Sebastian Mares
Dec 9 2006, 16:17
The much awaited results of the Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 48 kbps are ready.
Here is the results page:
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-48-1/results.htm
Nero is first, followed by Vorbis and WMA Pro. which are tied on second place, WMA Standard is third and loses.
I think this test shows that with modern encoders, the quality at 48 kbps is acceptable and should be good enough for Internet streaming or portable use with cell phones for example. It's also interesting to see that WMA Professional perfomed quite well although it was the only contender that used CBR.
rjamorim
Dec 9 2006, 16:43
Fantastic! Thank-you very much for your efforts, Camil
Sebastian Mares
Dec 9 2006, 16:54
Don't mention it.
Anyways, congrats to Nero and its devs for a nice low-bitrate codec. Another interesting thing is that iTunes at 96 kbps seems to be transparent to most users.
Thanks to Sebastian and everybody who contributed.
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 9 2006, 23:54)
Anyways, congrats to Nero and its devs for a nice low-bitrate codec.
Though I'm even more impressed about how the new Windows Media Audio 10 Professional codec performed. As we all know, VBR can drastically increase the overall sound quality compared to plain CBR. But although the codec was in a clear disadvantage compared to its antagonists, it was still able to rank as 2nd, with its result not being too far from Nero. I wonder how that's possible - does it feature some special techniques for low-bitrate encoding, comparable to Nero's SBR?
rjamorim
Dec 9 2006, 18:02
QUOTE(Junon @ Dec 9 2006, 20:58)
As we all know, VBR can drastically increase the overall sound quality compared to plain CBR.
That's arguable. Indeed, a
good VBR model can improve things a lot. But a bad model can ruin everything. Check the iTunes MP3 encoder for an example.
QUOTE
does it feature some special techniques for low-bitrate encoding, comparable to Nero's SBR?
Yes
guruboolez
Dec 9 2006, 18:02
Great test, thanks!
Two interesting points:
• iTunes AAC CBR at 96 kbps as high anchor get the same score than iTunes AAC at VBR 128 kbps when tested as competitor.
• quality varies a lot with samples. It means that at such low bitrate VBR doesn't imply constant quality.
eig, aquatisme, spmg54 and bibilolo were all ranked under 3.0/5 with all competitors (with one exception for bibilolo = 3.16 with vorbis). On the other side other samples like locomotive breath, symphony metal, bebussy, white america, are close to transparency.
In other words, current encoders could sound pretty well but also poorly. Quality is simply unstable - and VBR doesn't really help.
Redmond
Dec 9 2006, 18:03
WMA Standard came out significantly better than iTunes AAC-LC at this bit rate...
rjamorim
Dec 9 2006, 18:54
QUOTE(Redmond @ Dec 9 2006, 21:03)
WMA Standard came out significantly better than iTunes AAC-LC at this bit rate...
That's to be expected. iTunes AAC doesn't implement intensity stereo.
QUOTE(Redmond @ Dec 10 2006, 01:03)
WMA Standard came out significantly better than iTunes AAC-LC at this bit rate...
That's also a bit surprising to me, starting from the fact that people keep complaining about WMA Standard's bad quality here on HA, although Apple's AAC implementation performs even worse. Might be possible that it's the other way round on higher quality settings. But nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that they're both quite impractical in the 48 kbps bitrate region. During the past few years I've been using WMA 9 STD Q50 on two portable devices which supported nothing but MP3 and WMA, and that was the first bearable compromise between filesize and quality.
Thanks to Roberto for the quick reply about WMA 10 Pro. At the first moment I wondered a bit about my lossy codec's of choice result, Vorbis, which is just on par with that CBR competitor made by Microsoft. But since both Nero and Microsoft added low-bitrate techniques to their codecs (SBR in Nero's case, don't know what Microsoft exactly uses in WMA Pro) in contrast to Vorbis, I'd say aoTuV beta 5 did a good job in this test.
Edit: Ah, the answer about WMA STD vs. iTunes AAC can be found above. Should've reloaded this topic before replying.
Boy, I don't remember giving such high scores to a lot of those samples...
I'm impressed with iTunes at 96kbps though. I'm definitely impressed with Nero, it does an excellent job at 48kbps (well, considering the bitrate anyway...).
I also expected Vorbis to do worse than it did.
