I've created a website for Doc's test, standardized instructions and result tables.

[Hulk]

I have created a website with instructions on running Doc's test so that we can compare systems on a level playing field and see the results in table form.

The website is here:

http://www.hyperactivemusic.com/MS%20Pro%206.0.htm

Mark

[Patrick]

Why the "old" test results?

Mark, looks good. However I'm a bit surprised that you've included a section containing the "old" original test results. You've even included a link to download this old test. Doesn't this sort of defeat the purpose of Doc having come up with the newer "universal" test that (almost) EVERYONE can use. I'm sure that those people who ran the original test would be happy to run the new, improved one. So, in other words, what's the point of continuing to refer to the original outdated test?

[Hulk]

Patrick,

To tell you the truth, those issues ran through my head as well.

I'll give you my reasoning. It didn't take any work to leave the old test results and files on the site below the new test. Some people may want to look at the old test results. Some people may even want to download and run the old test.

I guess the real reason I left it is because I kind of want someone with a P4 and MS Pro 6.5 to run the old test. The P4's did terribly on the old test. A P4 1500 ran like a PIII 750. I have a feeling MS Pro 6.5 might be improved for P4's.

Then again, the old test does kind of "junk up" the page. Maybe I will get rid of it!

[Patrick]

Still confused...

Mark, I don't quite understand. Why wouldn't the possible shortcomings of the P4 be made readily apparent when results from the NEW test are posted comparing how this processor does running MSP6 vs running MSP6.5? What is it about the "old" test that would be in any way an advantage?

[Hulk]

Since the MPEG II part of the new test can't be run on MS Pro 6.0 (VBR problems) we can't compare 6.0 to 6.5 with the new test. I wanted to keep the new test JUST to 6.5.

I really just one to see ONE P4 score with 6.5 and the old test!

Yes, I see your point.

Mark

[Patrick]

More questions...

Since the MPEG II part of the new test can't be run on MS Pro 6.0 (VBR problems)...

Hmmm...that's interesting. Does this mean that it's NOT just me who gets an error message when I choose a Variable bit rate (as I reported in the following thread)?

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29484

Since nobody commented on it, I thought it was only a problem on my own computer. Can somebody confirm or deny that this is problem with any system running MSP6? Thanks.

[Hulk]

Although it isn't impossible, I haven't spoken to anyone who has gotten VBR to work with MS Pro 6.0 and the DVD Plug-In patch. It didn't work for me. It's not like I have a weird system either. PIII 850 on a bx motherboard is as stable as they come.

Now with MS Pro 6.5 the VBR function works perfectly. I actually compared MS output to TMPGEnc using MPEG II 640x480, VBR 6000kbps using a DV file. I actually think with these settings the results are almost too close to call!

As the bit rates decrease TMPGEnc starts to look better and better though.

[wkulecz]

When I Emailed my results to the link on your page it bounced.

I've posted them on the MSP WWUG forum.

--wally.

[Patrick]

You might not like my suggestion, but...

Mark, thanks for letting me know that it's not just on my system that MSP6 cannot create Variable Video Data Rate Mpeg2 (and/or DVD) files.

Of course, you know what that means now if MSP6 cannot work with a VBR setting... the guidelines for the test should be changed to state that the Mpeg2 settings be at a Constant Video Data Rate (of 5500). That's the only way that a valid comparison can be made between MSP6 and MSP6.5 and Premiere. And that's what this whole test is all about, right?

[Hulk]

Wally -

The mdileo@highstream.net address didn't work? Hmmm, that's strange, maybe the server was down for a bit.

Patrick -

I wasn't really concerned about MS Pro 6.0 I was just going to make this test for MS Pro 6.5
The VBR setting is superior to the constant setting so I believe that is how most people are going to use the program.

I'm open to suggestions as to what the test specification should be though...

[Patrick]

Not to be argumentative, but...

I wasn't really concerned about MS Pro 6.0

Ouch, that hurt!

The VBR setting is superior to the constant setting so I believe that is how most people are going to use the program.

Whether the VBR setting is superior to the constant setting or not really doesn't have or shouldn't have any bearing on the test. I mean after all, what we're interested in seeing is people performing the same test so that the differences in rendering times between programs and hardware can be compared. The way the test is currently set up, it creates an unlevel playing field where we'll never know the strengths and weaknesses of MSP6 vs MSP6.5 and/or Premiere. I just think it's a shame to shut out users of MSP6 because there's a lot of us out here and the test is SO CLOSE to being perfect. However, I realize that this test is not my test, and I'll just have to live with the conditions you've set.

[wkulecz]

I'm sure plenty of folks would be intrested in the rendering results of MSP6 vs MSP6.5.

I ran it on MSP6ve on my notebook and was gratified that it worked. Premiere was still much slower.

--wally.

[Hulk]

Okay, you guys win!

Alright, I'll change the test specs so that the MPEG II encode is constant not variable.

Let me go change the webpage.

Now if you guys can help me recruit some people to run it!

Mark

[Hulk]

I have just updated the site. Hopefully it is now easier to understand.

I have done away with the old test, it was getting too confusing!

I have created another page for instructions.

Changed MPEG II encode to CONSTANT bit rate.

MS Pro 6.0 users must have DVD Plug-In installed to select NTSC DVD template. There are two reasons for this:

1. The old encoder is faster than the new but the quality is horrible. I don't want to know about it for the same reason I got rid of the old test results, it's yesterday's news.

2 I don't want people fiddling around with settings that would invalidate comparisons. I believe the the DVD preset holds the motion compensation at 20.

Mark

[Patrick]

Now we're cookin'

Mark, as much of a nuisance as all of this may have seemed, the end result should be that you'll have some relevant data that MORE people can relate to.

My results can be accessed here:

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29484

Thanks for all your efforts.