I'm very interested in how different codecs behave in very high bitrate encoding. I'd like to compare them in encoding speed, problem samples, artefacts and transcoding efficiency (which will be a problem for all encoders).
QuoteI'm very interested in how different codecs behave in very high bitrate encoding. I'd like to compare them in encoding speed, problem samples, artefacts and transcoding efficiency (which will be a problem for all encoders).If many people can't distinguish a 128kbps encoding from the original there's a really low to no reason to do such test for spotting artifacts in natural music.
Well, 400 kbps+ is what I often achieve when encoding to wavpack or tak lossless...
Transparent can also be extended to transcoding , editing, postprocessing, DSP etc. This is much different than a normal listening test and is also a shady area for lossy encoders. For such conditions I would favour the hybrid encoders based on some testing. I think at such high bitrates mpc, ogg, aac could also be competitive.
I'd suggest you scrap this test idea...1 - You're missing WMA 9.2 Standard, which can encode at the bitrate range you're interested in2 - At those high bitrates, discerning differences is nigh impossible for everyone, no matter how good their hearing. But then again, perhaps the best way to get this point across is to have you do the test and see for yourself wink.gif
I'd like to compare them in encoding speed, problem samples, artefacts and transcoding efficiency (which will be a problem for all encoders).
Lame @ 320 kbps as a low anchor? How does that add up when that is the most transparent setting Lame can offer? An anchor should, afaik, be a reference point and clearly (audibly) lower in quality than the rest. Correct me if I'm wrong.edit: grammar
What you could compare is the encoding speed for identical bitrates, or the bitrate at which you cannot find any more problem samples. Not quite your average listening test then.
Stupid idea. Why would anyone use ~400 kbps for lossy compression when you can get lossless compression at ~600 kbps? And especially audiophiles would never use lossy anyway...
I think you missed my point regarding the low anchor. You're suggesting a low anchor that is (probably) indistinguishable from the rest.
Oh, I see now, sorry. But that would also be interesting to see how the maximum setting of MP3 compares to the others. I found another possible solution for low anchor, maybe the ADPCM codec which is already implemented in MS Windows (gives bitrate of 350 kbps)?
As everyone on the board has already pointed out and you seem to not be listening to: The codecs are transparent by 224kb/s at the most. All the other more meaningful tests have shown that transparency typically happens well below that. You could not hold your listening test because it's way past the point where people can tell a difference. There is no point to picking a low anchor because everything will sound the same as the original wave... including your anchor! A 320-400kb/s listening test has no practical purpose in the world as it would not be able to establish anything, therefore there's nothing to be learned from it.
As I wrote in my previous post, there are still rare samples that are quite untransparent at 320 kbps and even higher, with all these encoders. It is just that they are rare, you must search for a specific type of signal (which I already said what they are).