I'd like to see the results of Opus. The development is very active, and I'm very interested to see the progress since two years ago, especially at high bitrates.
Also, AAC is a mature, strong codec, have good compatibility, and especially Apple AAC encoder is known for its very high quality. Will Opus beat Apple?
And MP3 128kbps is also interesting. It has the best compatibility, and many people know what to expect from MP3 128kbps, so it's a good "anchor".And we need a low anchor as well. FAAC 96kbps cbr has a bad quality, good for a low anchor.
+1 for keeping the number of codecs small. Consider only three perhaps? Four is stretching it. I really struggled with the five in the last test (AAC @ ~96 kbps [July 2011]).
Quote from: Kamedo2 on 08 December, 2013, 12:31:52 PMI'd like to see the results of Opus. The development is very active, and I'm very interested to see the progress since two years ago, especially at high bitrates.Do You mean include Opus 1.0 and 1.1?
Musepack really deserves to be tested again vs. other modern codecs.
The latest one, Opus 1.1. Testing Opus 1.0 is likely to lead to the redundant duplicate of http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/results.html and http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=97913
My choice:1. MP3@128 kbps (96 kbps will surely lead to complete defeat). We can use Fraunhofer IIS MP3 Surround encoder, which is sometimes better than LAME at low bitrates beginning from 128 kbps, but I consider LAME much more popular, so maybe we should use LAME 3.99.5 -b 128 -q0.2. OGG Vorbis aoTuV b6.03 3. QuickTime AAC TVBR.4. WMA Pro5. Opus 1.1, of course.
Just to be difficult, I propose 80kbps instead of 96kbps (easier for testers), and Apple LC-AAC, Apple HE-AAC, FhG (libfdk) LC-AAC, FhG (libfdk) HE-AAC, Opus 1.1, Vorbis aoTuV.The AAC encoders could/should be a seperate pre-test, especially if FhG wants to send in a newer encoder than what is in libfdk. I'd favor libfdk over anything else AAC as it's used a lot together with ffmpeg now.Edit: This isn't 100% a serious suggestion, but I want people to think about some things.
Opus, MP3(LAME), AAC(QAAC) and Vorbis(aoTuv).MPC and WMA is not interesting imo
Quote from: o-l-a-v on 08 December, 2013, 01:59:12 PMOpus, MP3(LAME), AAC(QAAC) and Vorbis(aoTuv).MPC and WMA is not interesting imoMP3 at 96 or 128 kbps?
I think we should increase the number of samples. More samples leads to more statistically valid results.And I think we should choose the samples so that the average bitrate of the samples tested, and average bitrate of albums, is roughly equal, like I did;http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=100896If the average bitrate of albums is 96k and the average bitrate of tested samples is 144k, the corpus is overrepresented by critical samples.
... so maybe we should use LAME 3.99.5 -b 128 -q0.