TomsDiner was awful on all encoders though (my highest rating was a 2), save for iTunes at 96; I don't know how it got such a high average.
Sebastian Mares: are you planning to do any other listening tests? Maybe one at 96kbps, or god forbid, one at 24?
96kbps might be a little difficult since it's already apparently transparent for a lot of people, but it would be nice to test, since I think with Vorbis and AAC, that's the new minimum bar (instead of 128kbps) for transparency.
QUOTE(Firon @ Dec 9 2006, 17:35)
I also expected Vorbis to do worse than it did.
opposite for me. at ~96kbps, Vorbis does a better job than HE-AAC IMO. i've only tested it with 2 songs but Vorbis still outperformed HE-AAC
Thank you for result. I found my results in anonumous37xxx.txt
But some *.txt files haven't any ABX results. Only marks. It's seems to be normal. Why?
I waıted somethıng more from WMA 10 pro at 48. More close to Nero than to Vorbıs.
there is a gram. error in name of second sample. It's sample was uploaded by me and I taped it bad. Sample's name should be symphony_metal (my paranoia doesn't admit spaces either). More correctly saying the song is from S&M Metallıca live album called " Wherever I May Roam".
Jillian
Dec 9 2006, 20:47
Could you give me any hints of the next listening test?
Please
(This test doesn't surprise me at all)
Redmond
Dec 9 2006, 21:33
QUOTE(IgorC @ Dec 9 2006, 18:15)
I waıted somethıng more from WMA 10 pro at 48. More close to Nero than to Vorbıs.
Does Nero use PS (HE-AAC v2) at this quality?
QUOTE(Redmond @ Dec 9 2006, 19:33)
QUOTE(IgorC @ Dec 9 2006, 18:15)
I waıted somethıng more from WMA 10 pro at 48. More close to Nero than to Vorbıs.
Does Nero use PS (HE-AAC v2) at this quality?
no
singaiya
Dec 9 2006, 21:55
edit: Nevermind, I figured it out. Thank you for running the test, Sebastian.
singaiya
Dec 9 2006, 22:57
In a quick comparison, I found that my results more or less match those of the cumulative (imagine that). The only variance was choosing 2nd place. On some samples I ranked Vorbis higher where the group total ranked WMA Pro higher, and vice versa on others. Of course, it's so close that the <95% explains that.
One interesting find was on the debussy sample I ranked the low anchor 3.8, and WMA Std 1.0. Also on Kraftwerk I ranked vorbis 1.0 and low anchor 2.7.
No encoder handled biblio very well.
I'll share this discovery I had on sample 18 (the wizard). From my results log: "At this sample I notice that some encoders are doing well at certain parts of the sample and worse at others. If I focus on a part in the beginning, quickly put the sliders to a rough area, then focus on some other part (in order to fine tune the ratings), the ratings from the first pass often don't apply. Then we must decide which failure is more important.
For example, here encoder 3 was better than the others in the first few seconds. But much worse once the vocals came in at the end."
Did anyone else notice this at any point?
QUOTE(IgorC @ Dec 9 2006, 18:15)
Thank you for result. I found my results in anonumous37xxx.txt
But some *.txt files haven't any ABX results. Only marks. It's seems to be normal. Why?
ABX testing is optional in these tests. Perhaps that should be made more clear in the instructions, if it isn't already.
Thanks for the interesting test, Sebastian. Looks like lots of people were interested.
QUOTE(ff123 @ Dec 9 2006, 21:01)
ABX testing is optional in these tests. Perhaps that should be made more clear in the instructions, if it isn't already.
Can you gıve, please, dırect lınk where it says that.
QUOTE(IgorC @ Dec 9 2006, 21:53)
QUOTE(ff123 @ Dec 9 2006, 21:01)
ABX testing is optional in these tests. Perhaps that should be made more clear in the instructions, if it isn't already.
Can you gıve, please, dırect lınk where it says that.
It's not directly stated what is required and what is optional.
Sebastian's readme file says to consult this page:
http://ff123.net/64test/practice.htmlThat tutorial should probably be updated to at least show screenshots of abchr-java. ABX is emphasized so much on HA that it may come as a surprise to some people that not all double-blind tests require this type of repeated result.
ff123
Sebastian Mares
Dec 10 2006, 01:41
This was stated in the listening test thread: as long as there are no ranked references, a simple score is enough and ABX test can be omitted.
By the way, for people who want to modify plots:
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-48-1/pandts.xls
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 9 2006, 14:17)
The much awaited results of the Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 48 kbps are ready.
Here is the results page:
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-48-1/results.htmThanks for the test and all participants for the results!
The
link printed in the graph is broken.
Ivan Dimkovic
Dec 10 2006, 05:06
QUOTE(Junon @ Dec 9 2006, 23:58)
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 9 2006, 23:54)
Anyways, congrats to Nero and its devs for a nice low-bitrate codec.
Though I'm even more impressed about how the new Windows Media Audio 10 Professional codec performed. As we all know, VBR can drastically increase the overall sound quality compared to plain CBR. But although the codec was in a clear disadvantage compared to its antagonists, it was still able to rank as 2nd, with its result not being too far from Nero.
I wouldn't be so sure about almost mythical powers of VBR at such low bit rate.
For example, VBR does not do any wonder for Nero HE-AAC @48 kbps:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=41191As you can see, for Nero HE-AAC 48 kbps, CBR and VBR were pretty much the same, VBR being marginally better. And, Nero's VBR implementation is pretty good as it could be seen from this test (German Speech sample - average bit rate 31 kbps - and the codec was still performing best on average - even compared to much higher bit rate contenders)
So, I strongly doubt that usage of VBR in WMA codec, even if it could be forced to give average 48 kbps (which was not possible) would change the score so much, that it would make statistical difference.
Raptus
Dec 10 2006, 05:19
Very interesting results. Not that I have use for such low bitrates, but very impressive performance by some.
Ah, found myself as anonymous12
Alex B
Dec 10 2006, 06:09
QUOTE(Ivan Dimkovic @ Dec 10 2006, 13:06)
... German Speech sample - average bit rate 31 kbps - and the codec was still performing best on average - even compared to much higher bit rate contenders ...
Interesting that you mentioned this sample. Surprisingly I found all contenders to be unusable for encoding it even though it is "only" a speech sample. The strong echo effect made the speech unpleasant and very different from the original - like the person speaking was moved to a cave. I actually found the low anchor better than the contenders with this sample.
My results:
CODE
ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.52b, 08 joulukuu 2006
Testname: Sample16: spmg54_1
Tester: Alex B
1R = Sample16\Sample16_1.wav
2L = Sample16\Sample16_5.wav
3L = Sample16\Sample16_4.wav
4L = Sample16\Sample16_6.wav
5L = Sample16\Sample16_3.wav
6R = Sample16\Sample16_2.wav
Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0
---------------------------------------
General Comments:
---------------------------------------
1R File: Sample16\Sample16_1.wav
1R Rating: 1.0
1R Comment: strong echo
---------------------------------------
2L File: Sample16\Sample16_5.wav
2L Rating: 4.5
2L Comment:
---------------------------------------
3L File: Sample16\Sample16_4.wav
3L Rating: 1.4
3L Comment: some echo
---------------------------------------
4L File: Sample16\Sample16_6.wav
4L Rating: 1.8
4L Comment: low anchor - most lowpassed, but more pleasant than the echo effect that the other contenders produce
---------------------------------------
5L File: Sample16\Sample16_3.wav
5L Rating: 1.3
5L Comment: distorded, some echo
---------------------------------------
6R File: Sample16\Sample16_2.wav
6R Rating: 1.3
6R Comment: echo
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs Sample16\Sample16_5.wav
8 out of 8, pval = 0.0030
---- Detailed ABX results ----
Original vs Sample16\Sample16_5.wav
Playback Range: 06.662 to 09.154
2:15:23 AM p 1/1 pval = 0.5
2:15:47 AM p 2/2 pval = 0.25
2:15:57 AM p 3/3 pval = 0.125
2:16:02 AM p 4/4 pval = 0.062
2:16:06 AM p 5/5 pval = 0.031
2:16:10 AM p 6/6 pval = 0.015
2:16:16 AM p 7/7 pval = 0.0070
2:16:30 AM p 8/8 pval = 0.0030
Alex B
Dec 10 2006, 06:33
QUOTE(guruboolez @ Dec 10 2006, 02:02)
Great test, thanks!
