Quoteand i think you meant normal wma9 as the pro codec cant be used below 128 afaikOh, yeah? I sincerely don't know.Can someone with Windows Media Encoder 9 check out if you can get a 64kbps two pass VBR encode out of it in WMA pro?
and i think you meant normal wma9 as the pro codec cant be used below 128 afaik
this is an interesting test and I'm glad it was (and will continue to be) done, but as a scientist I have to ask : What makes this a double-blind test? shouldn't the samples be compiled on the fly for each person from a large bank of random music so as to eliminate subconscious prejudice from those selecting the samples?
After all the principal of the double-blind is that neither the experimentee or the experimenter knows what they are being subjected to until the results are in... blind tests have demonstrated homeopathy works, whereas double blind ones then dismissed the claim...
Wma in all its confusing glory: Basically everything wma that is not pro, lossless or voice (even WMA v9 standard) can be played by all WMA codecs including the first v2 codec.To play pro, lossless and voice install the wma v9 codecs (which will play everything).
So if I have a Nomad Jukebox that supports wma it will NOT play file encoded (lossy or lossless) with the Pro encoder?
Also, what is the real world scenario that the 64kbps test is evaluating? I would think with all the "golden ears" here, noone would use that low of a bitrate. Is it to evaluate codecs for the purpose of streaming content?
and probably because the other bitrate ranges either have already been tested (128) or are untestable (160+)
Track AAC Lame MPC Vorbis WMAPro Blade41_30sec 4.36 3.3 4.33 4.2 3.97 1.4ATrain 4.41 3.78 4.37 4.17 4.48 3.05Bachpsic 4.5 3.41 4.66 4.51 4.8 2.9Blackwat 4.62 3.92 4.71 4.38 4.56 2.18death2 4.35 3.62 4.67 4.18 2.7 1.27flooress 4.08 3.68 4.52 4.57 4.25 1.7layla 4.15 3.59 4.4 4.24 4.45 1.83macabre 4.59 4.06 4.55 4.54 4.86 3.16midnight 4.56 3.42 4.43 4.26 4.38 2.39thear1 4.69 4.16 4.48 4.11 4.44 2.41thesourc 4.61 4.33 4.62 4.43 4.87 2.36waiting 4.13 2.71 4.35 3.78 3.88 1.99AvgScore 4.42 3.67 4.51 4.28 4.30 2.22Std.Dev 0.21 0.44 0.13 0.22 0.59 0.62-1 sigma 4.21 3.23 4.37 4.06 3.71 1.60-2 sigma 4.00 2.79 4.24 3.84 3.11 0.99-3 sigma 3.79 2.35 4.10 3.61 2.52 0.37-1 sigma pt = 84.13% p(new sample < this value)-2 sigma pt = 97.72% p(new sample < this value)-3 sigma pt = 99.87% p(new sample < this value)sd/sqrt12 0.06 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.18errorbar 0.12 0.25 0.08 0.13 0.34 0.36
The errorbar line is based on the estimated error in the mean score, which I'd use to find the best rated codec overall on a mean score basis = 2*(Std Dev / Sqrt(12))
P.S. Hmm, I wonder if WMAPro did badly only because it was using 2 passes to aim at 128 kbps for the specific short sample tested. Perhaps it's fairer to use it in a one-pass mode that averages at 128 kbps over many albums.
Is this because at 160 or above some codecs are mostly transparent? I would think that the presence of HD based players for mp3, wma (though not pro), ogg (Rio Karma), aac, and the whispers of the possibility of mpc, would make more people interested in seeing the results at 160 and 192. I, for example, have been using lossless while waiting to make a decision on my lossy codec choice. The relative performance of these codec at higer bitrates would really help me with that decision as well as the decision of what bitrate to encode files for portable use. It would help even if some of them tie due to transparency. For example if three codecs get 5s at 160 I can quit worrying and choose whichever portable I like and encode at 160. Am I missing something?