VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42
Thread
  1. I have to share this, Opus totally kicks ass at 64 kb/s on this song by Darude. We've long waited for the day for MP3 to be outclassed by a codec at half the bitrate. Opus not only is superior but practically transparent. Check it out.
    Code:
    ---------------------------------------
    1L File: M:\sand128mp3vbr.wav
    1L Rating: 4.3
    1L Comment: Cymbals kind of flawed.
    ---------------------------------------
    2L File: M:\sand64mp4.wav
    2L Rating: 3.6
    2L Comment: Dull.
    ---------------------------------------
    3R File: M:\sand64.opus.wav
    3R Rating: 4.9
    3R Comment: I believe the upper melody of the synth instrument is a little distorted but the difference is so tiny it's hard to pinpoint 100% of the time.
    ---------------------------------------
    Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Where are the other files? (wav,aac,mp3)
    Quote Quote  
  3. Not sure if I should upload WAV. It might violate copyright. The compressed versions are substandard quality so it's more fair use.
    Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    For complete disclosure, can you list the versions eg. opus 1.1 , encoders used (eg nero or quicktime AAC would perform typically better than libvo_aacenc), settings used ?

    I've only done limited testing but have you discovered any relative weaknesses with opus yet? e.g. maybe it performs slightly more poorly on some type of audio situations/sources or frequencies ? It's fantastic for low bitrate speech
    Quote Quote  
  5. I used the latest opus 1.1 and latest Nero AAC. I never use substandard tools or audio if I know better.

    Command lines:
    opusenc --framesize 60 --bitrate 66 sandstorm.wav sandstorm.opus.mp4
    NeroAACenc -q 0.238 -if sandstorm.wav -of sandstorm64.mp4
    lame sandstorm.wav -o sandstorm.mp3 -V5.98 --vbr-new -q 0

    I've only done limited testing but have you discovered any relative weaknesses with opus yet?
    Hell yes, search my threads I've posted on this subforum where I've posted a couple opus listening tests of my own. It sucks hard with tonal audio where it was outclassed by RealMedia Cook on one song, but it's great with broadband audio like this song.

    Opus sweet spot is only at 64 kb/s though. At 48 kb/s on this song it was more or less tied with AAC at the same bitrate because unlike AAC it had flanging artifacts at the first 10 seconds of the song but was less dull (albeit distorted at the top shelf).

    At 32 kb/s it was complete garbage and AAC sounded way better.

    The only reason you see opus do well with speech is because it uses its SILK algorithm when it detects speech. If it used CELT for speech it would sound worse than AAC.
    Quote Quote  
  6. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto
    sandstorm64.opus.mp4
    Man, your musical taste sucks very-highly
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    Not sure if I should upload WAV
    exists FLAC. It is difficult to understand, where the quantization noise and the noise plates (need the original sample)
    Why outdated Nero instead QAAC OPUS 64kb approximately as MP3 112kb
    I recommend listening to the player "Neutron" for Android (highest quality)
    Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by El Heggunte View Post
    Originally Posted by Mephesto
    sandstorm64.opus.mp4
    Man, your musical taste sucks very-highly
    Who said I liked the song, I just said opus compressed it very well. Other codecs fail particularly hard with samples like this one.

    Gravitator, since you're using an online translator you didn't get what I said. I can't upload the lossless song because of copyright laws.

    QAAC is not better than Nero, I've done tests of my own. QuickTime's AAC encoder sucks about as bad as their H.264 encoder which outputs quality worse than MPEG-2. F*** QAAC, it's name even sounds retarded. QUACK.
    Last edited by Mephesto; 9th Feb 2014 at 14:05.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    why would anyone compress audio for any reason in this day and age of 1tb+ hdds? and to compress to 64, 48 or 32 kb/s? what kind of crack do you have to be on?
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    Gravitator, since you're using an online translator you didn't get what I said. I can't upload the lossless song because of copyright laws.
    Spread samples are not prohibited

    There is still a phantom USAC ( perhaps based on it will build a sound for blu-ray 4K )
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    why would anyone compress audio for any reason in this day and age of 1tb+ hdds? and to compress to 64, 48 or 32 kb/s? what kind of crack do you have to be on?
    rather, it is about phones

    I album keep in OPUS 96kb/s on androidphone (quite satisfied).
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    why would anyone compress audio for any reason in this day and age of 1tb+ hdds? and to compress to 64, 48 or 32 kb/s? what kind of crack do you have to be on?
    This tired argument again...

