I would love to participate. Now I have a pair of Sennheiser HD 600 and a Little Dot Mk IV which ought to help with critical listening.
I'd love to see how faac stands up to current encoders. The development seems to be idle right now, but I'd like to know the current status in comparison to the alternatives, since I see it being recommended once in a while in #ffmpeg.
The good news that probably we will see new Fraunhofer (FhG) AAC encoder in this test.
From old testSorenson Squeeze 3.5 (FhG Pro) http://listeningtests.t35.com/html/AAC_at_...est_results.htm
The good news that probably we will see new Fraunhofer (FhG) AAC encoder in this test. In this case we should redefine the samples because new codec will be included.
Couldn't iTunes "constrained" versus "true" VBR be done as a sub-test? Obviously I'm not the most unbiased commentator for a listening test, but it seems excessive. Unless it's something that the HA community truly doesn't know which is better.
Many people base their disdain for lossy coding on the performance of early encoders. Can we, to show how far the art has progressed, compare some crusty but widely-used encoder at high bit rate to newer ones at lower bit rates?
First, it's unacceptable to have the set of the samples provided by the developer of one of included competitors.Nobody won't tolerate it. If these samples would be included later everybody will accuse me to be not impartial.
P.S. The choice of samples, codecs, conditions and bitrate verification are public.
The order of events:1. The selection of the encoders.2. Only then we should choose samples (if they are new competitors).It doesn't matter who submit the samples.
So, is the Fhg encoder in or out?
If the process is open,
they will walk away and point to the attacks as evidence the test was biased against them.