search for: abx

...and colleagues: you have done an excellent job! I just didn't believe my ears when I first tested Oggenc 1.0 at q0 to q1 - it sounds AMAZINGLY GOOD !!! But as HDD drives are getting larger and cheaper, most of us move toward higher quality settings ......... I use q8, because: - I was able to ABX some test samples up to q4.99 - at q8 Ogg is still around 3.5x smaller than lossless - it sounds perfect to me!! I was just courious to know if anyone out there is able to distinguish from the original (ABX) Vorbis 1.0 at around q8 (or q7 to q9) on "NORMAL MUSIC" (not special test sample...

This is the new page after the first feedback round: http://audio.sinderman.com/ Comments? Conclusions? Developers feedback? Can someone ABX 60.wav with 60.ogg -q 0? Cheers, AGS. P.S. Garf/Erik, I have included some comments from EAQUAL's author. <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@...

Hello! I found a sample I can ABX successfully when encoded at 133.333 kbps. I was targetting 1 MB/min. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8KWShoIrA1kQzR1Z0FFRUlfcEU floex.wav is 4:54–5:04 of a lossless copy of 'Forget-me-not' by Floex, downloaded from http://store.floex.cz/album/zorya floex-133.opus was created wi...

Anybody know where I can find ABX samples (original and ogg) that used RC3 or better encoding? The only ones I've been able to find are RC2 (or RC1) PS - on a side note, on pcabx.com's "very easy" training samples, I seem to be completely deaf to the differences between the "Original" and their &quo...

...ff: -31.715dB AAC stepped back just a little Comparing 000.wav - opus010.wav... Max diff: -7.61385dB RMS diff: -20.3666dB Mean diff: -20.1286dB Opus made complete disaster, but HF looks good (so it isn't an error in frames synchronisation of wavdiff program). And no, i'm not going to do ABX test at high bitrates because i'm not wavdiff.exe, and i'm not going to do ABX tests at low bitrates because i don not use them. FLAC is good, but MIDI is better. Lossy codecs "reverse-engeneering" audio back to MIDI, that's what they do :) <https://www.avast.com/sig-ema...

...; Agustín Dall'Alba <agustin at dallalba.com.ar> schrieb am 14.04.2017 um 22:53 in Nachricht <CAHBqS-w3v44WM5x+_4XdFMkD42A2iYTbEWKEBmvJc2P3Y-LJGA at mail.gmail.com>: > I halved the volume of the sample before encoding with > `sox -v 0.5 floex.wav quiet.wav` and now I can't ABX it succesfully anymore. > So the artifact I heard was just clipping when encoding or decoding. Hi! Somewhere I read the recommendation that the peak level of input material shopuld not be 0dB, but something like -3dB. The reasoning was that encoding reconstructs the audio signal from the sampl...

I was able to ABX 60.wav from the lame samples up to q=5.9 (13/16 tries at that quality level). I failed to ABX it at q=6.0 (8/16). The sample exhibits a pumping artifact; a "fluttering", if you will, of the amplitude. The effect becomes more pronounced as quality setting / bitrate decreases. Any thoughts?...

Interesting. Not what I expected. This is Ruby 1.8.6. > irb irb(main):001:0> str = "abx\bc" => "abx\bc" irb(main):002:0> str.length => 5 irb(main):003:0> s = str.sub(/.\b/, '''') => "ab\bc" irb(main):004:0> s.length => 4 irb(main):005:0> s = str.sub(/.\x08/, '''') => "abc" irb(main):006:0>...

I want to extra the part of the formula not including the response variable from an lm object. For example if the lm object ABx.lm was created by the call ABx.lm <- lm( y ~ A + B + x, ...) Then ACx.lm is saved as part of a workspace. I wish to extract "~ A + B + x". Later in my code I will fit another linear model of the form z ~ A + B + x for some other response variable z. I would be grateful for any sug...

...ny brands to avoid? I'd be using these for mixing multitrack recordings and editing CD audio, not for general music listening. I like to buy quality products, but price is somewhat of a factor. (I guess you could say this question is Vorbis-related, because I'd also use them if I were ABXing. With my current equipment (crappy passive PC speakers in a noisy room) I can't even ABX vorbis at quality 1 from the original CD source. But I suspect I have dull ears, too (which is a blessing, really).) -- Graham Mitchell - computer science teacher, Leander High School "They c...

