QUOTE(HotshotGG @ Jan 2 2006, 12:33 AM)
QUOTE
I don't think Guru has tested beyond the 170 to 180 range yet, which showed ogg to be on par with (and in some cases better than) mpc.
No, need to it's waste of time IMO. Most people with the exception of a few like GuruB can tell the difference, I can't. If it was low-bitrate test then sure why not
I agree that it's probably futile...but when I still see mpc recommended and touted as the best quality codec in the higher bitrate range, I have to wonder if some more tests are needed to debunk the myth. Finding a significant number of golden ears and "artifact professionals" would be difficult, though.
I'm referring above to claims like the following:
"Highest quality lossy codec at high bitrates" at dbpoweramp's codec central
and the general exuberance and confidence on display for mpc at the musepack forums when it hasn't seen any real quality improvements since its superiority was initially discovered...they even discount Guru's recent 170-180 kbps test as significant and make broad-sweeping claims that 128 kbps is not transparent (and that such bitrate testing is not interesting), which I think the latest 128 test will prove otherwise.
