AAC at 128kbps test - FINISHED |
![]() ![]() |
AAC at 128kbps test - FINISHED |
Jun 23 2003, 01:03
Post
#126
|
|
![]() Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 3474 Joined: 7-November 01 From: Strasbourg (France) Member No.: 420 |
QUOTE (Garf @ Jun 23 2003 - 12:47 AM) There was another case in which I'd considered all codecs unlistenable (2.0 highest score), but I saw other people giving high grades. All a matter of preference. Lifeshatters I suppose. I have at contrairy some difficulties to ABX similar samples : they are deafening and boring me at the same time. I can understand, now, some reaction with harpsichord music |
|
|
|
Jun 25 2003, 21:47
Post
#127
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 913 Joined: 15-December 01 From: Germany Member No.: 662 |
QUOTE (SometimesWarrior @ Jun 22 2003 - 09:36 PM) Man, Gecko tossed all the codecs into the rubbish bin! I didn't know I was such a "rigorous" judge. I didn't give the encoders a "128k bonus". What I want from a codec/format is transparency. I guess (at 128k) that is also part of the design goal and for some listeners it has been met on some samples, so I'm asking much, but not too much, imo. Also, I don't have any other reference than the original, so what else should I rate against? I would have given higher scores if the question would have been: considering the bitrate, how do you think these encoders perform? I do admit that "annoying" is also a very subjective rating and personally, I'm annoyed pretty easily by artifacts. Basically, if it doesn't sound like the original, then it's not acceptable for me (allthough some things like a slight lowpass can be OK). Two more things to consider: My equipment is mediocre at best. (I recently upgraded to an Aureon Sky though. |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 19:15 |