Frequency analysis - Revision history

Saratoga: fixed formatting on links

2012-05-14T05:02:57Z

fixed formatting on links

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 14 May 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:

	;See the following links for more discussion:		;See the following links for more discussion:
	* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?~~act=ST&f=1&t~~=4734 Why subtracting one waveform from another is not a good analysis of encoding]		* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4734 Why subtracting one waveform from another is not a good analysis of encoding]
	* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?~~act=ST&f=1&t~~=754 Why merely comparing waveforms is not really effective]		* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=754 Why merely comparing waveforms is not really effective]
	* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?~~act=ST&f=15&t~~=7834 Why waveforms cannot be used to deduce quality, but may be useful to know what the encoder is doing]		* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7834 Why waveforms cannot be used to deduce quality, but may be useful to know what the encoder is doing]

Pepoluan: Minor fixes. See diff

2006-03-23T21:09:22Z

Minor fixes. See diff

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 23 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	;Why Shouldn't We Use Frequency or Spectral Graphs to Compare Audio Codecs?		;Why Shouldn't We Use Frequency or Spectral Graphs to Compare Audio Codecs?

	# You can't know precisely what is audible and what is not audible just by looking graphs.		# You can't know precisely what is audible and what is not audible just by looking at graphs. ''(Remember: It's '''music''' that we are talking about.)''
	# [[FFT]] [[frequency]] response graphs are rough and can't tell practically anything about the temporal (short time) accuracy.		# [[FFT]] [[frequency]] response graphs are rough and can't tell practically anything about the temporal (short time) accuracy.
	# All psychoacoustic models are different. What can look good in graphs, doesn't necessarely sound too good and vice versa.		# All psychoacoustic models are different. What can look good in graphs, doesn't necessarely sound too good and vice versa.
	# Graphical analysis is often useful, but only when used together with listening ~~testing~~. The most useful view is the sound spectra view (spectral view in [[Adobe Audition]]).		# Graphical analysis is often useful, but only when used together with a listening test. The most useful view is the sound spectra view (spectral view in [[Adobe Audition]]).
	# Blind listening testing ([[ABX]]) is the only method that can really be justified when testing quality. Blind testing, when enough ~~propability~~ is reached, is not affected by anykind of bias or placebo.		# Blind listening testing ([[ABX]]) is the only method that can really be justified when testing quality. Blind testing, when enough probability is reached, is not affected by anykind of bias or [[placebo effect]].
	# Difference/substraction/inverse-mixing method is not ~~conlusive~~ either		# Difference/substraction/inverse-mixing method is not conclusive either.

	* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=4734 ~~More discussion~~]
	* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=754 ~~More discussion~~]		;See the following links for more discussion:
	* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=7834 ~~More discussion~~]		* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=4734 Why subtracting one waveform from another is not a good analysis of encoding]
			* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=754 Why merely comparing waveforms is not really effective]
			* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=7834 Why waveforms cannot be used to deduce quality, but may be useful to know what the encoder is doing]

Kl33per: Updated Cool Edit link to Adobe Audition

2005-08-14T08:09:06Z

Updated Cool Edit link to Adobe Audition

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:09, 14 August 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:
	# [[FFT]] [[frequency]] response graphs are rough and can't tell practically anything about the temporal (short time) accuracy.		# [[FFT]] [[frequency]] response graphs are rough and can't tell practically anything about the temporal (short time) accuracy.
	# All psychoacoustic models are different. What can look good in graphs, doesn't necessarely sound too good and vice versa.		# All psychoacoustic models are different. What can look good in graphs, doesn't necessarely sound too good and vice versa.
	# Graphical analysis is often useful, but only when used together with listening testing. The most useful view is the sound spectra view (spectral view in [[~~CoolEdit~~]]).		# Graphical analysis is often useful, but only when used together with listening testing. The most useful view is the sound spectra view (spectral view in [[Adobe Audition]]).
	# Blind listening testing ([[ABX]]) is the only method that can really be justified when testing quality. Blind testing, when enough propability is reached, is not affected by anykind of bias or placebo.		# Blind listening testing ([[ABX]]) is the only method that can really be justified when testing quality. Blind testing, when enough propability is reached, is not affected by anykind of bias or placebo.
	# Difference/substraction/inverse-mixing method is not conlusive either		# Difference/substraction/inverse-mixing method is not conlusive either

Jan at 19:48, 30 March 2005

2005-03-30T19:48:12Z

New page

;Why Shouldn't We Use Frequency or Spectral Graphs to Compare Audio Codecs?

# You can't know precisely what is audible and what is not audible just by looking graphs.
# [[FFT]] [[frequency]] response graphs are rough and can't tell practically anything about the temporal (short time) accuracy.
# All psychoacoustic models are different. What can look good in graphs, doesn't necessarely sound too good and vice versa.
# Graphical analysis is often useful, but only when used together with listening testing. The most useful view is the sound spectra view (spectral view in [[CoolEdit]]).
# Blind listening testing ([[ABX]]) is the only method that can really be justified when testing quality. Blind testing, when enough propability is reached, is not affected by anykind of bias or placebo.
# Difference/substraction/inverse-mixing method is not conlusive either

* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=4734 More discussion]
* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=754 More discussion]
* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=7834 More discussion]