Speek, I can't decode sade_sweetest_taboo.pac. LPAC says that it's not a valid LPAC file. Did I pick the wrong decoder?
Hmm, why do you use the "sade__sweetest_taboo" sample anyways? It was a sample i sent to Roel about a year ago, because of some lowpass issues. This sample isn't really a "hard" sample for encoders... or was it that what you wanted, an everyday-sample?
I wouldn't necessarily declare results from this program infallible yet
of the things I'm thinking about is: Ogg seems to get the best ODG scores.
Originally posted by Jansemanden Hmmm... that's not what I see. From the results on your site it looks like mpc -xtreme is the best.Jan.
Originally posted by Ivan Dimkovic Hehe... competition is now having to tune psymodels of their encoders to match EAQUAL values hehehe (just kidding)Did anybody run EAQUAL on WMA? I know it sucks, but just for a quick check
Originally posted by Speek I've justed added WMA8 results for 128 kb/s. It doesn't suck to hard according to EAQUAL, but the bitrates are a bit higher than the others.
Originally posted by Skeeve242 If you use EAC's "Process File" function and remove leading & trailing silence, would that eliminate the offset problem for EAQUAL?Offset will be the same for all alligned files?
Originally posted by ff123 I tested my dogies.wav encodes using the analysis tool, and here are the results:In other words, xing was much worse than wma/lame/ogg, which in turn was much worse than aac/mpc. The analysis tool does not seem to rate the files the same way.BTW, I went through a lot of trouble when I first made the WAV sample to time align all the files, and I just now double-checked to make sure that the samples were all aligned. The ogg file was shifted by 1 sample (23 microseconds), so I shifted it into alignment, but the numeric results didn't change.I wouldn't necessarily declare results from this program infallible yet ff123