[vorbis] Meaningful encoder testing

[Craig Duncan]

I'm very _glad_ you're a perfectionist!  With respect to particular
"bugs" being revealed by certain test wav files, i'm curious as to how
this works.  Does Monty have a "suite" of files that stress certain
aspects of the encoding?  Are they developed on the fly?  Do they
produce discernable differences (to a listener) or just "noise" as
recognized in a waveform analysis?

I've been nowhere near jumping onto the ogg/vorbis bandwagon . . .
mostly because i like Lame so much.  I'm just a "private" user and the
legal issues are not much of a factor to me with respect to archiving my
own personal recordings.  Quality is _always_ an issue, though, and i'm
wondering what the Lame team uses, in terms of wave files, to "stress"
their encoder and reveal bugs and deficiencies in it and whether it is
ever done (or whether there is any possibility) to use the same wave
files that Lame or Monty use (maybe even gathering a suite of test
files?) to see how one encoder handles limitations recognized in
another?

I've read stuff on analysis of particular encoders using the testers own
specific tools and methods but always wonder about the validity of all
of this, which bears on the idea of the possibility of people working in
the field agreeing on certain wav files being capable of producing
meaningful analysis of the quality of the encoded sound.

Monty wrote:
> 
> > What's the delay?
> 
> I'm a perfectionist :-) I'm after one last bug (tuning issue; the
> problem is well understood, I just have to decide how to fix the
> bugger).  This is the bug causing noise in velvet.wav even at
> high bitrates.
> 
> Monty

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.