On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 15:34 +0200, Peder Hedlund wrote: > Quoting Peder Hedlund <peder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Quoting Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> _But_ the mix of the original wav for sure is nice for that > >> kind of music, but it isn't a high quality audio recording useful for > >> this test. > > > > Since Raffaele was able to tell the difference with the 108kbps file, > > was pretty successful with the 124 and failed with the 165 I'd say the > > example is definitely useful, since that's the kind of numbers you'd > > expect. > > Ah, I guess I misunderstood your intentions. I agree the sample > probably isn't good enough for a play-one-after-the-other test. There was no difference when just listening. There was no difference when I focused the reverb and the high frequencies of the chords. Correct, I didn't do an ABX test, but I would use something like a church recording with a nice mix for the room and than simply listen, even for an ABX test. If I shouldn't notice something I would focus the "picture of the room painted by the mix", e.g. transparency of the reverb, is the stereo width equal etc. pp.. I'm curious now, but it's not that important for me, that I'm willing to spend time with finding the issue for the ABX program. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
