If the previous tests used Anova, can we get Anova results also from this test please.
It would be interesting.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=228953"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No problem
I'll do it tomorrow. I badly need some sleep now.
If you want, you can check the raw Anova results for the overall plot:
Fisher's protected LSD for ANOVA: 0.272
Means:
Nero MP3pro WMA Real QDesign Lowpass Vorbis Lame
3.30 3.10 2.68 2.59 2.58 2.56 2.48 1.79
---------------------------- p-value Matrix ---------------------------
MP3pro WMA Real QDesign Lowpass Vorbis Lame
Nero 0.146 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*
MP3pro 0.003* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*
WMA 0.506 0.449 0.378 0.144 0.000*
Real 0.926 0.828 0.423 0.000*
QDesign 0.900 0.478 0.000*
Lowpass 0.559 0.000*
Vorbis 0.000*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nero is better than WMA, Real, QDesign, Lowpass, Vorbis, Lame
MP3pro is better than WMA, Real, QDesign, Lowpass, Vorbis, Lame
WMA is better than Lame
Real is better than Lame
QDesign is better than Lame
Lowpass is better than Lame
Vorbis is better than Lame
So, the only diference in the final rankings is that MP3pro becomes statistically better than WMA (with Tukey, they are tied by a tiny margin that I considered safe enough to disregard when choosing who is better than who)
- notations are really high. I guess that most people didn't linked their notation to the corresponding description. Understandable.
Indeed. I believe they used the numbers just as a parameter to compare one codec against the other. Well, shouldn't affect the final rankings negatively, unless someone bases himself on the ranking labels to extrapolate quality.
I've a technical question: does AAC with parametric stereo use SBR tool?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=228956"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes.