Well, a lot of suff is going on. Kamedo2,Until now one of the conditions of HA tests is "no less than 10 results per sample". Please have a look through these 10 "full" contributors. http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html zip file.Sadly some of them have got tired let's say after 10 samples and after that they have just rated the low anchor.
I said that "more than 10 results per sample is a bit overkill", but if many are 5.0, around 10 res/sample might be about right...
I totally agree. Is there no interest in lower bit-rates? 48 kbps perhaps?
I don't think the Apple AAC encoders shine at 80k. They shine at 96k. At 80k, I'm almost sure Opus would beat the AAC-LC encoders.And 96k is likely to be the bitrate many people would use. For smartphones with speed limitation(128kbps is common), broadcasting at 96k seems natural.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=102876
I think we should probably keep in mind both TVBR and CVBR. Because if TVBR will end up with ~94 kbps and other codecs at ~96-100 kbps then we probably should go to CVBR ~100 kbps. Anyway both Apple TVBR and CVBR are great.
...AAC-LC (Fraunhofer/fhgaacenc) VBR 96 kbps...
Quote from: IgorC on 08 December, 2013, 02:13:11 PMI think we should probably keep in mind both TVBR and CVBR. Because if TVBR will end up with ~94 kbps and other codecs at ~96-100 kbps then we probably should go to CVBR ~100 kbps. Anyway both Apple TVBR and CVBR are great.We'll see about that (bitrate for TVBR). But anyway TVBR is recommended mode and it is mostly used. So results for another algorithms will not be so useful and informative. This should be a decisive argument.
It came 2ºd, right after Apple AAC. The result will be same.
If the Winamp encoder in whatever the latest Winamp release was is current, that's great.Are there relevant differences between the libfdk_aac that you sold to Google and this encoder?
Apple absolutely did win. p=.002.
There are tons of good reasons to value the last HA listening test higher than SoundExpert's unsound methodology. That has been discussed more than plenty already.
Can I ask You what do You expect from testing FhG again? fhgaacenc uses the same FhG Winamp encoder that we have tested in the last public listening test. It came 2ºd, right after Apple AAC. The result will be same.Anyway it's your choice.
Has FhG fdk VBR 80 or 96 kbps mode?
The whole point of this is that FhG could beat Apple in a re-match, especially when it tied Apple in a perfectly valid test, personal attacks against me aside.
P.S. Anyway I don't mind to include FhG.
You're dismissing the SE result which doesn't exactly agree. I guess I'll have to take you at your word as to why that is.
QAAC 80 kbits TVBR
Whichever FhG AAC encoder that will likely get used by the greatest number of people in a post-Winamp world
Any other non-AAC format that stands a chance at this bitrate.