    Because internet bandwidth isn't free. To upload the FLAC would've taken over 5 minutes on this shitty $50 a month home connection and I have a monthly GB limit. If I wanted to download an entire album (who the **** even listens AND enjoys every single song of every album) I'd rather be able to download an entire discography in a month than just a single album.

    And HDD speeds blow **** especially if its fragmented. In the worst case scenario my state-of-the-art 2TB HDD would just barely be able to play an uncompressed WAV and the assorted disk thrashing would hasten the eventual death of the HDD.

    The less stuff you have, the better. You have any goddamn clue how long it would take to backup 1TB? It takes 3 hours alone just to read at the full speed on this top-quality HDD I got. To read and write the 1TB partition to backup would probably take longer.

    I waited until 2010 for filesharing to FINALLY became ******* bearable where I never had to experience a 5 KB/s download speed ever again. And I waited all these years just to experience four-hour download times again because morons like yourself keep demanding more imperceivable quality for free?

    I don't get the attitude at all, bro. Do you not want to get what you want right away without waiting for it? I've never heard of patient morons before. If you want top-grade mathematically-accurate quality, what the hell kind of unwarranted sense of self-importance do you suffer from that makes you believe you're entitled to get it for free?

    I actually buy all my Blu-rays because mouth-breathing retards on P2P networks can't seem to find a balance between uploading outright garbage or unnecessarily oversized encodes that take over a day to transfer. Nothing beats getting top quality just by walking across the street and spending a dollar when attention-whoring f**kheads on torrent sites understandably can't offer the same convenience for free. Do you hear me complaining? No, you hear me mocking the idiots for endeavoring so much on something they obviously suck at.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    Gravitator, since you're using an online translator you didn't get what I said. I can't upload the lossless song because of copyright laws.
    If you want to fall behind "fair use" then 20 seconds is probably OK. But avoiding lossless wouldn't save your butt in many places, including the US. The odds of you getting in trouble using a song to illustrate compression are low, but not having the original for comparison does get you into a "Just take my word for it" situation here.

    You'll have to forgive me for not rushing to spank my monkey over 64 Kbps anything, but as I have a job and don't live in a third world country, this is something I have zero interest in. I'm sure some people do care, but if 64 Kbps is actually useful to some, maybe they need to just buy bigger disk drives.

    What do you mean by "tonal audio"? That would technically describe about 99% of music, so that term either doesn't mean what you think it does or it's irrelevant.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    OPUS 64kb / s would be very useful for creating video rips 700MB.
    Not everyone has the opportunity to use the unlimited Internet (many download over 3G traffic, where prices are extortionate)
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    why would anyone compress audio for any reason in this day and age of 1tb+ hdds? and to compress to 64, 48 or 32 kb/s? what kind of crack do you have to be on?
    You could say the same about video compression. Who gives a crap about x265 when x264 is plenty good enough to upload to web? Personally I prefer and use high bit-rate Mpeg-2 for all my source storage because the quality is superior and Blu-Ray disks offer higher storage space. So to me, it's a no-brainer......

    Now someone else with lessor means may differ with my opinion however, and that's OK too............

    P.S.....I store all my source audio as flac on external HDDs and encode to VBR mp3 @ 256 for playback on various devices for compatibility purposes.
    Last edited by racer-x; 9th Feb 2014 at 16:36.
    The memories of a man in his old age, are the deeds of the man in his prime.......
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by jman98 View Post
    If you want to fall behind "fair use" then 20 seconds is probably OK. But avoiding lossless wouldn't save your butt in many places, including the US. The odds of you getting in trouble using a song to illustrate compression are low, but not having the original for comparison does get you into a "Just take my word for it" situation here.
    I'm not worried about getting sued, I just don't wanna get booted off the forum and have to create yet another email account to re-register. I could've only taken a chunk of it but then I'd have to upload FLACs of all 3 which I didn't feel like doing plus there wouldn't be proof of bitrate anymore. I could've also encoded a 20-second part of the song with all 3 codecs but the listening test I performed was done using the 3-minute sample so the new samples wouldn't correspond to it and could be worse quality.

