Personal Listening Test of Opus, Celt, AAC at 75-100kbps, ABC/HR blind test, 1 Listener Options

[Kamedo2]

Abstract:
Blind Comparison between 2012/09 new Opusenc(tfsel5), old Celtenc 0.11.2, Apple AAC-LC tvbr, cvbr.
This is an English version of my original post in Japanese. http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20121116/1353099244#seemore

Encoders:
libopus 0.9.11-146-gdc4f83b-exp_analysis
https://people.xiph.org/~greg/opus-tools_exp_dc4f83be.zip
celt-0.11.2-win32
https://people.xiph.org/~greg/celt-0.11.2-win32.zip
qaac 1.40
qaac 1.40

Settings:
opusenc --bitrate 66 input.wav output.wav
celtenc input.48k.raw --bitrate 75 --comp 10 output.wav
qaac --cvbr 72 -o output.m4a input.wav
qaac --tvbr 27 -o output.m4a input.wav
opusenc --bitrate 90 input.wav output.wav
celtenc input.48k.raw --bitrate 100 --comp 10 output.wav
qaac --cvbr 96 -o output.m4a input.wav
qaac --tvbr 45 -o output.m4a input.wav

Samples:
20 Sounds of various genres, from easy to modestly critical.
http://zak.s206.xrea.com/bitratetest/main.htm
To download, access to the link above, 2nd paragraph, 3rd-6th links. (40_30sec - Run up)

Hardwares:
Sony PSP-3000 + RP-HT560(1st) , RP-HJE150(2nd), took the average of the two results.

Results:




Conclusions & Observations:
I could not detect a significant improvement in the new September 1st version of Opus, from the old Celtenc in 2011.
It's possibly because the new Opus inflates bitrates more than it improves qualities, although the set of sounds contain easy samples.
On 75kbps, Opus/Celt are markedly better. On 100kbps, there is no big difference between those codecs.

Raw data:
40 Logs and encoders, decoders log
http://zak.s206.xrea.com/bitratetest/log_o...kbps100kbps.zip

CODE

% Opus, AAC 75kbps, 100kbps ABC/HR Score
% This format is compatible with my graphmaker, as well as ff123's FRIEDMAN.
opus_75k    celt_75k    cvbr_75k    tvbr_75k    opus100k    celt100k    cvbr100k    tvbr100k
%features 6 75kbps 75kbps 75kbps 75kbps 100kbps 100kbps 100kbps 100kbps
%features 7 OPUS OPUS AAC-LC AAC-LC OPUS OPUS AAC-LC AAC-LC
3.050    3.100    2.500    2.750    3.500    3.750    3.700    3.800    
3.750    2.950    2.700    2.750    4.050    3.800    4.000    3.950    
2.800    2.550    3.000    3.000    3.600    3.250    4.050    3.900    
2.700    3.150    2.350    2.300    3.350    3.800    3.600    3.700    
4.000    3.400    2.850    2.850    4.350    3.900    3.550    3.550    
2.600    2.550    2.800    2.800    3.350    3.150    3.950    3.900    
3.400    3.950    3.000    3.200    3.850    4.500    3.700    3.800    
3.450    3.500    2.900    2.800    3.850    4.050    4.050    4.150    
2.950    2.700    3.550    3.450    3.250    3.450    4.000    3.850    
3.100    3.400    2.750    2.600    3.800    3.850    4.150    4.000    
3.350    3.100    2.600    2.600    3.750    3.400    3.450    3.500    
3.750    3.350    2.800    2.950    4.050    3.750    3.800    3.850    
3.550    3.300    2.600    2.650    4.250    3.950    3.750    3.600    
3.100    3.350    2.750    2.550    3.650    3.700    3.850    3.800    
3.400    3.450    2.900    2.900    3.650    3.950    3.750    3.900    
3.250    3.300    2.750    2.800    3.650    3.850    3.950    3.750    
3.600    3.800    3.300    3.300    3.550    4.000    3.650    3.700    
3.700    3.350    3.300    3.300    3.900    3.650    4.100    4.000    
3.100    3.600    3.150    3.000    3.700    3.800    4.100    3.850    
3.650    4.050    3.000    2.900    4.050    4.250    3.750    3.550

It's not strange that some scores get 0.050 scale because I did tests twice per each music.

[Dynamic]

Once again, Kamedo2, I applaud you for your testing skills and your willingness to adapt your method and present your data to answer different questions.

As I understand it, post 34 and post 35 are both hypothetical data, not real data, used to illustrate a point on different ways of interpreting the same data. Am I correct?