Is there even a purpose to the sound rating?

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:20 pm

I mean REALLY, it's not hard to get a bad sound rating, as long as it's from an MP3, CD or some other common digital source, it'll earn a 10.

Better to ask how the hell you get a 9, I mean the audio is either perfect, or it's so poorly encoded or recorded you don't care to listin to it even. Heh.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:33 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:I mean REALLY, it's not hard to get a bad sound rating, as long as it's from an MP3, CD or some other common digital source, it'll earn a 10.

Better to ask how the hell you get a 9, I mean the audio is either perfect, or it's so poorly encoded or recorded you don't care to listin to it even. Heh.

You must have bad ears then. A "normal" compression Mp3 that is further compressed via the Lame MP3 codec usually is pretty evident. It's pretty obvious which people use mp3s they downloaded and those that use their own CD and make a very high bitrate WAV.

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:35 pm

Well, I encode my Mp3 audio tracks to 128kbit for sharing, and the Mp2s to 224kbit, I usually wouldn't go higher then 160 for mp3.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:36 pm

I agree, the sound rating is pretty worthless. It usually correlates pretty closely to the video quality. If I can't hear any defects, I usually just give a 9. If its encoded at a nice bitrate, like >192kbit, or is 5.1 audio, I might give a 10 :\
If its some shit like windows media, I might give like a 5.

mexicanjunior · Post by **mexicanjunior** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:38 pm

When judging audio, I usually try to listen to skips or pops in the song. Also, the way the audio is used in correlation to the footage has some merit to my scoring as well. Lastly, I usually give a 9 as an audio default but will award a bonus point for using a song I like, hence a 10.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:39 pm

Zarxrax wrote:I agree, the sound rating is pretty worthless. It usually correlates pretty closely to the video quality. If I can't hear any defects, I usually just give a 9. If its encoded at a nice bitrate, like >192kbit, or is 5.1 audio, I might give a 10 :\
If its some shit like windows media, I might give like a 5.

Yeah, but you're still giving a score other then 10 which means you *are* using the scores to differentiate "good" and "bad." It's just that your definition of "good" is a lot more encompassing

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:10 pm

I usually get some static with my audio equipment, so when i judge, i at least try to compare the before and after when it coems to static, however it's a hard thing to distinguish.

otherwise, i just let the amv soak in and see how much it permeates my senses. if the audio and visuals work well together then the audio get's a higher score, if not, then it doesn't.

Since many amvs are centered around the mood and tempo of a song, i find the syncing as well as the quality both good determiners of sound "quality."

however the "imersion" factor can often lead a difficult situations where you have heard a particular song used for a particular amv and then hear it used to another. Usually the first amv sticks in my mind and the second one would seem "strange." This may or may not affect my grading, but it does present some difficulties at least mentally, because originality is another factor of sound.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:16 pm

Lyrs wrote:I usually get some static with my audio equipment, so when i judge, i at least try to compare the before and after when it coems to static, however it's a hard thing to distinguish.

otherwise, i just let the amv soak in and see how much it permeates my senses. if the audio and visuals work well together then the audio get's a higher score, if not, then it doesn't.

Since many amvs are centered around the mood and tempo of a song, i find the syncing as well as the quality both good determiners of sound "quality."

however the "imersion" factor can often lead a difficult situations where you have heard a particular song used for a particular amv and then hear it used to another. Usually the first amv sticks in my mind and the second one would seem "strange." This may or may not affect my grading, but it does present some difficulties at least mentally, because originality is another factor of sound.

No offense, but then you're not reading what the score entails. I know everyone grades differently, but it's quite apparent that sound quality is just that...the quality of the sound. Not if you like the song or how immersed you become with the video. It's purely based on the quality of the sound they used and compression.

Same goes for video quality. You don't see my giving lower scores for someone using an anime I don't like do you?

I guess I'm only bitching a little since I've gotten a few low sound scores where they admit it sounds crystal clear, but don't like the song. If that's the case, shouldn't that be reflected in the "reviewability" score and not the sound? I mean that's why they're there (along with a description to help out) right?

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:18 pm

D-Dubya, at this point, every score on there is subjective depending on how you want to score. Which is... subjective in itself.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:20 pm

flint_the_dwarf wrote:D-Dubya, at this point, every score on there is subjective depending on how you want to score. Which is... subjective in itself.

Well again, I highly disagree. Go to the review page and *read* what it says. There are specific directions that Phade puts there. Sure you have different numerical values and deltas based on your feelings, but WHAT YOU GRADE is listed in that description.

My point is that "liking/disliking the song" is certainly not listed as criteria in the instructions Phade gives.

Am I the only one who reads and follows the directions phade gives on the review page?

AnimeMusicVideos.org

Is there even a purpose to the sound rating?

Is there even a purpose to the sound rating?

Re: Is there even a purpose to the sound rating?