Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test (Read 276447 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #200 –
Quote
Having read this thread I'd go with these

1. Nero AAC
2. iTunes AAC
3. Lame MP3
4. WMA std
5. Vorbis Aotuv
6. Super ultra crappy anchor
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343087"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i also vote for this
member of the "i have a cat-avatar"-group ;)

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #201 –
Nero will do one update of the codec, in order to include some quality updates.

I hope it will make it for this test, as I believe it would be worth it

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #202 –
Quote
1. Nero AAC
2. iTunes AAC
3. Lame MP3
4. WMA std
5. Vorbis Aotuv
6. Super ultra crappy anchor
If the premise is portable and popular then the above makes sense - WMA Pro obviously doesn't fit that criteria yet.  If it were quality only then it would be different...

Edit: I'd be interested to know the % of people who use Nero AAC on a portable though...
I'm on a horse.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #203 –
Quote
Nero will do one update of the codec, in order to include some quality updates.

I hope it will make it for this test, as I believe it would be worth it smile.gif


sebastion hasn't set the date yet, hasn't he?
If it's just a few weeks before the next quality update, I think it's worth waiting, since this test, besides comparing multiformat, the objective of this test is to compare the quality of Nero & iTunes.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #204 –
Quote
Nero will do one update of the codec, in order to include some quality updates.

I hope it will make it for this test, as I believe it would be worth it
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343097"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think what really matters here is... how long will it take?

Quote
sebastion hasn't set the date yet, hasn't he?


Quote
I am planning to start a multiformat listening test at 128 kbps on November, 30th which should end on December, 11th. The test start can be postponed if necessary.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #205 –
We'll try to meet the Nov 30th deadline - but there might be a delay of 2-3 days maybe.

I hope not.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #206 –
Here are some samples I encoded for the low anchor descision. The ZIP contains some LAME -V5 encodes and Nero HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps samples. IMO, they sound too good.

Edit: I only want a quick playback test, no need for ABXing and other fancy stuff.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #207 –
Quote
Quote
Having read this thread I'd go with these

1. Nero AAC
2. iTunes AAC
3. Lame MP3
4. WMA std
5. Vorbis Aotuv
6. Super ultra crappy anchor
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343087"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Couldn't agree more...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343093"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This list looks good to me too.


I would like to suggest a "para contest" for the dropouts. After the main test a smaller scale additional test could be organized. It could be as simple as a thread for posting personal ABX results.

If this "para contest" brings up something significant it would very interesting and perhaps some conclusions could be made. The common thing with the main test should be at least the same test samples. If the lossless samples from the original test were available, people could make their own encodings for this less formal test. However, the encoders and the proper switches for each encoder should be defined beforehand and the correct use of them should be compulsory for getting the results included.

The participants could be:

- The test winner of the main test (or one of them if a sole winner was not found)

- WMA Pro at ~128 kbps VBR
(I found an interesting thing about WMA Pro options. It has only 24-bit 2-channel settings. I have no idea what Microsoft means by this. I thought lossy encoders don't have fixed bit depths.)

- Musepack at ~128 kbps

- The WMP10 version of the Fraunhofer MP3 encoder at 128 kbps CBR (no VBR options are available). I guess this encoder has the largest installed base of all 128 kbps capable MP3 encoders because the Windows Update installs it automatically. It would make a sort of anchor, though probably not a low anchor...

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #208 –
Quote
- WMA Pro at ~128 kbps VBR
(I found an interesting thing about WMA Pro options. It has only 24-bit 2-channel settings. I have no idea what Microsoft means by this. I thought lossy encoders don't have fixed bit depths.)


maybe it means it will decode at 24-bit by default
Lossy encoders will encode differently for different bitdepth i suppose,
If I'm right
16-bit can store up to 96 dB range of information
24-bit can store up to 144dB range of information

mp3 does not support 24-bit input.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #209 –
Quote
Lossy encoders will encode differently for different bitdepth i suppose,
[...]
mp3 does not support 24-bit input.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343132"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No, no no no!

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #210 –
Quote
...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343130"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Dude, that makes no sense. The formats were dropped for a reason. MusePack is supposed to perform bad at 128 kbps, WMA pro will be tested when MS thinks it's time for it to be used en-mass.

Quote
- The WMP10 version of the Fraunhofer MP3 encoder at 128 kbps CBR (no VBR options are available). I guess this encoder has the largest installed base of all 128 kbps capable MP3 encoders because the Windows Update installs it automatically. It would make a sort of anchor, though probably not a low anchor...[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343130"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, I doubt it would make a high anchor.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #211 –
Quote
MusePack is supposed to perform bad at 128 kbps,
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Uhm, no:

[a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18z.png]http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18z.png[/url]

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #213 –
Quote
Here are some samples I encoded for the low anchor descision. The ZIP contains some LAME -V5 encodes and Nero HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps samples. IMO, they sound too good.

Edit: I only want a quick playback test, no need for ABXing and other fancy stuff.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343124"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Wow! I'd never thought 32kbps could sound so good.. It's easily on par with older mp3 encoders at 112-128kbps imho.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #214 –
Quote
mp3 does not support 24-bit input.

Not that sure 

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #215 –
Quote
Here are some samples I encoded for the low anchor descision. The ZIP contains some LAME -V5 encodes and Nero HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps samples. IMO, they sound too good.

