Interesting.Though i am surprised that Vorbis did so bad.Have you tried with aoTuVb6.03?Cause it should be more resilient then LibVorbis.
Shouldn't make a difference. aoTuV's betas do not stray from the libvorbis spec, they only are more efficient. IE quality level for encode at same setting is identical, only file size is different. Unless I stand to be corrected?
IE quality level for encode at same setting is identical
Sound quality of lossy codecs is determined though DBT, full stop.
e.g. one might do all the damage in the first iteration, and then make no change in the other 99
Quote from: Mach-X on 26 March, 2013, 02:09:13 AMIE quality level for encode at same setting is identicalNo, it's not.
If codec A was better than codec B after 100 iterations , wouldn't it be also better on the first iteration?
Care to explain? My understanding of the betas is that quality level 2 is quality level 2 regardless, and that the tunings only reduce filesize, not change in sound quality.
Various tuned versions of the encoder (Garf, aoTuV or MegaMix) attempt to provide better sound at a specified quality setting, usually by dealing with certain problematic waveforms by temporarily increasing the bitrate.
In fact since I cant abx libvorbis at -q2 or higher it stands to reason that those tunings offer no improvements at settings higher than that, including those used in this experiment.
Anyway, in case it hasn’t already been said enough, DBT of properly encoded first-generation files is the only way to judge a codecs’ performances in the normal use-cases for which they’re designed. Any extrapolation from 100 passes is pointless at best, dangerously misleading at worst.