I've been running through a collection of hard to encode samples that the lame developers use, and others, doing ABX testing at various quality levels looking for my personal sweet spot. Last time I did this for RC3 I found that most samples where pretty transparent around the 3.5-4 region (my ears aren't that well trained, and I don't want them to be :-), but this time I noticed that applaud.wav[1] s...

I halved the volume of the sample before encoding with `sox -v 0.5 floex.wav quiet.wav` and now I can't ABX it succesfully anymore. So the artifact I heard was just clipping when encoding or decoding. Opus remains unbeaten for me at 133 kbps. That's totally awesome. Cheers On 10 April 2017 at 17:14, Agustín Dall'Alba <agustin at dallalba.com.ar> wrote: > Hello! I found a sample I can...

...ted. The number of characters to be deleted is proceeded by either a "+" or a "-". A toy example: Suppose I have x<-c("A-1CB-2GHX", "*+11gAgggTgtgggH") > x [1] "A-1CB-2GHX" "*+11gAgggTgtgggH" What I need as output is "ABX" "*H" I know I can use gsub to remove the control character and the number portion with gsub("(\\-|\\+)([0-9]+)", replacement="", x) However, I can't figure out how to delete the variable number of characters after the number portion of the string. Any ide...

Hi! I have a problem of curve fitting. I use the following data : - vector of predictor data : 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 - vector of response data : 0.81954 0.64592 0.51247 0.42831 0.35371 I perform parametric fits using custom equations when I use this equation : y = yo + K *(1/(1+exp(-(a+b*ln(x))))) the fitting result is OK but when I use this more general equation : y = yo + K

...for audiobooks and avoiding the patent jungle. The only comment I've seen about use of Opus for audiobooks was jmvalin saying in response to someone on his blog that Opus's ability to do fullband would be a key advantage here. This seems kind of counterintuitive to me- can people even ABX human speech at a 32 or even 24kHz sample rate from speech at 48kHz, much less hear a large quality difference? A number of audiobooks I've listened to have used 22kHz mp3s without being clearly objectionable, and in my personal use I've had decent results using the -voice LAME setting...

...sync gives it a work out? I may drop using this motherboard, since the store will not replace it, and thinks it's a hard drive problem, and the board has no way to underclock even as a test. What about changing from 1300 MHz to 800Mhz AThlon processor... think that would help an AZZA KT3 ABX motherboard work easier? John G Austex

...ched--- Please disable speech synthezation in OPUS for 96 kbps and up. I don't want my music sound like from a phone speaker! What are you talking about? I couldn't find any reference to Opus having any kind of speech synthesization. Can you actually tell Opus apart from the original in a ABX test? "Sergei Nakamoto": you are testing *lossy* codecs wrong. Please search "ABX testing" and test them correctly. Or what is the problem? Modern codec at high bitrates should produce nearly bit-exact sound, not some "optimized for human ear" mumbo-jumbo! Well, I a...

...gt; Comparing 000.wav - opus010.wav... > Max diff: -7.61385dB > RMS diff: -20.3666dB > Mean diff: -20.1286dB > > Opus made complete disaster, but HF looks > good (so it isn't an error in frames > synchronisation of wavdiff program). > > And no, i'm not going to do ABX test at high > bitrates because i'm not wavdiff.exe, and i'm > not going to do ABX tests at low bitrates > because i don not use them. > > FLAC is good, but MIDI is better. Lossy codecs > "reverse-engeneering" audio back to MIDI, that's > what they do :) &...

This mail depends upon the fact that I don't have a couple of good earphones ;-) I read in the site that q=6 is a very high quality, but does it contain perceivable differencies from the original? (for 95% of people, of course). I also found q=6 to produce files slightly bigger (1/10 bigger) than those produced with lame VBR q=2 (about 192 bps on average). I always thought LAME VBR q=2

...vmail 4096 Mar 4 13:48 sammy lrwxrwxrwx 1 vmail vmail 5 Feb 28 12:12 Sammy -> sammy lrwxrwxrwx 1 vmail vmail 5 Feb 28 12:12 sammy at abertax.com -> sammy lrwxrwxrwx 1 vmail vmail 5 Feb 28 12:13 Sammy at abertax.com -> sammy lrwxrwxrwx 1 vmail vmail 5 Mar 1 15:05 sammy at abx.abertax.com -> sammy The dovecot configuration is: # 2.0.19: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 3.2.0-38-generic x86_64 Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS ext4 disable_plaintext_auth = no lda_mailbox_autocreate = yes lda_mailbox_autosubscribe = yes log_path = /var/log/dovecot.message log_timestamp = &quot...