Public Listening Test [2010]
Reply #7 – 2009-12-26 20:06:25
~100 kbps listening test should be fine. Quality at 128 kbps was usually too high to get interesting results on a public test. I'd rather have a multiformat test than a pure AAC one. Two tests would be ideal: an AAC one and then the multiformat one which would include the best AAC implementation. But it will give you much more annoyance. So go for either AAC or multiformat. About Nero AAC: I don't see the point of testing the two last releases. Otherwise why wouldn't we test two different implementations of other competitors? If Nero developers have release this new encoder it's because it was tested, ready to use, and therefore solid and trustworthy. Don't put too many competitors in the arena: the more encoders you have the harder is it to rate them accurately. At the end, many contenders will only bring statistic noise and the test will end with no clear winner. And don't forget the anchors: they're really essential to avoid or limit discrepancies. Ideally, and for a public listening test, I would go for 2 competitors and 2 anchors. But it won't be very attractive to many people. So 3 competitors and 2 anchors is probably the most doable configuration. Good luck.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder, one encoding for all scenarios WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz