AAC@128kbps listening test - CLOSED, Everyone is invited Options

[rjamorim]

I just started a new public listening test.
Addition: a specific web site for the test has been created: http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/test/

The purpose is to find what encoder performs best encoding AAC at 128kbps

The encoders and parameters tested are:
Psytel AACenc 2.15 -br 128
Ahead/Nero 5.5.10.35 128kbps CBR, high quality
Sorenson Squeeze 3.5 (FhG Pro) 128kbps
Apple QuickTime 6.3 (Dolby) 128kbps high quality
FAAC 1.17b -a 64 (64kbps/channel)

--Who should take the test?

Anyone interested in AAC quality, or people that have no interest but would like to help making this test better.
You don't need excellent hearing, but some good gear is welcome (headphones are must-have).

--How do I take the test?

Download ABC/HR + the readme file here or here. If you already have ABC/HR, get the readme here.
Further instructions, and links to the sample packages, are inside the readme.

For people using BitTorrent: I strongly suggest you download using it.
The torrents are available here:
http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/AACTest/
It would help me save bandwidth and you will probably download faster too

The average size of the sample packages is 4Mb. It sums to 47Mb, all the 12 packages.

Edit: For those that already downloaded packages, read here

--I'm on Linux/MacOS/something other than Windows. Can I take the test?

You can. But you won't be able to use the ABC/HR utility, that is Win32 only. Since the reference file must be hidden (That's the HR in the name), tests performed without it wouldn't be valid. So, I can't plot your scores against others. But your comments on sample quality and artifacts would still be welcome.

--When will the test finish?

The test is scheduled to end on June 15. This date may be extended if proved necessary.

If you have any other question, please post in this thread.

Thank-you very much,

Roberto.

This post has been edited by JohnV: Jun 10 2003, 01:36

[Gecko]

All done, results sent. I only tested one sample set without offset correction (but I didn't notice).

I would be very interested in the follow-up high quality test.