Two interesting points:
• iTunes AAC CBR at 96 kbps as high anchor get the same score than iTunes AAC at VBR 128 kbps when tested as competitor.
The obvious reason for this is the low overall quality. With most samples I found iTunes 96 kbps to be in the range of 3-4 instead of 4.5 or over. I had no difficulties in distinguishing it. I ABXed the high anchor a few times, but that only confirmed what I already knew after the initial listening. In my opinion the codecs in the 128 kbps test were clearly better and almost transparent with many samples.
QUOTE
• quality varies a lot with samples. It means that at such low bitrate VBR doesn't imply constant quality.
eig, aquatisme, spmg54 and bibilolo were all ranked under 3.0/5 with all competitors (with one exception for bibilolo = 3.16 with vorbis). On the other side other samples like locomotive breath, symphony metal, bebussy, white america, are close to transparency.
In other words, current encoders could sound pretty well but also poorly. Quality is simply unstable - and VBR doesn't really help.
I agree, the quality is quite unstable and in my opinion generally too low for pleasant listening experience even with a typical portable device. I quess that e.g. 64 kbps would already be much better for these encoders.
guruboolez
Dec 10 2006, 07:36
@Alex B> You're not the only one to dislike the coding effects of all competitors with the German spoken voice. The average mark for this sample is very low (maybe the lowest one of all 20 samples). That's really interesting: voice is often considered as "non-complex", easy to encode stuff. As a consequence ultra-low bitrate is often used for DVD ripping and de facto considered as "good enough" for this kind of material. This sample is probably not representative of DVD soundtrack; noneless it should warn people about the possible damage such low bitrate can cause on video DVD. From my experience I must say that I often heard such very disturbing artefacts on soundtrack encoded at this bitrate.
> about iTunes AAC@96: I was tempted myself to lower the mark in order to make it match with the ABC/HR scale (i.e. below "perceptible but not annoying"). But I didn't, in order to gain some headroom to rank the other competitors. Therefore I didn't bother with the high anchor and I give it a high score each time. I wouldn't give the same score to this encoder in a different situation (like a 96 kbps listening test or, worse, a 180 kbps with iTunes@96 as low anchor). It's a limit to cross-comparison of different listening test.
I also ranked that one very low (highest was 1.5), it was pretty unbearable. Even with ABX I had such a hard time picking out iTunes at 96 that I just stopped trying so hard on it. I generally ranked it 4-4.5 (when I bothered). Guess my ears aren't as golden as guruboolez's.
How did you rank TomsDiner though, guru?
QUOTE(Mangix @ Dec 9 2006, 22:05)
opposite for me. at ~96kbps, Vorbis does a better job than HE-AAC IMO. i've only tested it with 2 songs but Vorbis still outperformed HE-AAC
You do realize that Vorbis was tested at 48kbps, don't you? HE-AAC has been shown to not really be worth it above about 80kbps.
guruboolez
Dec 10 2006, 08:47
QUOTE(Firon @ Dec 10 2006, 15:17)
How did you rank TomsDiner though, guru?
CODE
ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.52b, 07 décembre 2006
Testname: Sample05: TomsDiner
Tester:
1L = Sample05\Sample05_5.wav
2R = Sample05\Sample05_6.wav
3R = Sample05\Sample05_4.wav
4L = Sample05\Sample05_1.wav
5L = Sample05\Sample05_2.wav
6L = Sample05\Sample05_3.wav
Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0
---------------------------------------
General Comments:
---------------------------------------
2R File: Sample05\Sample05_6.wav
2R Rating: 2.5
2R Comment: very smooth sound; less agressive to my ears than the reference. Nonetheless not acceptable as coding tool...
---------------------------------------
3R File: Sample05\Sample05_4.wav
3R Rating: 3.5
3R Comment:
---------------------------------------
4L File: Sample05\Sample05_1.wav
4L Rating: 3.5
4L Comment:
---------------------------------------
5L File: Sample05\Sample05_2.wav
5L Rating: 3.0
5L Comment:
---------------------------------------
6L File: Sample05\Sample05_3.wav
6L Rating: 2.5
6L Comment:
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Do we know which number correspond to each encoder?
Gabriel
Dec 10 2006, 08:50
Wma std has a very good performance, compared to iTunes, especially considering that theorically, there is nothing in the wma std format that would provide better efficiency than AAC-LC.
