AAC at 128kbps test - FINISHED
Reply #112 – 2003-06-22 15:34:59
Funny that everybody hears different things. I think this is normal, these results might not respect the personal preferences (and i'm not talking about zealots ).One of the codecs got these comments but was still ranked second for this sample... the others must sound horrible then. According to my personal preferences, for example, Sorenson scored the same as FAAC I'm quite surprised, for this. I remember a previous thread where Ivan Dimkovic stated this codec (AACdemo) "as the state of art" around 128 kbps. But i'm not here to start a flame, i respect the other's impressions and the tests conclusions. Nevertheless, If you're speaking about Flooressence, i think that this sample should be considered a real problematic sample for Sorenson: very annoying, expecially when an obvious "scratch" occur at 2.2 - 3.3."Bad pre-echo, clicks, cut-off, warble, 'discrete' freq sweep, dirtier, noisy, tones merging, distortion or clipping, noisy attacks, rumbling, muffled, post echo tones, smeared attacks, faser sound, gurgling, noisy hi-hats" IMHO this abundance of artifacts is due to the different way people DESCRIBE problems. Here there are a lot of people for whom English is not the native language and there are objective difficulties with comments, expecially for newbies/untrained people (myself included ). If you read the comments in a "critical" manner you should see that some people named the same artifacts with different terms. @Roberto: What about to publish anymously the scores for those people who don't want to be named ? I think that the raw scores and the comments (with or without names) should be published. IIRC this was the method adopted by ff123 for the 64 kbps test.