Edit: I only want a quick playback test, no need for ABXing and other fancy stuff.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343124"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Excepted EnolaGay and the vocal part of Waiting, the sound quality is indeed amazing for such bitrate, and could compete with poor and even decent encoders set at 128 kbps.
It's clearly too good for a low anchor.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #216 –
Quote
Quote
...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343130"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dude, that makes no sense. The formats were dropped for a reason. MusePack is supposed to perform bad at 128 kbps, WMA pro will be tested when MS thinks it's time for it to be used en-mass.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343136"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Makes no sense? I know the formats were dropped for a reason. That's why I spoke about "dropouts" and "para contest"

No one has to officially arrange this alternative test. Anyone can post ABX findings to HA. Many people have shown interest towards WMA Pro and some have mentioned Musepack too (actually, I guess "supposed to perform bad" kinda asks to be proved). After participating the main test it would be interesting and easy to ABX a couple of additional samples and post the results. I just meant that if some guidelines were defined it might make the findings more relevant.

Personally I am going to try WMA Pro with the test samples because I am interested.

Actually, I have already tried to ABX a few samples encoded at ~200 kbps with WMA Pro, Musepack and Vorbis. So far I have nothing to report because unfortunately I failed to ABX them. 

I just wanted to get the idea out for public discussion. However, because this is a bit OT I guess I should have posted to a separate thread. Sorry for that.


[span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%']Edit: typo[/span]

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #217 –
I'll add my vote for Latexxx's list of codecs, although it would be interesting in the future to see WMA std compared to WMA pro.
davidnaylor.org

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #218 –
Quote
what's the goal of this test? Which criterion for choosing the tested encoders?


Thank you for putting in plaing English what I was trying to say.

Test has reduced meaning, if it is not set up to test a specific question.

I personally don't think "codecs that are widely available for portable use" is a the most interesting selection criteria.

Why?

Many smaller artifacts are completely masked in portable listening settings (bad player, bad headphones, increased self-noise, lots of background noise).

For most people, even 48-64kbps could be indistinguishable from originals when walking in a city and listening to the signals from sub-optimal portable/headphones (and no, I'm not going to try to ABX this  )

This is also the reason, why I'm more interested in WMA Pro than WMA Std (I don't think the portable support is _that_ relevant, but at 128kbps or above, sound quality is when listening in a quiet non-portable environment).

Std has been tested (even if it may have _slightly_ improved since last tested). Pro has been not at all, but it is possible to use it in a wide variety a of settings.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #219 –
I hate to jump in the middle of discussion - but since some people raised concerns about inclusion of WMAPro and MPC...

Hmm - why don't we organise an extension test after the initial 128 kbps multiformat test?  Choose three winners from the multiformat test, and conduct "extension" test with MPC anc WMAPro as the additional codecs?

This way we would basically be able to test all state-of-the-art codecs, performing at the range that should give optimum quality for most of the users.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #220 –
Quote
Std has been tested (even if it may have _slightly_ improved since last tested). Pro has been not at all, but it is possible to use it in a wide variety a of settings.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/presentation.html]http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/presentation.html[/url]

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #221 –
Quote
Hmm - why don't we organise an extension test after the initial 128 kbps multiformat test?   Choose three winners from the multiformat test, and conduct "extension" test with MPC anc WMAPro as the additional codecs?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343195"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not a bad idea. But it would make two consecutive multiformat listening tests at 128 kbps: would people be motivated to start a second test?
If the goal of the test is to compare the best available encoders, I'd rather see pre-tests, pools or two semi-final (four encoders in each) in order to choose the very best encoders.
Two pre-tests with 6...8 samples and four encoders first, and a final one with 15...20 samples and the four best format.

But it's probably too complicated. I'm not sure that listeners are motivated enough. One single test, 5 encoders and one anchor is way more simplier.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #222 –
True - then, again - extension test could be organised after the sufficient break - if some sources say that MS will release new encoder in January - then, great - let's wait one month and do an extension test?

I believe that 30-45 days of break between tests would generate enough "rest" and get back the motivation of the people to do a second one.
 

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #224 –
Quote
I hate to jump in the middle of discussion - but since some people raised concerns about inclusion of WMAPro and MPC...

Hmm - why don't we organise an extension test after the initial 128 kbps multiformat test?   Choose three winners from the multiformat test, and conduct "extension" test with MPC anc WMAPro as the additional codecs?

This way we would basically be able to test all state-of-the-art codecs, performing at the range that should give optimum quality for most of the users.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343195"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quote
True - then, again - extension test could be organised after the sufficient break - if some sources say that MS will release new encoder in January - then, great - let's wait one month and do an extension test?

I believe that 30-45 days of break between tests would generate enough "rest" and get back the motivation of the people to do a second one.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343201"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That is pretty much what I said about testing WMA Pro when it becomes more popular. Maybe MS has plans to push the format in 2006.

Anyways, regarding MPC, what's the point in testing a dead format? No HW support (maybe with the Rockbox firmware, but that's used by geeks only ), uncertain patent status, painfully slow development (if any), no multi-channel, no high sampling rates, slow seeking, cannot be used in movies...
By the way, you can't even say that the format is the best since Vorbis beat it last time and I am sure AAC slowly reaches its level, too (if it hasn't already).