Public MP3 Listening Test @ 128 kbps - FINISHED Options

[Sebastian Mares]

The much awaited results of the Public, MP3 Listening Test @ 128 kbps are ready - partially. So far, I only uploaded an overall plot along with a zoomed version. The details will be available in the next few days. You can also download the encryption key along with the submitted results on the results page that is located here: http://www.listening-tests.info/mp3-128-1/results.htm

The results show that all encoders are tied on first place, except l3enc which of course comes out last being the low anchor.

What is interesting to see is how the MP3 codec actually evolved since its first days (l3enc was the first MP3 software encoder back in 1994 when it was released) and how it is still competitive with newer formats like AAC or Ogg Vorbis.

Another very interesting thing, which was also one of the goals for this test, is that Fraunhofer and especially Helix, which both outperform LAME in terms of encoding speed, are still very competitive. While statistically being tied to LAME on first place, Helix actually even received a higher rating than LAME 3.98.2 - and this at 90x encoding speed! Even FhG received a slightly higher score at least against LAME 3.97 which was the recommended encoder by the Hydrogenaudio community for a long time. But again, statistically, they are all tied so there is no quality winner.



The quality at 128 kbps is very good and MP3 encoders improved a lot since the last test. This was the last test conducted by me at this bitrate. It's time to move to bitrates like 96 kbps or 80 kbps.

Here is a zoomed version of the plot showing the competitors only and leaving out the low anchor l3enc.



Finally, I would like to thank everyone who participated!

EDIT: Whoops, the link to the results was pointing to the 64 kbps multiformat test by mistake. Corrected now.

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Nov 24 2008, 22:46

[sizetwo]

Without adding fuel to the fire, I think its strange reading some of the comments to this test. As the forum is so hellbent on factual tests and ABX'ing, and when the result in a way contradicts the paradigm of the forum, a lot of people start questioning it. Its almost as if though there is a preference of encoder, and its ... not... Helix... Its as if ... some people really like defending LAME. Wow, I would have never thought. No, honestly though, thanks for the test Sebastian.

Lets look at the facts of the test; the proof is in the pudding. Does it mean that Helix is >= LAME at 128kbps? Yes, apparently it is. If the forum people really want people to use cold hard facts when making a claim; well here it is. Now get over it. Seriously. If we want to yell "ABX and ABC" at people making encoder claims, we really need to be content with the results we're given. Sometimes LAME doesn't yield a superior result, and sometimes it does. Does that mean we have all have to switch to Helix ? Absolutely not. But lets not turn the replies into some frantic strange twisted sales pitch for LAME (free as it is), as it seems that some people want it to be.

Anyway, it certainly was a baffling result.