OGG file testing

[Mikus Grinbergs]

> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/File:OGG_tests.zip
>
> It would be very helpful if these could be tested on both XO-1 and
> XO-1.5 hardware.  It is  a judgement call balancing between file size
> and sound quality.  Any feedback would be appreciated.

My comments (highly subjective):
[os872  XO-1.5  XO-1  audio_decoder: ffmpeg   audio_codec: ffvorbis]

  *  The .ogx files did NOT provide any noticeable improvement in the
     audio quality over the 16000 files.  Because of their much larger
     size, I recommend the .ogx files be excluded from consideration.

  *  In every case, the 08000 files were perfectly understandable.  But
     they sounded less natural than the 11025 files.  My suggestion -
     leave the 08000 files in last place when considering sound quality.

  *  I thought the 11025 and 16000 files to be equivalent in listen-
     ability.  If others also think their audio quality similar, I would
     give preference to the 11025 files because of their smaller size.

  *  I personally preferred the 'plain' files to the 'eng' files.  The
     whole audio is quite long - by starting with the Preamble the 'eng'
     files induced me to think that I was listening to "pontificating".

  *  I am not a Spanish speaker.  For me, the speech in all the 'spa'
     files was too rapid and too quiet.  Because in the female voice
     the higher frequencies are more important, I thought the 'spa'
     16000 file had better listen-ability than the 'spa' 11025 file.

  *  I realize that "attribution" is extending common courtesy.  The
     stuff at the beginning really sounded to me like an advertisement.

mikus



p.s.

<off-topic rant>  I consider it HYPOCRITICAL for an U.S. organization to 
distribute this to non-U.S. countries.  For *most* of the rights in this 
declaration, I can think of examples of incidents where that right was 
not respected within the U.S.  </off-topic rant>