[vorbis] Beta3 impressions

[Segher Boessenkool]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:59:18AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Yeah, that one sounds good. Although it's not about quality... Maybe
> > just plain "ambience" is best.
> 
> That doesn't due justice to the perceptual importance of this difficult to
> measure quality.
> 
> Perhaps acoustical continuity would be more fitting.

I didn't mean "ambience" to stand for the effect you get when
changing encoders. So, a new proposition: let

"ambience": the overall atmosphere, feeling of being-there, sense
of being at a specific place, etc.;

"acoustical continuity": having a consistent "ambience", not changing
when the encoder decides to changes parameters.

So we get stuff like:

"I don't like the ambience LAME creates"
"low bitrate codecs mutilate ambiency"
"Using short blocks in MPEG layer III audio gives bad acoustical
continuity, most of the time"

Not having a good vocabulary for different audio quality parameters
(in the human sense, not the technical sense), makes comparing
different (psycho acoutical) algorithms very difficult, especially
when working over the internet, not in a tight group. Is there a
list somewhere? I'm aware of the list the ITU-R (?) uses in their
listening tests, but their parameters are more fitted to describing
amp/speaker setups than describing codecs.

Sorry if I'm off-topic, but I like being able to communicate
effectively, otherwise open source wouldn't work in the end,

Dagdag,

Segher
--- >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.