OGG file testing
mikus at bga.com
Sat Jul 9 11:01:18 EDT 2011
> 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.
<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>
More information about the Devel