ABC/HR Version 1.1 beta 2, 18 June 2004
Testname: 

1R = D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - VBR - V7].wav
2R = D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - ABR - 096 - XX10].wav
3L = D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - VBR - V8].wav
4R = D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.96.1 - ABR - 096].wav
5L = D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.90.3 - ABR - 096].wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1R File: D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - VBR - V7].wav
1R Rating: 2.5
1R Comment: lowpassed, and smearing. But still sound like an harpsichord
---------------------------------------
2R File: D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - ABR - 096 - XX10].wav
2R Rating: 2.5
2R Comment: more colors here (more high frequencies, or better samplingrate). But smearing is more annoying. Brilliance is another problem. Hard to tell which is better.
---------------------------------------
3L File: D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - VBR - V8].wav
3L Rating: 1.0
3L Comment: too wounded.
---------------------------------------
4R File: D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.96.1 - ABR - 096].wav
4R Rating: 1.5
4R Comment: a lot of colours, but high and annoying level of distortions compared to 1R and 2R.
---------------------------------------
5L File: D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.90.3 - ABR - 096].wav
5L Rating: 3.0
5L Comment: close to 2R, but less smearing.
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - VBR - V7].wav vs D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - ABR - 096 - XX10].wav
    8 out of 8, pval = 0.004
D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.97a5 - ABR - 096 - XX10].wav vs D:\lame test\ff123 suite\096 kbps\BeautySlept [3.90.3 - ABR - 096].wav
    7 out of 10, pval = 0.172