    As for taking my word, the lossless sample is easily downloadable elsewhere on the net for comparison.

    You'll have to forgive me for not rushing to spank my monkey over 64 Kbps anything, but as I have a job and don't live in a third world country, this is something I have zero interest in. I'm sure some people do care, but if 64 Kbps is actually useful to some, maybe they need to just buy bigger disk drives.
    I have a job and don't live in a third world country either, that doesn't stop the internet speeds in North America sucking a warted schlong. In fact, a third world country likely has twice as faster internet for $10 a month than America has for premium prices.

    What do you mean by "tonal audio"? That would technically describe about 99% of music, so that term either doesn't mean what you think it does or it's irrelevant.
    See what I mean about this lazy-ass passive attitude that turned the net into shít where the most intelligent philosophy has now evolved into "spend hard-earned dollars for a bigger, shitty, unavoidably slower disk". Only with this attitude can you not tell the difference between music and speech when apparently cymbals, drums, snares and rock guitar riffs are all "tonal" to you.

    The word is used by the developers of opus so you can be assured it's not my vocabulary you have to trust when I say that it sucks pretty bad with this kind of audio. Music is a mix of tone and broadband, usually with more broadband than tone. Speech is predominantly tonal but is handled by the SILK algorithm of Opus, but SILK isn't designed to handle any other tonal content besides speech.
    So things like an instrumental track with modest percussion are handled by the CELT algorithm in Opus which doesn't do well with things like this especially with the tiny frame window of only 20ms. Opus developers could fix this by adding an option to increase that but they're intending opus for low-delay realtime communication instead of music encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by racer-x View Post
    You could say the same about video compression. Who gives a crap about x265 when x264 is plenty good enough to upload to web? Personally I prefer and use high bit-rate Mpeg-2 for all my source storage because the quality is superior and Blu-Ray disks offer higher storage space. So to me, it's a no-brainer
    video Is different because of the extremely large sizes of uncompressed video, 12 minutes of uncompressed video in png format is almost 30gb.

    i will agree with you that i prefer the look of high bit rate mpeg-2 if done with a quality encoder over x264.

    @mephesto:

    spoken like a true jack*******; uploading a lower quality version of copyrighted content doesn't absolve you of being a pirate, it just means you're a piss poor pirate.

    and having a slow broadband connection with monthly data caps just means you need to find a better provider or upgrade to a higher tier service.

    personally, i don't download jack from any p2p/torrent site anymore, all the content out there is encoded by people like yourself who think they know what they are doing but in reality don't.

    now if you feel like you're doing society a service by uploading 64kb/s audio, more power to you. btw, are you the clown that sent me a pm telling me to check out his uploads on torrent sites shared under the scene groups name he is a member of? if so, i have to tell you your sh*t is sh*t, if that's you guys idea of quality encodes you guys need to move out of mommy's basement and get jobs.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    spoken like a true jack*******; uploading a lower quality version of copyrighted content doesn't absolve you of being a pirate, it just means you're a piss poor pirate.
    I'm ignorant of copyright laws in general let alone in specific jurisdictions. This one's in Sweden so I'll leave it to Baldrick. On Wikipedia I've provided plenty of copyrighted samples in 64 kb/s OGG format which others said falls under fair use because its use is legitimized for preview purposes and not for long term storage because nobody would keep a low quality version when the higher quality is available in stores.

    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    and having a slow broadband connection with monthly data caps just means you need to find a better provider or upgrade to a higher tier service.
    Another tired argument that I haven't heard and refuted 500 times. There are only two providers in my area, both provide practically identical service. I'm not paying $200 a month just to match the speed of the typical $20 a month service in every other continent except this one. North America is unprecedented in the shitty slow service it provides, its only rival is maybe Africa.