Stanley, if you are reading this: no SBR and no intensity stereo? Obviously you're going to be ranked quite lower than competitors, and I'm wondering if there is anything planned regarding this.
(yes, Lame is in the exact same situation, with no code to handle low bitrates...)
QUOTE(Alex B @ Dec 10 2006, 13:33)
I agree, the quality is quite unstable and in my opinion generally too low for pleasant listening experience even with a typical portable device. I quess that e.g. 64 kbps would already be much better for these encoders.
I agree to that guess, especially in the case of aoTuV beta 5. After the codec's release I ABXed a few samples to find a bitrate that suits my portable player. Although my hearing's untrained (haven't done much ABXing so far) it wasn't too hard to distinguish the 48 kbps samples from the original ones. But I already was in serious trouble hearing differences between most 64 kbps samples and the .wav source files, which led me to the decision to choose this bitrate for the portable player. Too bad I don't have the logs anymore, they would have been good examples to see the improvements in quality from the -q-1 to -q0 step.
Besides, thanks @everyone for the comments to my statement about CBR vs. VBR in my first reply. I was under the apparently false impression that VBR's always an indicator for better quality, therefore I didn't even bother carrying out any tests to arrive at an objective conclusion.
Sebastian Mares
Dec 10 2006, 09:12
QUOTE(jido @ Dec 10 2006, 11:29)
The
link printed in the graph is broken.
No it's not.
Apache is set to redirect to the correct document and it works fine for me.
QUOTE(guruboolez @ Dec 10 2006, 15:47)
Do we know which number correspond to each encoder?
Damn, deleted my list already and I forgot to post. IIRC, it should be:
1, Vorbis
2, Nero
3, WMA Std.
4, WMA Pro.
5, High Anchor
6, Low Anchor
robert
Dec 10 2006, 09:48
QUOTE(guruboolez @ Dec 10 2006, 15:47)
Do we know which number correspond to each encoder?
? Was it supposed to be not obvious??
guruboolez
Dec 10 2006, 09:59
How could it be obvious? Testers only discovered their own results since the publication of the encryption key (i.e. few hours ago).
Alex B
Dec 10 2006, 10:13
For me, the contents of a sample zip file made the order obvious:
CODE
# Archive U:\48test\Sample01.zip
2006-11-19 23:54 Folder Folder Sample01
2006-11-19 23:49 4880852 4881597 Sample01\Sample01.wv
2006-11-19 23:17 258820 256617 Sample01\Sample01_1.ogg
2006-11-19 23:19 275938 269579 Sample01\Sample01_2.mp4
2006-11-19 23:48 3869678 3870273 Sample01\Sample01_3.wv
2006-11-19 23:48 4865678 4866423 Sample01\Sample01_4.wv
2006-11-19 23:33 570634 520673 Sample01\Sample01_5.m4a
2006-11-19 23:39 310726 260186 Sample01\Sample01_6.m4a
#
# Total Size Packed Files
# 15032326 14925348 8
The numbers 5 (high anchor) and 6 (low anchor) are obvious and also 3 and 4 (WMA Standard & Pro)
Also, the test results are presented in the same order (1-6).
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 10 2006, 07:12)
QUOTE(jido @ Dec 10 2006, 11:29)
The
link printed in the graph is broken.
No it's not.
Apache is set to redirect to the correct document and it works fine for me.
Thanks, working now
The testers should not know which number is which encoder, otherwise they are at risk of bias.
haregoo
Dec 10 2006, 10:28
QUOTE(jido @ Dec 11 2006, 01:14)
The testers should not know which number is which encoder, otherwise they are at risk of bias.
No risk for that because of well-conceived ABC/HR methodology.
Anyway it's good that over 20 results per sample were submitted only in 2 weeks. We can expect that next test goes well.
guruboolez
Dec 10 2006, 10:50
QUOTE(Alex B @ Dec 10 2006, 17:13)
For me, the contents of a sample zip file made the order obvious:
Indeed, it can't be more obvious... I'm a nut
Alex B
Dec 10 2006, 10:53
QUOTE(haregoo @ Dec 10 2006, 18:28)
QUOTE(jido @ Dec 11 2006, 01:14)
The testers should not know which number is which encoder, otherwise they are at risk of bias.
No risk for that because of well-conceived ABC/HR methodology.
As haregoo said, there's no risk. In the actual test the order is scrambled and cannot be determined by examining the sample files.
QUOTE(ff123 @ Dec 9 2006, 22:30)
It's not directly stated what is required and what is optional.
That tutorial should probably be updated to at least show screenshots of abchr-java. ABX is emphasized so much on HA that it may come as a surprise to some people that not all double-blind tests require this type of repeated result.
It would be nice if next time all conditions will be described _clearly_ in readme.txt because it's not possible for all people to follow all tips from that were disucced in topics.
Sebastian Mares
Dec 10 2006, 11:06
QUOTE(jido @ Dec 10 2006, 17:14)
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 10 2006, 07:12)
QUOTE(jido @ Dec 10 2006, 11:29)
The
link printed in the graph is broken.
No it's not.
Apache is set to redirect to the correct document and it works fine for me.
Thanks, working now
I did not change anything so I am wondering how it didn't work before while now it is.
QUOTE(IgorC @ Dec 10 2006, 17:54)
It would be nice if next time all conditions will be described _clearly_ in readme.txt because it's not possible for all people to follow all tips from that were disucced in topics.
At no place I did write that ABX tests are mandatory in order to participate.
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 10 2006, 09:06)
At no place I did write that ABX tests are mandatory in order to participate.
the same valid way to say:
At no place you did write that ABX test can be omited.....
Sebastian Mares
Dec 10 2006, 11:14
Nobody asked (actually, somebody did and I explained in what situations an ABX test is needed). Anyways, I will write that more clearly next time.
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Dec 10 2006, 09:14)
Anyways, I will write that more clearly next time.
Thank you.
Ivan Dimkovic
Dec 10 2006, 12:12
QUOTE(guruboolez @ Dec 10 2006, 13:36)
@Alex B> You're not the only one to dislike the coding effects of all competitors with the German spoken voice. The average mark for this sample is very low (maybe the lowest one of all 20 samples). That's really interesting: voice is often considered as "non-complex", easy to encode stuff. As a consequence ultra-low bitrate is often used for DVD ripping and de facto considered as "good enough" for this kind of material. This sample is probably not representative of DVD soundtrack; noneless it should warn people about the possible damage such low bitrate can cause on video DVD. From my experience I must say that I often heard such very disturbing artefacts on soundtrack encoded at this bitrate.
Agreed.
German Speech sample is a typical example of a sound sample which generates "double-speak" type of artifacts, which are actually one type of general pre-echo artifacts.
TNS was actually invented with this problem mainly in mind - so, by no means, speech samples like this are easy to be encoded.
muaddib
Dec 11 2006, 04:35
QUOTE(guruboolez @ Dec 10 2006, 14:36)
> about iTunes AAC@96: I was tempted myself to lower the mark in order to make it match with the ABC/HR scale (i.e. below "perceptible but not annoying"). But I didn't, in order to gain some headroom to rank the other competitors. Therefore I didn't bother with the high anchor and I give it a high score each time. I wouldn't give the same score to this encoder in a different situation (like a 96 kbps listening test or, worse, a 180 kbps with iTunes@96 as low anchor). It's a limit to cross-comparison of different listening test.
I am wondering if most of the participants did it like this and didn't bother about giving correct score to high anchor and just gave it 5?
And was it also the case that most people didn't bother and just gave 1 to low anchor?
pepoluan
Dec 11 2006, 07:40
t.g.deck
Dec 11 2006, 08:40
QUOTE(muaddib @ Dec 11 2006, 02:35)
I am wondering if most of the participants did it like this and didn't bother about giving correct score to high anchor and just gave it 5?
And was it also the case that most people didn't bother and just gave 1 to low anchor?
Not me, I certainly didn't - my poor ears had a hard time distinguishing even the HE AAC contender from the reference in most cases.
The low anchor sounded much crappier than the contenders IMHO, except perhaps for 1 sample.
Thanks for this great test, Sebastian!
Woodinville
Dec 11 2006, 12:46
QUOTE(Gabriel @ Dec 10 2006, 06:50)
Wma std has a very good performance, compared to iTunes, especially considering that theorically, there is nothing in the wma std format that would provide better efficiency than AAC-LC.
Out of curiousity, how do you know that, and could you direct me to the documentation?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.