Ron Olsen;177725 Wrote:
> The methodology is spelled out in the link I posted:
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465
>
>
> I performed all my last listening tests on a Creative Audigy 2
> soundcard, which resamples everything to 48000 KHz. Some people
> consider that internal resampling (transparent in my opinion) is
> treating unfairly musepack and would biased any listening test. To cut
> the controversial short, I installed my (better) Terratec DMX6Fire
> 24/96 which doesn't resample 44100 KHz files (I'm not using it anymore
> for daily listening because of interference with my VIA chipset).
>
> HARDWARE & SOFTWARE SETTINGS:
>
> soundcard: Terratec DMX6Fire 24/96
> headphone: BeyerDynamic DT-531
> amp: Onkyo MT-5
> software player: Java ABC/HR 0.5 beta 5.
> software decoder: foobar2000 0.83 (in order to automatically get
> files free of offset and to solve my incompatibility issues occuring
> with Vorbis).
>
> TESTING PRINCIPLES:
>
> ABX phase : To limit the listening fatigue and to end the test before
> I left my appartment, I restricted the ABX tests to the most transparent
> encodings (note > 4.00).
> Number of trials : eight trials as a minimum. I recall that
> schnofler's ABC/HR software doesn't reveal to score until the test is
> closed by the user (and it also can't be resume). Therefore the number
> of trails hasn't to be fixed: as long as score is hidden the pval isn't
> ruined. That's why I add more trials when I suspect bad results. I never
> exceed 16 trials: if something is really transparent I didn't persecute
> the encoding smile.gif
> Notation : My notation was very severe last year, with a full dynamic
> range of notation (a lot of notes were inferior to 2.0). That's why I
> decided to add 10 points to each score (in order to disconnect the
> notation from the usual corresponding scale). This year, I tried to
> respect the ITU scale. When a difference is audible but not really
> annoying, the notation is at least equal to 4.0 and my hairs must stand
> on end to allow a notation inferior to 2.0 (from "annoying" to "very
> annoying"). Notation is still severe (I keep in mind that all encodings
> were set at 180 kbps) and that's why results I get here can't absolutely
> not be compared to other listening tests I done, especially those
> performed for low bitrate settings. By the way, there are no anchors in
> this test (high anchor is of course unecessary here).
> Samples: Same as last year. See this thread.
> Gain: I hadn't modify the gain of any file. All were played at their
> original volume.
I actually had some problems interpreting some of that stuff, so
skipped most of it. ("My notation was very severe" and "Full dynamic
range of notation"?)
Never mind, I don't intend to dwell on this.
What you get here is one guys personal opinions about sound quality
with some confidence that it is consistent (i.e he is not dreaming). It
is still just one persons opinions, and based on the use of one or a
limited number of systems. Nice, but won't really affect me.
--
P Floding
No, I didn't ABX it. And I won't even if you ask me. (Especially not if
you ask me.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