    I can practically predict the responses by now:
    "So move somewhere else."
    I have reasons why I am where I'm at and it may or may not be my choice at all. If the internet was everything to me like it is to you, I'd have already moved out. But obviously I have other priorities.

    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    personally, i don't download jack from any p2p/torrent site anymore, all the content out there is encoded by people like yourself who think they know what they are doing but in reality don't.
    I'm open to enlightenment and the encoder of our group who has 8 years of experience is open to puerile pretentious bullshít to laugh at. Expound away, deadrats.

    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    now if you feel like you're doing society a service by uploading 64kb/s audio, more power to you. btw, are you the clown that sent me a pm telling me to check out his uploads on torrent sites shared under the scene groups name he is a member of? if so, i have to tell you your sh*t is sh*t, if that's you guys idea of quality encodes you guys need to move out of mommy's basement and get jobs.
    Do you normally give yourself the authority to rate other people's work by assuming you know their work better than they do? Not a single one of my torrents uses the opus codec (yet) nor do any have audio tracks with a bitrate that low.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    There are only two providers in my area, both provide practically identical service.
    This is called collusion. Monopolists will never be on the side of the consumer

    Operator Beeline Kazakhstan
    10Mb / s - $ 19.35
    50MB / s - $ 25.15
    70MB / s - $ 29.02
    100MB / s - $ 38.70

    Operator Beeline Uzbekistan (neighboring country)
    64 Kb / s - $ 30
    128 Kb / s - $ 60
    128-256 Kb / s - $ 115
    256-512 Kb/s- $ 330
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Gravitator View Post

    Operator Beeline Kazakhstan
    10Mb / s - $ 19.35
    50MB / s - $ 25.15
    70MB / s - $ 29.02
    100MB / s - $ 38.70

    Operator Beeline Uzbekistan (neighboring country)
    64 Kb / s - $ 30
    128 Kb / s - $ 60
    128-256 Kb / s - $ 115
    256-512 Kb/s- $ 330
    Wow are those monthly rates in USD ? What are the bandwidth transfer caps or limits per month ?

    Kazakhstan bandwidth is cheap! (we pay 3-4x for 100MB/s), and Uzbekistan is in the stone ages!
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray;
    Wow are those monthly rates in USD ? What are the bandwidth transfer caps or limits per month ?
    translated into USD ; unlimited
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray;
    Kazakhstan bandwidth is cheap!
    We have a good president!
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Can move to a new stage of development - to improve the encoder / decoder with a focus on 96khz (+ thicker sound)
    Quote Quote  
  23. What's the point of that? Humans can't hear frequencies that high. Most adults cannot even hear beyond a 32kHz samplerate file. Studios and amateur audio engineering tasks make use of very high samplerates for technical purposes to minimize degradation over multi-generation processing but that's why they use no compression at all. Compressing 96kHz audio has no point whatsoever.

    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Gravitator View Post

    Operator Beeline Kazakhstan
    10Mb / s - $ 19.35
    50MB / s - $ 25.15
    70MB / s - $ 29.02
    100MB / s - $ 38.70

    Operator Beeline Uzbekistan (neighboring country)
    64 Kb / s - $ 30
    128 Kb / s - $ 60
    128-256 Kb / s - $ 115
    256-512 Kb/s- $ 330
    Wow are those monthly rates in USD ? What are the bandwidth transfer caps or limits per month ?

    Kazakhstan bandwidth is cheap! (we pay 3-4x for 100MB/s), and Uzbekistan is in the stone ages!
    Oh you don't know the meaning of the word. In 2005 I moved back to my home country in Europe in a secluded village surrounded by wilderness. Only dialup was available in my area and the charge was the same as the phone, about 20 cents per minute. It sucked ass. But it did teach you the value of efficiency. I mostly connected to the net to download game walkthroughs, the occasional song or ROM, speedruns etc.

    In summer 2006 we got ADSL which we just barely qualified for considering how far away our house was from the nearest terminal in the city. It was $40 a month for a 1024/256 Kilobit D/L speed and 3 GB monthly limit. It kicked ass because we no longer paid by the minute and 3GB was more or less enough, that was also when I downloaded my first 700MB DVD rip which would've taken 3 days and about $600.

