High bitrate MP3 vs. Lossless ABX Tests?
Reply #25 – 2005-06-05 02:40:28
None the less, I don't think there is a 128kb/s MP3 encoder that meets the "ABX transparent" standard, or at least I haven't meant one, even in tests where all of the degradations were reported as being over 4.0 on the scale, the ID for the 'reference' signal in an ABC/hr test wasn't even close to any reasonable random hypothesis. The MPEG test results, at least, as well as the CRC results that are on much, much newer encoders, have been published. I don't know the citations offhand, but the results were not ambiguous in any real fashion. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=303584"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Well, that 128kbit MP3 (especially CBR) is not transparent to everyone is nothing new. I doubt anyone here would argue on that(although some people would probably point out, that LAME VBR around 110-140kbit is very difficult to most people, but certainly not to almost everyone). Newer doesn't automatically mean better. If i remember correctly, then Fhg is mostly tuned for low-mid bitrates, and its VBR-implementation is not on par with current LAME). The situation at low-bitrates is the opposite way around: There, fhg is more optimized and has intensity-stereo (which lame lacks). So, simplified one could say that below 112kbit fhg tends to be better, while above LAME usually is better. And, i highly doubt that they did test something which "ain't an mp3 encoder" ;-) So, i suppose they did test fhg. So, the problem is that we have lots of listening tests on this board with encoder A, and listening tests from the MPEG-folks on encoder B. But both can only be compared against each other, not merged. Thanks for the infos, - Lyx