Talk:Codec listening test

What is ACER?
No explanation is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:C70C:B500:AD15:131E:9FA3:3CC9 (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

ATRAC?
I was wondering how ATRAC compares with these codecs? Here's a small bit of comparative content. SharkD (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ff123.net
ff123.net, which is linked to and referenced several times, seems to have expired (or at least has no content anymore). Would it be advisable to link instead to the web.archive.org mirror, or simply remove the links?  S ' D ' 5  01:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Results sections - notability?
There probably needs to be some standards applied to these, if they should be kept at all. A random blog post by an otherwise unknown person, or a random hydrogenaudio user posting his results in a forum aren't particularly reliable, and compiling them here borders on original research, or at least an original compilation of non-notable research. Without methodological oversight by peers (of some sort), it would not be possible to rely on most of these results, as any of them could be cooked to apply the desired result, or biased accidentally and not reliable because not enough methodology was specified. As it stands right now, it looks like I could just create a listening test of my own (which I've certainly done before), throw it up on a hydrogenaudio forum page, and use that as my authority/notability reference. That feels a bit insufficient to me. I'm not a frequent editor, so I'll stay out of the issue outside noting it here. 2601:4:B80:722:E523:F5E9:DB9:AF89 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. As a long-time user of hydrogenaudio I am aware of their strict terms of service (especially TOS #8 regarding double-blind listening tests) which acts as a hurdle that keeps quality high. The moderation tends to close topics where standards are lax and explain why, and the quality of the peer review that goes on means it's pretty trustworthy even in normal threads and its Wiki alone. The single-user reviews posted on this article are from users such as Kamedo2 and Guruboolez etc. are carefully selected to represent the statistically strongest and most interesting tests from those individuals with a strong reputation for reliable repeatable results and good methodology in that community, which in hydrogenaudio's case is actually a seriously good standard of peer review. The multi-user double blind trials on hydrogenaudio are methodologically good to excellent and have good statistical power, and are frequently quoted by professionals and academics in conference proceedings and published papers and technical committee discussions (e.g. IETF working group on Opus), which lends a certain degree of approval of their notability. However, as codecs have improved, most of these result in ties except at the lower end of the bitrate range. It may be worth a brief discussion of how to interpret single-user versus multiuser tests, but this itself may constitute original research Dynamicimanyd (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codec listening test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918101411/http://ff123.net/64test/results.html to http://ff123.net/64test/results.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)