    A few months later I come back to North America and get a $40 a month cable service with 5000/500 Kb/s. It was awesome and I couldnt've asked for better. Even though movies took many hours to download, 700MB was a lot of data so I had patience.

    But then... a year went by and the service remained the same. Another year, same speed. Many years later, still unchanged. They did increase the download speed but it doesn't mean jack shit because upload remained the same and uploading is all I mostly do. 2014, STILL the same f**king speed. Despite the new fiber optic infrastructure installed they're still charging the same f**king prices.

    Meanwhile... the supposed poor country I left where half the population is unemployed, ISPs are now offering 25/6 Mb/s ADSL+ service for the same $40 a month.
    Last edited by Mephesto; 11th Feb 2014 at 01:47.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto;
    Compressing 96kHz audio has no point whatsoever.
    For some reason I distinguish the difference 44.1/48 > 96 kHz ( is heard some air)
    Quote Quote  
  25. When it comes to compressing music I've never understood the need for really low bitrates. Sure there are applications for high quality at low bitrates, but for personal listening.....

    It doesn't matter how it's compressed, bitrate and file size are directly related. 5 minutes of audio compressed at 64kb/s gives you 2.34MB. At 128k it's 4.68MB and up around where most encoders would be considered transparent (192k) it's 7MB. An hour of audio at the same respective bitrates: 28MB, 56MB and 84MB. It's kind of hard to imagine how bandwidth or hard drive capacity really factors into the equation these days.

    Plus if you're encoding with something like Opus, which 99.999999999999% of hardware players don't support, it's somewhat defeats the purpose.

    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    And HDD speeds blow **** especially if its fragmented. In the worst case scenario my state-of-the-art 2TB HDD would just barely be able to play an uncompressed WAV and the assorted disk thrashing would hasten the eventual death of the HDD.
    That really doesn't sound right.
    5 minutes of stereo, 44.1k, 16 bit, PCM audio should be somewhere around the 50MB mark. Your hard drive struggles to read a 50MB file in under 5 minutes?
    I have RAID drives in this PC but I do have a single 2TB drive attached to it, so I opened my audio player, found a track of roughly 5 minutes in length and converted it to a wave file while saving the output to the single 2TB drive (the source file was on one of the RAID volumes). It was hard to time it accurately but the conversion process took roughly 3 seconds. The 2TB drive will read a 4GB file in around 1 minute. It's not state of the art by any means. It's a pre AF drive with 5 platters.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 12th Feb 2014 at 05:06.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by Gravitator View Post
    Originally Posted by Mephesto;
    Compressing 96kHz audio has no point whatsoever.
    For some reason I distinguish the difference 44.1/48 > 96 kHz ( is heard some air)
    Do you have bionic ears?

    http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

    THE TRIAL
    The experiment was wonderfully simple: The authors set up a double-blind comparison system in which one position played high-end SACDs and DVD-As through state-of-the-art preamps, power amps and speakers. At the other position, the output from the SACD player was first passed through the AD/DA converters of an HHB CD recorder and then through the same signal chain. The levels of the two sides were matched to within 0.1 dB, with the amplifier doing the matching in series with the CD recorder so no one could claim that it degraded the SACD signal. The test subjects used an “A/B/X” comparator to switch the signals, meaning that in some of the tests, when the subjects hit the Change button they didn't know if the signal actually changed.
    There were 60 subjects, almost all of whom were people who know how to listen to recorded music: recording professionals, nonprofessional audiophiles and college students in a well-regarded recording program. In all, there were 554 trials during a period of a year. The experiment was done on four different systems, all employing high-end components and all in very quiet rooms designed for listening in both private homes and pro facilities. All subjects were given brief hearing tests to determine their response to signals above 15 kHz. That data, as well as the subject's gender and professional experience, was tabulated with the results.
    MAY I HAVE THE ENVELOPE, PLEASE?
    The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which system was which was 276, or 49.82 percent — exactly the same thing that would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin. Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent correct, while those who could hear above 15 kHz actually did worse, or 45.3 percent. Women, who were involved in less than 10 percent of the trials, did relatively poorly, getting just 37.5-percent right.
    Quote Quote  
  27. When it comes to compressing music I've never understood the need for really low bitrates. Sure there are applications for high quality at low bitrates, but for personal listening.....
    I have all my lossless and high-bitrate lossy versions stored safely on a large disposable drive should I need them to recompress to the latest format or another for a portable device. What's wrong with listening to compressed music? Even if there are audible artifacts, some people like that. Teens in a test conducted in 2008 preferred the "sizzly" 128kbps MP3 to lossless. MP3 compression in particular alleviates some annoying things like clipping.

