I would like to see AAC 96 kbps CBR LC (used in previous test as high anchor) as a low anchor in this test. This would be helpful to have some connection of results for 48 kbps and 64 kbps with this test.But I suppose most people will be against it.
Quote from: muaddib on 06 September, 2007, 04:47:43 AMI would like to see AAC 96 kbps CBR LC (used in previous test as high anchor) as a low anchor in this test. This would be helpful to have some connection of results for 48 kbps and 64 kbps with this test.But I suppose most people will be against it.Yes this would be great, also because I hear the phrase "AAC 96k is equal to MP3 128k" thrown around a bit and it would be interesting to see if it's in any way true.
Anyway, I would like to see the mp3s encoder from FhG as we are using this since recently and it would be good to see how it performs compared to LAME. We only use CBR at the moment.
96 kbps LC-AAC might be too good as low anchor. Consider that the low anchor has to be significantly worse than the rest.
IMO it is enough that it is worse than almost all contenders in almost all samples.
Sorry, but I maybe missed previous discussions where it was discussed why low anchor has to be significantly worse. Can you please give a rationale about this?IMO it is enough that it is worse than almost all contenders in almost all samples. There was also a case in 64 kbps where I would prefer low anchor over one of contenders.
what about the mp3 encoder from iTunes ? dunno if it's FhG-based...
IMO we should use with any encoder that setting which is a priori supposed to yield the best result. This can be quite disputable but we should try it.Helix has a good VBR mode, so with Helix I suggest to use -V55 or -V60 which according to a listening test I did some time ago matches 128 kbps on average quite well. According to that (restricted) test we should use the default options (with the exception of -X2).The problem with Lame is: 3.97 or 3.98b5+? With this only exception I suggest we use both versions because of their practical importance and in order to see what things are like with these versions.With FhG IMO we shouldn't use VBR. According to my experience FhG's VBR mode is not attractive qualitywise.
High Anchor, a surprise suggestion: FhG, CBR 192 kbps- if it is good enough (I have been privately testing LAME -V2 variants too much lately and I would like to know how good FhG is at higher bitrates. Would it be transparent for the majority of testers?)
FhG, Nero or WMP11 ?- muaddib, please make some in-house queries about the exact details and version of FhG. Has anyone inside Nero actually compared the surround version against the presumably older "standard" version which included in WMP11?
MPEG Layer-3 Codec Version 3.4.0Fraunhofer IIS MPEG Layer-3 Codec (professional)Copyright (C) 1996-2004 Fraunhofer IIS