search for: abxing

Hello! First of all, 100x thanks to Monty 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

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

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 with `opusenc --bitrate 133.333333 floex.wav floex-133.opus`,

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 "test" samples. (Distortion sample only), but I do hear

using iTunes i've noticed that AAC is very good at re-encoding own lossy sound. let's test Opus! neroaacenc.exe -q 0.75 -if 000.wav -of 001.m4a neroaacdec.exe -if 001.m4a -of aac001.wav wavdiff.exe 000.wav aac001.wav Comparing 000.wav - aac001.wav... Max diff: -17.3867dB RMS diff: -33.0851dB Mean diff: -32.4582dB opusenc.exe --bitrate 512 "000.wav" 001.opus opusdec.exe 001.opus

>>> 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

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? Also - if anyone replies to this, could you CC me a copy? I'm not on the

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"

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

...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 come...

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

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

I have a text processing problem I'm hoping someone can help me solve. This issue it this. I have a character string in which I need to delete a variable number of characters from the string. The string itself contains the number of characters to be deleted. The number of characters to be deleted is proceeded by either a "+" or a "-". A toy example: Suppose I have

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

I know the focus for Opus is low delay, but I've been watching its development with interest because of the potential for audiobook/podcast use, where latency is practically irrelevant. I hear the upcoming USAC codec will give good results for this niche (though listening test results don't seem to be available to the public yet), but I also hear it'll be extremely patent

Is this just because rsync 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

On 7 Nov 2017 13:36, Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella at gmail.com> wrote: 2017-11-07 11:10 GMT-02:00 encrupted anonymous <sergeinakamoto at gmail.com<mailto:sergeinakamoto at gmail.com>>: did another test of many. NeroAAC q=1 @400kbps and Vorbis q=10 @412kbps shared 2nd place. OPUS @330 kbps - 3rd place. LAME MP3 q=0 @320 kbps - 1st place. ---JPEG file attached--- Please disable

Opus is specifically designed to survive tandeming but you need to keep the frames aligned and not mess with the gain, which your tools probably do not do. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:58 PM, encrupted anonymous < sergeinakamoto at gmail.com> wrote: > using iTunes i've noticed that AAC is > very good at re-encoding own lossy sound. > let's test Opus! > > neroaacenc.exe

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

I'm trying to setup a samba4 with openchange which uses postfix+dovecot+openldap on a ubuntu 12.04.2 system. I can send outgoing emails but incoming emails fail. I looked up the logs and I get: Mar 5 11:03:48 testerA dovecot: lda(sammy): Error: user sammy: Initialization failed: mail_location not set and autodetection failed: Mail storage autodetection failed with home=/var/mail Mar 5