Vorbis Listening Test
Reply #77 – 2004-04-11 22:18:00
Oh, my... Don't worry. It's probably a small mistake, easy-to-fix. Anyway, there's no evidence that AoTuV+QK should be use. We must test it before, and find the ideal bitrate setting (of course, if you prefer take the responsability of using an untested version of vorbis, you could do it). In my opinion, AoTuV beta 2 is a wise choice. For two reasons: - -q4 could be use without problem. 128 kbps seems to be reached an average, for daily use as well for the short samples selected for the next test. The QK modified version is more problematic (opting for a quality setting inferior to -q4/128 would probably be questionned by some people, as weel as big 128 kbps overrun). - AoTuV beta 2 was tested, and approved by four persons. It's not a strong collective approbation, but it's better than nothing. AoTuV+QK didn't compete. Bugs are always possible. It's the work of two indepedant developers. An hybrid encoder. Epistemologicaly speaking, it's very problematic to use something like that, even if the output quality is possibly better than AoTuV. If we found a bug after the test, the whole seriousness of the listening test might be ruined. On the other side, both AoTuV beta2 and AoTuV+QK have a very short life expectancy. In few weeks, something like AoTuV beta 3 will be released. Vorbis 1.1 (major update) too... therefore, the conclusions of the next multiformat test about vorbis will quickly be invalidate. Whatever the choice of the codec for the test.