.
There are many places where "feelings" and "opinions" about lossy encoding could be collected. MP3 players dedicated boards are generally fine for that

I think that problem is on reader side. If poll is about "what people think" reader should not think that results of such poll give answer which codec IS better etc. but ONLY what people think.

I don`t see anything wrong in checking (in a poll) what people think. Just make good interpretation of poll results...

I think that this poll belongs in the bitbucket...

Indeed...

Well, everyone here has right to have his opinion. I think that this poll is not useless, just be careful in interpretation.