Skip to main content

Topic: Autumn 2006 Listening Test (Read 96636 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
I am back in Germany after some very stressing days in Bucharest, Romania because of the sudden death of my grandmother and the problems related with it (very early burial, very short time to obtain flight tickets, etc.).

Anyways, I see that the crowd wants a new listening test and since the 48 kbps multiformat test was delayed until the new WMA codec is open for testing, we have two reasonable possibilities: test MP3 at 128 kbps and include fast encoders like Helix, or test various formats at 80 kbps. Personally, I don't have any preference so I don't really care which one comes first. What do you guys think? Also, I am open for suggestions about which codecs to include in any of the tests.

Please don't say anything about the 48 kbps test in this thread because I won't change my mind.

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #1
i always wanted to see how this free fhg encoder compares to others at 128kbps (it has only CBR).

thanks, J.M.

Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #2
I vote for an mp3 test @ ~128 kbps
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

  • Shade[ST]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #3
Could we make this topic a poll?  I vote for multiformat.

Although.. maybe I should convince my bias for LAME that it may not be the best encoder?

I have a slight penchant for the multiformat @80, but anything is good.

  • kwanbis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #4
what about multi-bitrate? does it makes sence?

LAME at 64, 96, 128, 160, 190? To see if at what point is most transparent with the least bytes?

  • Steve999
  • [*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #5
I know higher bitrate is a bit of a pain becuase of test design reasons (getting significant results), but I'd like to see multi-format MP3 (including the ubiquitous-in-the-real-world itunes) at the 160 kbps bitrate.

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #6
You know, after thinking awhile, I agree with multi-MP3-encoder @ 128 kbps.

I mean, we take for granted that LAME is the best.

Reminds me of Musepack...

Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • markanini
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #7
Another vote for MP3 @ 128. Still the most popular format and bitrate.

  • stephanV
  • [*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #8
Another vote for 128 kbps MP3.

Quote
test MP3 at 128 kbps and include fast encoders like Helix

Perhaps some benchmarks would be nice too then.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

  • sony666
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #9
i always wanted to see how this free fhg encoder compares to others at 128kbps (it has only CBR).


This is interesting.. a working, legal, recent FhG comandline encoder. Thanks

edit: omg 64bit, OSX and Linux too

Wow, I completely missed that Thomson has gone into offensive like that. Too bad they don't have a more intelligent lowpass after all these years.
  • Last Edit: 11 August, 2006, 02:02:41 PM by sony666

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #10
Sooooo what encoders will we be testing against each other?

- LAME
- FhG
- Helix

And I second stephanV there... not only listening tests, but while we're at it, some good ol' speed benchmark. Or am I misunderstanding you, stephanV?
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #11
Speed benchmark, hmm... We should use full tracks for this I guess.

  • quas
  • [*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #12
My vote is for MP3 too.

How about:
- LAME
- FhG
- Helix
- iTunes
+ speed benchmarks.

  • Shade[ST]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #13
Speed benchmark, hmm... We should use full tracks for this I guess.

Speed benchmarks should be a different process, IMO.
I think everyone is aware that HELIX is the fastest encoder we have.

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #14
How about:
- LAME
- FhG
- Helix
- iTunes
+ speed benchmarks.

well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3
Speed benchmarks should be a different process, IMO.
I think everyone is aware that HELIX is the fastest encoder we have.

the fhg encoder is evil fast too

J.M.
  • Last Edit: 11 August, 2006, 02:48:09 PM by jmartis

Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #15
Do you think Gogo should be tested? Also, what about anchors?

  • Shade[ST]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #16
well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3
iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade.  And Shine, maybe.  But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory.  So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.

  • eofor
  • [*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #17
Do you think Gogo should be tested? Also, what about anchors?


To keep it strictly MP3, my suggestion:

Low anchor: ye olde Blade @ 128
High anchor: LAME VBR @ ~192

Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #18
Quote
iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade.  And Shine, maybe.  But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory.  So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.


Blade? Come on...
  • Last Edit: 11 August, 2006, 02:57:40 PM by Sebastian Mares

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #19
well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3
iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade.  And Shine, maybe.  But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory.  So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.

again I forgot that the Helix is Xing successor  (by Xing I meant the "new" xing without short blocks)

I vote for Blade too (low anchor) 

J.M.

(edit- how many times I forget to fix the quote name  )
  • Last Edit: 11 August, 2006, 02:59:46 PM by jmartis

Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #20
As low anchor it's OK, but not as contender. Decide between Blade and Shine. I would go with Shine.

  • Pio2001
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #21
Why not Windows Media Player mp3 encoder ? It should be a very common one.

  • jmartis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #22
Why not Windows Media Player mp3 encoder ? It should be a very common one.

It is a FHG one.

  • Shade[ST]
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #23
As low anchor it's OK, but not as contender. Decide between Blade and Shine. I would go with Shine.

I want Blade!  I want to hear what I encoded to, "way back when"

Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #24
Blade for low anchor would be good.  It got used a lot in the past.

I'd like to see xing 1.5 and lame 3.90.3/3.93.1 in the test.
I wouldn't complain if l3codecp.acm 1.2 was included too
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune