Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test (Read 275859 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #50 –
Quote
If we discard ATRAC, we could test WMA and feature a low anchor. WMA is used by a lot more people than ATRAC.
Whether the standard encoder should be tested because it works on portables and it's also available in a lot of music stores or the professional due to its higher quality is uncertain. What do you guys think?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341721"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd say include both. It would be interesting to see how their quality are related to each other and whether pro is able to compete with the best codecs out there, and it would make wma supporters silent, they couldn't complain about the lack of wma pro in the test.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #51 –
Quote
Yes, as mentioned already. If we discard ATRAC, we could test WMA and feature a low anchor. WMA is used by a lot more people than ATRAC.
Whether the standard encoder should be tested because it works on portables and it's also available in a lot of music stores or the professional due to its higher quality is uncertain. What do you guys think?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341721"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think including WMA standard is a must: It is widely used by end users, plays on practically all portables and is used by most music download stores.
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #52 –
The problem with WMA Pro, IMO, is that Microsoft never targeted it at the end user market, and probebly never will.

It's simple to notice that: All online music stores are selling WMA Std, and Windows Media Player won't rip your CDs to WMA Pro either. Microsoft isn't pushing it for portable player adoption either.

Therefore, I wonder what would be the real use of testing it. Microsoft itself doesn't want us using it.

If I knew Microsoft would never push it for the consumer market, I probably wouldn't have featured it even in my first multiformat test. I only did it because I believed, at the time, that Pro was set to replace Std.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #53 –
If it is correct that MS will never target WMA Pro to the end user market, I agree. But with the competition from AAC, I think it is strange that WMA Pro won't replace WMA Std at some point. Personally, I think it will.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #54 –
What about itunes mp3 as the low anchor? It's got to be the most popular of the old mp3 encoders and lots of people still use it. It scored pretty miserably at the last mp3 test

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #55 –
Quote
What about itunes mp3 as the low anchor? It's got to be the most popular of the old mp3 encoders and lots of people still use it. It scored pretty miserably at the last mp3 test
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341750"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, it lost, but 3 is still pretty high as low anchor.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #56 –
Quote
The problem with WMA Pro, IMO, is that Microsoft never targeted it at the end user market, and probebly never will.

It's simple to notice that: All online music stores are selling WMA Std, and Windows Media Player won't rip your CDs to WMA Pro either. Microsoft isn't pushing it for portable player adoption either.

Therefore, I wonder what would be the real use of testing it. Microsoft itself doesn't want us using it.

If I knew Microsoft would never push it for the consumer market, I probably wouldn't have featured it even in my first multiformat test. I only did it because I believed, at the time, that Pro was set to replace Std.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341742"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Actually, recent Windows Vista Betas now have WMA Pro as a ripping option in WMP 11. Perhaps MS is deciding to make it mainstream after all. If it's going to be a standard feature in the next gen mainstream OS, it would make sense to include it in the test for the purpose of comparison.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #57 –
Quote
Actually, recent Windows Vista Betas now have WMA Pro as a ripping option in WMP 11. Perhaps MS is deciding to make it mainstream after all. If it's going to be a standard feature in the next gen mainstream OS, it would make sense to include it in the test for the purpose of comparison.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341757"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


But by then, this test will be outdated. For at least the next two years or so, WMA Pro is targeted at professionals who use it at high resolutions and higher bitrates than 128kbps. Whenever WMA Pro becomes a consumer codec (for use with portables/music stores etc), I agree it should be tested.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #58 –
Somebody mentioned also VBR...it would be nice to include CBR vs. VBR comparison for MP3. Too bad it would be too much work.

And I still think that WMA Pro should be included, people will have harder time discrediting this test.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #59 –
Maybe it would be better to define the scope of the test, and then codecs could be included or excluded at the hand of that.

Now I see many arguments (popularity, completeness, support for portables) for and against inclusion of certain codecs, but any of those arguments are only good or bad if you know exactly what it is exactly you are trying to test.

If you just want to test what (on average) the best codec is, then you should definetly include WMA Pro. But if you want to test what the best codec for portable use is, it shouldn't be included.

Since I couldn't really find exactly what is being tested, the discussion about yes/no certain codecs seems a bit messy to me.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #60 –
Quote
Maybe it would be better to define the scope of the test, and then codecs could be included or excluded at the hand of that.

Now I see many arguments (popularity, completeness, support for portables) for and against inclusion of certain codecs, but any of those arguments are only good or bad if you know exactly what it is exactly you are trying to test.

If you just want to test what (on average) the best codec is, then you should definetly include WMA Pro. But if you want to test what the best codec for portable use is, it shouldn't be included.

Since I couldn't really find exactly what is being tested, the discussion about yes/no certain codecs seems a bit messy to me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341764"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree. It all depends on the scope of what formats the generous tester wants to listen to.  If it is more of a mainstream listening test then I don't think WMA pro should be included but ATRAC3 should definately be included as well as WMA std, mpeg-4 AAC (iTunes), Nero AAC, and Lame 3.97b1.  If it is more of a test to include a broad range of formats then WMA pro, WMA std, AAC (iTunes and Nero), Lame 3.97b1, and other formats should be included.  This is a lot of work for the listener and I appreciate all his work.

Personally, I would like to see ATRAC3 just to show people on the PSP boards how bad the format is (or convince other people who dive into the Sony formats).  I would also like to see WMA std as this format is everywhere.  I would also like to top the rumors that a 64kbps WMA is the same as a 128kbps mp3.  I would also like to see QuickTime 7 (iTune 6) and Nero 7's AAC encoders going up against Lame 3.97b1.

Again, thanks for the work.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #61 –
side note, maybe 11 days is too little? I would rather have it open by 20 days.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #62 –
What about using the encoder with the oldest sourcecode as a low anchor: blade. It should reliably deliver the worst result (and if it doesn't, that's a very interesting result too), and will show how much mp3 has actually progressed.

With sony dropping minidisk, i'd personally favour wma pro over atrac for inclusion in the test.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #63 –
Quote
What about using the encoder with the oldest sourcecode as a low anchor: blade. It should reliably deliver the worst result (and if it doesn't, that's a very interesting result too), and will show how much mp3 has actually progressed.

With sony dropping minidisk, i'd personally favour wma pro over atrac for inclusion in the test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I second that.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #64 –
Quote
What about using the encoder with the oldest sourcecode as a low anchor: blade.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That criteria is kinda wacko. You mean the oldest open source MP3 encoder? Then it would probably be 8hz-MP3. The oldest MP3 encoder is L3enc (and hey, it's based on source code!). But there are even older encoders like Indeo Audio, IMA ADPCM and Lucent's PAC.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #65 –
Quote
Quote
What about using the encoder with the oldest sourcecode as a low anchor: blade.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341807"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That criteria is kinda wacko. You mean the oldest open source MP3 encoder? Then it would probably be 8hz-MP3. The oldest MP3 encoder is L3enc (and hey, it's based on source code!). But there are even older encoders like Indeo Audio, IMA ADPCM and Lucent's PAC.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341814"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think he meant using Blade because it's not much different than the original specification source code (and it was well spread) which I have read a couple of times on these boards.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #66 –
Quote
...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341764"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Quote
...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341780"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Popular formats, that's why I think ATRAC should be left out.
Since WMA Standard is more popular than Professional, I'd also go with Std. and a low anchor like l3enc.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #67 –
If you really want to include a low anchor, then I'd vote for HE-AAC. And the other contender should then be WMA Standard. While I'd like to see how it compares to WMA Pro, the lack of compatibility and encoding tools make WMA Pro pretty much useless.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #68 –
my vote would be L3enc as the low anchor, then nero, itunes, vorbis, lame, and unfortunately, both wma std and pro.  these tests are benchmarks, and they really need to be as conclusive as possible.  testing 7 encoders will certainly be a tedious task for all of the participants, but we, the ha.org crowd are a tough bunch, we can handle it.    maybe we might consider leaving the test open for a few extra days to get more participants...

i just really think we would be remiss to leave out wma std because it is so widely used, or wma pro, because many "audiophiles" will argue that it is a viable competitor to the other encoders tested (and it likely will be more viable than wma std, at least).  therefore, its performance will need to be tested against the other new encoders...

just my 2 cents.  and btw, many thanks to sebastian mares for volunteering to set this up for all of us.
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #69 –
Quote
If you really want to include a low anchor, then I'd vote for HE-AAC. And the other contender should then be WMA Standard. While I'd like to see how it compares to WMA Pro, the lack of compatibility and encoding tools make WMA Pro pretty much useless.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=341859"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Use HE-AAC as a low anchor, force Nero to output a 128kbps HE-AAC stream
Then use the test results as a graphic reminder of why HE-AAC should never, ever be used above 64kbps. 
It's a better low anchor than random_ancient_MP3codec IMHO.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #70 –
I would like to see how Atrac3Plus performs. I am an owner of Sony portable device and I use it because the device is able to play Atrac files gaplessly. I use only 256kbps with that format but I accidentally once used 64kbps A3P and was surprised that it didn't sound THAT BAD. So I'm quite curious. I really would like if the word "Plus" actually means any progress and step to quality(I've never used the old Atrac so I don't know how it sounds like).I think HA is the only place where I can find the unbiased results without any hype.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #71 –
Btw, SonicStage 3.3 (the last one since it's being replaced with the Connect Player) support ATRAC3+ at 128kpbs (vs older ATRAC3 132kpbs)

And since Sony's MP3 players, CD, Hi-MD and the PSP(?) support both MP3/ATRAC3, it could be interesting to have it in
Some peoples may be tempted to convert to ATRAC3+ since playback time is about 25% longer (lower power consumption I guess)

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #72 –
I'd like to see WMA Pro included, because I'm curious to see if Microsoft is actually capable of producing a competitive audio codec.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #73 –
I have to ask a basic/important question: Who are the results of this test targeted at? 

If it's the frequenters of HA then one set of codecs may be appropriate, but if it's general consumers of 128kbps digital audio (either purchased or home-brewed) then the codecs chosen should be relevant to the general consumer market (current, popular, accessible).

I vote for WMA STD, and a low anchor.  We can come back to WMA PRO in 2007 once Vista is released (the codec may well have changed/updated by then anyway).

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #74 –
Quote
Popular formats, that's why I think ATRAC should be left out.
Since WMA Standard is more popular than Professional, I'd also go with Std. and a low anchor like l3enc.

In that case WMA Std, but not Pro, yes. Although, as low anchor maybe it is interesting to use HE-AAC(v2)...
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."