    That really doesn't sound right.
    5 minutes of stereo, 44.1k, 16 bit, PCM audio should be somewhere around the 50MB mark. Your hard drive struggles to read a 50MB file in under 5 minutes?
    Don't assume the file is contiguous. HDDs are really bad with randomly fragmented files. In the worst case scenario a stereo 44.1 kHz WAV file fragmented into the smallest 4KB chunks all across the HDD needs about 176 KB retrieved in real time per second. My state-of-the-art HDD reads random 4KB chunks at about 400 KB/s so assuming the HDD is focusing exclusively on this WAV and nothing else, it can barely play it in real-time. Meanwhile, the disk thrashing that went on for 5 minutes to listen to the song has stressed the HDD out and lowered its lifespan.

    This is why SSDs are replacing HDDs but most affordable ones are 128-256GB. Now we're back to the "space is precious" argument. If you only had one song or a couple songs, 50MB wouldn't be a problem. But when you have albums and discographies then this easily goes beyond a maintainable collection. Maintainable meaning easy to backup and retrieve without hassle. 1TB is a f***ing hassle because it takes hours.

    The other point is a reason of principle. I'm an avid connoisseur of the art of data compression. I love testing the limits and seeing how far I can compress a file without it sounding/looking any different. There will come a time when songs and videos will be the size of MIDIs and flash videos in full lossless quality, their size determining their actual non-technical quality.
    We all got different hobbies though.

    Women, who were involved in less than 10 percent of the trials, did relatively poorly, getting just 37.5-percent right.
    This is weird. If the two files are supposed to be indiscernible then the only option for the participants is to guess. There is no possible way to guess 37.5% of the time, 5% of the time or 95% of the time. It should be close to 50%.

    This test undermines its own credibility and proves hallucinogen-abusing audiophiles right.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    Don't assume the file is contiguous. HDDs are really bad with randomly fragmented files. In the worst case scenario a stereo 44.1 kHz WAV file fragmented into the smallest 4KB chunks all across the HDD needs about 176 KB retrieved in real time per second. My state-of-the-art HDD reads random 4KB chunks at about 400 KB/s so assuming the HDD is focusing exclusively on this WAV and nothing else, it can barely play it in real-time. Meanwhile, the disk thrashing that went on for 5 minutes to listen to the song has stressed the HDD out and lowered its lifespan.
    i think a big part of your problem is the fact that you're actually formatting a 1tb hard drive into 4kb chunks, instead of the largest size available.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    Originally Posted by Mephesto View Post
    Don't assume the file is contiguous. HDDs are really bad with randomly fragmented files. In the worst case scenario a stereo 44.1 kHz WAV file fragmented into the smallest 4KB chunks all across the HDD needs about 176 KB retrieved in real time per second. My state-of-the-art HDD reads random 4KB chunks at about 400 KB/s so assuming the HDD is focusing exclusively on this WAV and nothing else, it can barely play it in real-time. Meanwhile, the disk thrashing that went on for 5 minutes to listen to the song has stressed the HDD out and lowered its lifespan.
    i think a big part of your problem is the fact that you're actually formatting a 1tb hard drive into 4kb chunks, instead of the largest size available.
    4KB is the standard cluster size of NTFS. A larger cluster size doesn't make a huge difference.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member Ethlred's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    HDDs are really bad with randomly fragmented files.
    So, what's the problem. DEFRAG it.

    Run it overnight if you have to.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads