Codecs :
High anchor Lame 3.98b1 --vbr-new -V 5
Low anchor Lame 3.98b1 --abr 96
Nero 1.0.7.0 VBR -q 0.34 (approx 96 kbps)
Itunes 7.1.1.5 96 kbit/s VBR
WMA10pro 96 kbit/s CBR 1pass (dbpower converter 12.1)
Lancer Vorbis Aotuv (last oggdropXP nov 10 2006) -q 2.00 (approx 96 kbps)
Decoders:
Nero, itunes, Lancer, lame were decoded by foobar 0.9.4.3
wma10pro by dbprower converter 12.1
Headphones Sennheiser HD 447 and soundcard Audigy SE 24/96
Results:
http://rapidshare.com/files/34474605/96kbps.xls.html
Full Version: Personal Multiformat ABC/HR test at 96 kbit/s
Thanks for your efforts! Just one suggestion, put the anchors on the left/right ends of the table. Less confusing 
But thanks!
But thanks!
QUOTE(pepoluan @ May 18 2007, 21:43) 
Thanks for your efforts! Just one suggestion, put the anchors on the left/right ends of the table. Less confusing
But thanks!
Thanks for suggestion.
I added more samples to test.
I added more samples. Now it's 50. New table http://rapidshare.com/files/34474605/96kbps.xls.html
iTunes surprised. It cuts more frecuencies than other encoders however has a higher score.
iTunes surprised. It cuts more frecuencies than other encoders however has a higher score.
Your excel file made it easy to cut and paste to the statistical webalyzer at my site:
http://ff123.net/friedman/stats.html
All tied except for the low anchor. There is the suggestion (though not statistically validated) that you prefer itunes and Lancer over Nero.
FRIEDMAN version 1.24 (Jan 17, 2002) http://ff123.net/
Tukey HSD analysis
Number of listeners: 50
Critical significance: 0.05
Tukey's HSD: 0.335
Means:
itunes Lancer Lame_v5 wma10pro Nero Lame_abr
4.60 4.58 4.46 4.45 4.33 3.20
-------------------------- Difference Matrix --------------------------
Lancer Lame_v5 wma10pro Nero Lame_abr
itunes 0.014 0.136 0.146 0.264 1.396*
Lancer 0.122 0.132 0.250 1.382*
Lame_v5 0.010 0.128 1.260*
wma10pro 0.118 1.250*
Nero 1.132*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
itunes is better than Lame_abr
Lancer is better than Lame_abr
Lame_v5 is better than Lame_abr
wma10pro is better than Lame_abr
Nero is better than Lame_abr
http://ff123.net/friedman/stats.html
All tied except for the low anchor. There is the suggestion (though not statistically validated) that you prefer itunes and Lancer over Nero.
CODE
FRIEDMAN version 1.24 (Jan 17, 2002) http://ff123.net/
Tukey HSD analysis
Number of listeners: 50
Critical significance: 0.05
Tukey's HSD: 0.335
Means:
itunes Lancer Lame_v5 wma10pro Nero Lame_abr
4.60 4.58 4.46 4.45 4.33 3.20
-------------------------- Difference Matrix --------------------------
Lancer Lame_v5 wma10pro Nero Lame_abr
itunes 0.014 0.136 0.146 0.264 1.396*
Lancer 0.122 0.132 0.250 1.382*
Lame_v5 0.010 0.128 1.260*
wma10pro 0.118 1.250*
Nero 1.132*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
itunes is better than Lame_abr
Lancer is better than Lame_abr
Lame_v5 is better than Lame_abr
wma10pro is better than Lame_abr
Nero is better than Lame_abr
There is a trouble. The number format is x,xx in Excel and not x.xx as here http://ff123.net/friedman/stats.html
Look at that, most of the formats are matching or slightly better in quality than the high anchor! 
I haven't done any ABX to verify but I suspect my results would be similar. I'm content with 80 kbps Vorbis on my portable after all. This would be interesting to see again with the same high anchor but testing for 80 kbps transparency.
I haven't done any ABX to verify but I suspect my results would be similar. I'm content with 80 kbps Vorbis on my portable after all. This would be interesting to see again with the same high anchor but testing for 80 kbps transparency.
My try.
Encoders
96kbps contenders
aoTuV beta5 (q 2)
iTunes v7.3.1.3 (96k VBR)
Nero AAC Enc v1.1.34.0 (q 0.35)
128kbps contenders
LAME v3.97 (-V5 --vbr-new)
LAME v3.98b4 (-V5)
Samples
All samples comes from Sebastian's choice on 64kbps multi-format listening test. But I couldn't finish every one of them, because it's too hard for this comparison or unfamiliar to me.
Results
AACs on top, followed by LAME 3.97, then 3.98. aoTuV loses.
Overall quality at this bitrate isn't impressive. I was rarely required to ABX. But AACs and 128kbps MP3 perform well with orchestral samples (No. 6 and 8).
Encoders
96kbps contenders
aoTuV beta5 (q 2)
iTunes v7.3.1.3 (96k VBR)
Nero AAC Enc v1.1.34.0 (q 0.35)
128kbps contenders
LAME v3.97 (-V5 --vbr-new)
LAME v3.98b4 (-V5)
Samples
All samples comes from Sebastian's choice on 64kbps multi-format listening test. But I couldn't finish every one of them, because it's too hard for this comparison or unfamiliar to me.
Results
CODE
sample n aoTuV iTunes L397 L398 Nero
sample 01 3.50 4.20 3.80 2.70 4.30
sample 02 3.50 4.30 4.20 4.20 3.40
sample 03 3.50 4.10 4.30 4.30 4.00
sample 04 3.90 4.10 3.50 3.70 4.20
sample 05 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 3.70
sample 06 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
sample 07
sample 08 3.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
sample 09 3.20 3.50 4.00 2.80 4.20
sample 10 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.00 5.00
sample 11
sample 12 3.90 3.70 3.20 3.90 4.00
sample 13 3.30 4.00 3.50 2.80 4.00
sample 14 3.20 4.00 4.20 3.70 4.00
sample 15 3.50 4.30 4.50 5.00 4.00
sample 16
sample 17 4.00 4.10 3.70 3.20 4.20
sample 18 3.40 4.20 3.70 3.90 4.20
------------------------------------------------------------
Overall 3.49 4.2 4.14 3.88 4.21
sample 01 3.50 4.20 3.80 2.70 4.30
sample 02 3.50 4.30 4.20 4.20 3.40
sample 03 3.50 4.10 4.30 4.30 4.00
sample 04 3.90 4.10 3.50 3.70 4.20
sample 05 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 3.70
sample 06 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
sample 07
sample 08 3.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
sample 09 3.20 3.50 4.00 2.80 4.20
sample 10 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.00 5.00
sample 11
sample 12 3.90 3.70 3.20 3.90 4.00
sample 13 3.30 4.00 3.50 2.80 4.00
sample 14 3.20 4.00 4.20 3.70 4.00
sample 15 3.50 4.30 4.50 5.00 4.00
sample 16
sample 17 4.00 4.10 3.70 3.20 4.20
sample 18 3.40 4.20 3.70 3.90 4.20
------------------------------------------------------------
Overall 3.49 4.2 4.14 3.88 4.21
AACs on top, followed by LAME 3.97, then 3.98. aoTuV loses.
Overall quality at this bitrate isn't impressive. I was rarely required to ABX. But AACs and 128kbps MP3 perform well with orchestral samples (No. 6 and 8).
QUOTE
FRIEDMAN version 1.24 (Jan 17, 2002) http://ff123.net/
Tukey HSD analysis
Number of listeners: 15
Critical significance: 0.05
Tukey's HSD: 0.458
Means:
Nero iTunes LAME397 LAME398 aoTuV
4.21 4.20 4.14 3.88 3.49
-------------------------- Difference Matrix --------------------------
iTunes LAME397 LAME398 aoTuV
Nero 0.013 0.073 0.333 0.720*
iTunes 0.060 0.320 0.707*
LAME397 0.260 0.647*
LAME398 0.387
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nero is better than aoTuV
iTunes is better than aoTuV
LAME397 is better than aoTuV
Tukey HSD analysis
Number of listeners: 15
Critical significance: 0.05
Tukey's HSD: 0.458
Means:
Nero iTunes LAME397 LAME398 aoTuV
4.21 4.20 4.14 3.88 3.49
-------------------------- Difference Matrix --------------------------
iTunes LAME397 LAME398 aoTuV
Nero 0.013 0.073 0.333 0.720*
iTunes 0.060 0.320 0.707*
LAME397 0.260 0.647*
LAME398 0.387
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nero is better than aoTuV
iTunes is better than aoTuV
LAME397 is better than aoTuV
haregoo
Thanks for share the results
Speaking of my test also I think Itunes 96 kbit/s VBR mode doesn't produce 96 kbit/s. For a lot of albums with enough silence itunes still has 105 kbit/s while Vorbis -q2 and Nero 1.0.7.0 produce something like 89-90 kbits.On average Vorbis and Nero respect with their VBR mode 96 kbit/s bitrate while Itunes always ends on 105-110 kbit/s.
wouldn't be more fair to shift bitrate? something like:
Vorbis -q 2.5 (Instead of -q 2.0)
Nero 1.0.7.0 -q 0.36
Nero 1.1.34 -q 0.34 / -q0.35(?)
But it would be test for 105 kbit/s . Not 96 kbit/s.
Thanks for share the results
Speaking of my test also I think Itunes 96 kbit/s VBR mode doesn't produce 96 kbit/s. For a lot of albums with enough silence itunes still has 105 kbit/s while Vorbis -q2 and Nero 1.0.7.0 produce something like 89-90 kbits.On average Vorbis and Nero respect with their VBR mode 96 kbit/s bitrate while Itunes always ends on 105-110 kbit/s.
wouldn't be more fair to shift bitrate? something like:
Vorbis -q 2.5 (Instead of -q 2.0)
Nero 1.0.7.0 -q 0.36
Nero 1.1.34 -q 0.34 / -q0.35(?)
But it would be test for 105 kbit/s . Not 96 kbit/s.
What you can expect with Nero 1.1.34 is:
-q 0.34 -> 92kbps
-q 0.35 -> 96kbps
-q 0.37 -> 103kbps
-q 0.38 -> 107kbps
So for test at 105kbps one should be using -q 0.375
-q 0.34 -> 92kbps
-q 0.35 -> 96kbps
-q 0.37 -> 103kbps
-q 0.38 -> 107kbps
So for test at 105kbps one should be using -q 0.375
QUOTE(IgorC @ Aug 9 2007, 01:01)
Speaking of my test also I think Itunes 96 kbit/s VBR mode doesn't produce 96 kbit/s. For a lot of albums with enough silence itunes still has 105 kbit/s while Vorbis -q2 and Nero 1.0.7.0 produce something like 89-90 kbits.On average Vorbis and Nero respect with their VBR mode 96 kbit/s bitrate while Itunes always ends on 105-110 kbit/s.
Perhaps iTunes AAC is more like CBR unlike quality-based VBR encoder including aoTuV and Nero VBR setting. iTunes's one doesn't save bitrate for quieter simple part of music, thus most of music will end up with 96-105kbps. As far as these above samples are concerned, I could get fair bitrate table.
QUOTE(haregoo @ Aug 8 2007, 19:41)
QUOTE(IgorC @ Aug 9 2007, 01:01)
Speaking of my test also I think Itunes 96 kbit/s VBR mode doesn't produce 96 kbit/s. For a lot of albums with enough silence itunes still has 105 kbit/s while Vorbis -q2 and Nero 1.0.7.0 produce something like 89-90 kbits.On average Vorbis and Nero respect with their VBR mode 96 kbit/s bitrate while Itunes always ends on 105-110 kbit/s.
Perhaps iTunes AAC is more like CBR unlike quality-based VBR encoder including aoTuV and Nero VBR setting. iTunes's one doesn't save bitrate for quieter simple part of music, thus most of music will end up with 96-105kbps. As far as these above samples are concerned, I could get fair bitrate table.
I was told that Itunes VBR can only select larger frames and in this case will never have a frame at less than 96. In this respect it does not sound like a true VBR implementation, more like enhanced CBR.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.