The official double-blind 8-bit listening test

Discussion in 'Pro Audio' started by Industrial One, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. The samples have been compiled. They will be a very specific type of
    music, early 8-bit mono tracks utilizing square/sawtooth waves for
    melody, triangle for bass and white noise for percussion, with a
    duration of 10 - 50 seconds. They'll be encoded with different codecs
    at various bitrates, decoded to raw waveform and packed in a RAR
    archive with a copy of the original, uncompressed samples. Get it

    Once you acquire the wavs, you will see every original song with a
    name and its derivatives will have a number appended. You will compare
    each to the original and write down how you perceive the quality, in
    the following scale:

    5 - Derivative sounds exactly like the original. No noticeable
    4 - Minor artifacts and audible defects. Good quality overall.
    3 - Considerable defects. Sounds somewhat flawed compared to original.
    2 - Low quality. Audio artifacts very prominent.
    1 - Extremely shitty quality, sounds like the song is playing from the
    bottom of a garbage can.
    Less than 1 - Barely recognizable or not recognizable at all.

    You may use half-points like 4.5, 3.5 if you feel your perception is
    in-between some of 'em, like if you don't hear flaws but the audio
    "feels" different in a way you can't explain you can give it a 4.9,
    4.8 etc. and optionally, you can follow your rating with an
    explanation of what you noticed. When you're done, e-mail me the text
    file, i repeat, EMAIL, don't post it here. The results will be posted
    publicly when the test's done.

    Use good quality headphones, but if you believe your high-end speakers
    do the job the same if not better, go ahead. Don't use any software/
    hardware tweaks/mixers that interpolate, reverb or alter the original
    signal in any way.

    Don't participate if you're on hearing aid, are old as **** and have
    crappy ears, an autistic twat, not human (I don't work with dogs yo)
    or believe you have any significant problems hearing. Also, don't do
    it while you're tweaked off your ass, woke up from a hangover, sleep-
    deprived or simply distracted by the horn of the train. We want a
    neurotypical point of view here. Oh and, don't do the whole test in
    one sitting. You may become too accustomed to the type of music and
    develop those weird resonances, placebo effects etc. Do a couple
    dozen, then continue later, or on another day. DO IT WHEN YOU REALLY
    FEEL LIKE DOING IT, not when you've got 10 spare minutes before you
    gotta take your antidepressants.

    And lastly, don't try to bullshit me by lying or cheating on the test,
    'cuz I'll know. You are not to do ANYTHING with the .wavs except open
    them with your media player and listen. No analyzing with an audio
    engineering app to determine the level of compression (if that's even
    possible) -- but I doubt any of you got no life that you get kicks
    outta spending hours trying to deceive some anonymous named
    "Industrial One" on the internet.

    Industrial One, Jul 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'm a Trance/Industrial Rave freak. The test audio subjects do not
    qualify, as Trance didn't exist at the time most of them were produced
    (1986-1992), nor do I listen to them individually. This test is to
    determine the most ideal lossy codec/bitrate for such music. Join in
    if you want, no registration is required.
    Industrial One, Jul 17, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Industrial One

    Mr.T Guest

    Because he doesn't know any better it seems.
    Or is interested in proving what the rest of us knew 30 years ago.

    Mr.T, Jul 18, 2008
  4. You trying to take the piss? Download the fucking RAR and it'll clear
    your confusion.
    Industrial One, Jul 18, 2008
  5. RAR's don't ****, but they certainly do suck.... kinda' like 8 bit audio...
    and there's no "confusion" about any of those facts.
    David Morgan \(MAMS\), Jul 18, 2008
  6. Industrial One

    Mr.T Guest

    I'm not the one confused, and I seriously doubt you'll find anyone to
    support your position on 8 bit wave files here.
    Why on earth would I want to download your crap, you'll never accept you are
    wrong anyway.
    I've already wasted too much time on your stupidity. Not wasting any more.
    Good luck finding someone who will.

    Mr.T, Jul 18, 2008
  7. All right wise ass, if a 2-digit number means so much to you, I can
    rip a seperate group to 16-bit in one click. The archive will only be
    about 250 megs.
    Industrial One, Jul 18, 2008
  8. Just don't 'rip' this group.

    David Morgan (MAMS)
    Morgan Audio Media Service
    http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
    Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
    David Morgan \(MAMS\), Jul 18, 2008
  9. Industrial One

    Mr.T Guest

    Given that you have already proven to all here that you don't have the
    slightest clue, why would anyone want to waste their time and money?
    I would suggest that most people here have already done their own tests, or
    can easily do so without your files.

    Mr.T, Jul 19, 2008
  10. 'Thought your previous post was your last. Make it the last this time,
    troll. I don't want shitstains in my thread.
    Industrial One, Jul 19, 2008
  11. Industrial One

    Mr.T Guest

    Like all your other delusions I suppose.
    And you don't even realise usenet is a public forum.
    That would be you.
    Too late, YOU already did that.

    Mr.T, Jul 20, 2008
  12. Suck my cock faggot ****!
    Industrial One, Aug 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.