Listening test?

"Godolphin&fellow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7837ce8e-e0fc-4a81-ba81-038199594aab@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of different
> file types and compression rates... a site where people can hear
> snippets of music recorded using various file types and/or compression
> rates, vote on which version they deem superior and then view the
> results? If there isn't there should be... it would be interesting.
> Go ahead point me to it... I got my headphones on, all ready and
> waitin'!

In the spirit of a fair test it should also supply me with the necessary
equipment and a sound studio to assess the samples fairly.

It should be noted that even Sound Recorder supplied with the Windows
operating system has the facility of recording WAV files and converting them
into all sorts of other formats and sample rates.

David F. Cox

"Godolphin&fellow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7837ce8e-e0fc-4a81-ba81-038199594aab@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of
> different
> file types and compression rates... a site where people can
> hear
> snippets of music recorded using various file types and/or
> compression
> rates, vote on which version they deem superior and then
> view the
> results? If there isn't there should be... it would be
> interesting.
> Go ahead point me to it... I got my headphones on, all ready
> and
> waitin'!

What kind of converter do you have to play them back on? That
will probably make more of a difference than the music you are
playing back

peace
dawg

> Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of different file
> types

Here's mine - 24 bits versus 16, 13, 11, and 9 bits:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html

--Ethan

Ethan Winer wrote:
>> Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of
>> different file types
>
> Here's mine - 24 bits versus 16, 13, 11, and 9 bits:
>
> http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html


At least with phones one isn't going to move yer head a few inches and
totally swamp any potential difference in the test signals ;-!


geoff

On Jun 29, 6:48 pm, "geoff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ethan Winer wrote:
> >> Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of
> >> different file types
>
> > Here's mine - 24 bits versus 16, 13, 11, and 9 bits:
>
> >http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html
>
> At least with phones one isn't going to move yer head a few inches and
> totally swamp any potential difference in the test signals ;-!
>
> geoff

Well, I did the test.
b, c, e, a, d - The order I chose
b, d, e, c, a - The actual order from best to worst, which was 16 bits
down to 11 bits.

I chose the best as best, but beyond that it was pretty hit or miss,
(my 2nd best was next to last and my worst was, in fact, 2nd
best). ...It was kind of frustrating after a while because they pretty
much sounded the same. I didn't know then only 1 bit separated any
given one from the next in rank. Have other people took the test and
shared their results?

I wonder if I'd have faired better with different music... maybe just
one plucked sustained note or slow melody high on the neck, or a
different instrument... I've long thought acoustic piano has the
purest notes and have used piano cds to test for distortion at
different recording levels.

Thanks for sharing this test. I'd still be interested in trying to
hear differences in different compression rates.

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
news:l9WdnZ2EKI_5PPrVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of different
>> file types
>
> Here's mine - 24 bits versus 16, 13, 11, and 9 bits:
>
> http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html
>
> --Ethan

Thanks for sharing your site. I did some valuable work with the QBasic and
compiled BASIC way back.


On my laptop with ears that have seen too many decades I cannot tell the
difference. Can we try with 8,7,6 .etc.

Come to think of it I remember hearing an intelligible fun recording of the
mushroom song done through a PC speaker with just one bit. I do not know
what the bit rate was.

David F. Cox

On Jun 29, 10:50 am, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com>
wrote:
> > Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of different file
> > types
>
> Here's mine - 24 bits versus 16, 13, 11, and 9 bits:
>
> http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html
>
> --Ethan
Oh well... only after posting my results, and then reading more on
your site, did I realize I took the test on the OTHER site instead of
yours.... oops!

On Jun 29, 10:50 am, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com>
wrote:
> > Is there any place on the web set up for listening tests of different file
> > types
>
> Here's mine - 24 bits versus 16, 13, 11, and 9 bits:
>
> http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html
>
> --Ethan

Godolphin here again. ...I had to take a break from listening to that
same little snippet. Jane! Stop this crazy thing!
Here's my guess, going from 'best' to 'worst', 4, 3 , 1, 2, 5.

This is the best I can do... if there's so little difference that says
something about bit rates. But I would like to hear some other
examples... different instruments, etc. Maybe tones produced by an
electronic instrument that isn't dependent on room acoustics, etc (or
piano as I said before). And maybe something less busy would have been
better. But thanks for the chance. If you don't want to post results
here then please email me using this address (not the other one), I'm
interested in the results.

> Here's my guess, going from 'best' to 'worst', 4, 3 , 1, 2, 5.

This test is so old I'm glad to post the answer publicly. The quality simply
goes down in order of the file name numbers:

File 1 = dithered to 16 bits
File 2 = truncated to 16 bits
File 3 = truncated to 13 bits
File 4 = truncated to 11 bits
File 5 = truncated to 9 bits

Also, see the statistical analysis that someone else performed on the
initial round of responses at:

www.ethanwiner.com/24-analysis.htm

--Ethan

On Jul 2, 10:54 am, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com>
wrote:
> > Here's my guess, going from 'best' to 'worst', 4, 3 , 1, 2, 5.
>
> This test is so old I'm glad to post the answer publicly. The quality simply
> goes down in order of the file name numbers:
>
> File 1 = dithered to 16 bits
> File 2 = truncated to 16 bits
> File 3 = truncated to 13 bits
> File 4 = truncated to 11 bits
> File 5 = truncated to 9 bits
>
> Also, see the statistical analysis that someone else performed on the
> initial round of responses at:
>
> www.ethanwiner.com/24-analysis.htm
>
> --Ethan

Ouch! I could have done better pulling numbers from a hat! Looking at
the listeners comments I feel a bit better... looks like I'm just a
tad sub-par, along with a good many others. ...If I had listened to
the complete files I might have noticed the hiss at end of #4 that a
few mentioned. I tended to just focus on the first few seconds,
switching back and forth between.

One commenter said he thought he could hear a bit more detail in file
5 than file 1, and so erroneously chose 5 over 1. I've sometimes
thought this while listening to compressed files from the internet...
and wonder if there isn't something to the idea that with a compressed
file each sound is more distinct, isolated, and so gives the
'appearance' of more detail, even though in fact the sounds are just
more 'bare', less rich in timbre and overtones. Does anyone think this
makes sense?