Vorbis VBR@90.4 (Xiph 1.3.3)OggEnc v2.87 (libVorbis 1.3.3): oggenc2 -q2.2 ref.wav
At this bitrate you should be using (or at least including) Oggenc2.87 using aoTuVb6.03 which is tuned for lower bitrates/presets.
Why don't you use ABR 96 on all of them?
What do you mean by "default settings"? You are not using any "default setting" ("qaac file.wav" for example), almost any AAC CLI has usually ~128 kbps as "default settings". Like you are preparing it is not a 96 kbps listening test.Not trying to be rude but I've never liked your lack of expertise and you call yourself Sound Expert.
Default Settings = Recommended by Developers. The settings that they tune every release.
LOL WHAT? Please explain further, post references, links, discussions where developers "tune" only one settings instead of the full encoder capabilities.
Edit: I should clarify. There are typically a handful of presets and settings that are highly tuned. Anything in between these values is often done by interpolation of parameters between neighboring presets. This means that, in practice, the "preset" values are going to produce the best quality:bitrate ratio. Certainly there have been plenty of improvements that effect an encoder's overall quality. But the point remains that anything other than built-in presets will result in lesser quality (per bit) than the default preset settings.
The following codecs were added to 96 kbit/s section for crowd-testing:[indent]AAC VBR@89.8 (Winamp 5.63) - CVBR, AAC LC
Since when has the Winamp AAC encoder CVBR?
Winamp's AAC VBR is somewhat between a CVBR and a TVBR. At high bit rates it's more like Apple's TVBR, at low bit rates it's more CVBR. Just call it VBR.
MP3 22.050 kHz - 2.79Opus - 2.77Vorbis - 2.49
Let's see. http://soundexpert.org/encoders-64-kbpsCode: [Select]MP3 22.050 kHz - 2.79Opus - 2.77Vorbis - 2.49So, are You suggesting us that MP3 22.050 kHz, 64 kbps is better than Opus and Vorbis, 48/44.1 kHz, 64 kbps?It's not even possible neither realistic.
It's very unrepresentaive and waaaay out of real scenario.
Let's talk about what we got on a table not jumping to philosofic endless talks. 5 tonals, 1 tranients -> not representative. Nada. Why in the wotld You would do that? It's 5 vs 1. It's not balanced. Why? Of course it's impossible to find 100% ideal representative set of samples. But why don't just include different types of samples?A set of samples with equal amount of different types of samples (20% tonal samples, 20% transient, 20% speech, 20% mixed, 20% stereo etc) will be already much representative.