Autumn 2006 Listening Test, MP3 @ 128 kbps vs. Multiformat @ 80 kbps Options

[Sebastian Mares]

I am back in Germany after some very stressing days in Bucharest, Romania because of the sudden death of my grandmother and the problems related with it (very early burial, very short time to obtain flight tickets, etc.).

Anyways, I see that the crowd wants a new listening test and since the 48 kbps multiformat test was delayed until the new WMA codec is open for testing, we have two reasonable possibilities: test MP3 at 128 kbps and include fast encoders like Helix, or test various formats at 80 kbps. Personally, I don't have any preference so I don't really care which one comes first. What do you guys think? Also, I am open for suggestions about which codecs to include in any of the tests.

Please don't say anything about the 48 kbps test in this thread because I won't change my mind.

[jmartis]

i always wanted to see how this free fhg encoder compares to others at 128kbps (it has only CBR).

thanks, J.M.

[DigitalDictator]

I vote for an mp3 test @ ~128 kbps

[Shade[ST]]

Could we make this topic a poll? I vote for multiformat.

Although.. maybe I should convince my bias for LAME that it may not be the best encoder?

I have a slight penchant for the multiformat @80, but anything is good.

[kwanbis]

what about multi-bitrate? does it makes sence?

LAME at 64, 96, 128, 160, 190? To see if at what point is most transparent with the least bytes?

[Steve999]

I know higher bitrate is a bit of a pain becuase of test design reasons (getting significant results), but I'd like to see multi-format MP3 (including the ubiquitous-in-the-real-world itunes) at the 160 kbps bitrate.

[pepoluan]

You know, after thinking awhile, I agree with multi-MP3-encoder @ 128 kbps.

I mean, we take for granted that LAME is the best.

Reminds me of Musepack...

[markanini]

Another vote for MP3 @ 128. Still the most popular format and bitrate.

[stephanV]

Another vote for 128 kbps MP3.

test MP3 at 128 kbps and include fast encoders like Helix

Perhaps some benchmarks would be nice too then.

[sony666]

i always wanted to see how this free fhg encoder compares to others at 128kbps (it has only CBR).

This is interesting.. a working, legal, recent FhG comandline encoder. Thanks

edit: omg 64bit, OSX and Linux too

Wow, I completely missed that Thomson has gone into offensive like that. Too bad they don't have a more intelligent lowpass after all these years.

This post has been edited by sony666: Aug 11 2006, 19:02

[pepoluan]

Sooooo what encoders will we be testing against each other?

- LAME
- FhG
- Helix

And I second stephanV there... not only listening tests, but while we're at it, some good ol' speed benchmark. Or am I misunderstanding you, stephanV?

[Sebastian Mares]

Speed benchmark, hmm... We should use full tracks for this I guess.

[quas]

My vote is for MP3 too.

How about:
- LAME
- FhG
- Helix
- iTunes
+ speed benchmarks.

[Shade[ST]]

Speed benchmark, hmm... We should use full tracks for this I guess.

Speed benchmarks should be a different process, IMO.
I think everyone is aware that HELIX is the fastest encoder we have.

[jmartis]

How about:
- LAME
- FhG
- Helix
- iTunes
+ speed benchmarks.

well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3

Speed benchmarks should be a different process, IMO.
I think everyone is aware that HELIX is the fastest encoder we have.

the fhg encoder is evil fast too

J.M.

This post has been edited by jmartis: Aug 11 2006, 19:48

[Sebastian Mares]

Do you think Gogo should be tested? Also, what about anchors?

[Shade[ST]]

well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3

iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade. And Shine, maybe. But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory. So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.

[eofor]

Do you think Gogo should be tested? Also, what about anchors?

To keep it strictly MP3, my suggestion:

Low anchor: ye olde Blade @ 128
High anchor: LAME VBR @ ~192

[Sebastian Mares]

iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade. And Shine, maybe. But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory. So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.

Blade? Come on...

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Aug 11 2006, 19:57

[jmartis]

well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3

iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade. And Shine, maybe. But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory. So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.

again I forgot that the Helix is Xing successor (by Xing I meant the "new" xing without short blocks)

I vote for Blade too (low anchor)

J.M.

(edit- how many times I forget to fix the quote name )

This post has been edited by jmartis: Aug 11 2006, 19:59

[Sebastian Mares]

As low anchor it's OK, but not as contender. Decide between Blade and Shine. I would go with Shine.

[Pio2001]

Why not Windows Media Player mp3 encoder ? It should be a very common one.

[jmartis]

Why not Windows Media Player mp3 encoder ? It should be a very common one.

It is a FHG one.

[Shade[ST]]

As low anchor it's OK, but not as contender. Decide between Blade and Shine. I would go with Shine.

I want Blade! I want to hear what I encoded to, "way back when"

[gameplaya15143]

Blade for low anchor would be good. It got used a lot in the past.

I'd like to see xing 1.5 and lame 3.90.3/3.93.1 in the test.
I wouldn't complain if l3codecp.acm 1.2 was included too