AAC at 128kbps test - FINISHED
Reply #31 – 2003-06-16 16:36:53
Back to some results. I'm really surprised to see BeautySlept notation. I tested this sample in two test, this one and a preliminary one . General Personal Previous Quicktime 4.42 3.7 4.2 Ahead Nero 3.81 1.4 2.1 * PsyTEL 4.25 2.9 1.8 Sorenson 4.26 2.5 2.5 FAAC 3.92 2.0 --- ** [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']* Ahead MP4 Codec was an older version ** FAAC was not tested previously [/span] I systematically found all encoding, except QuickTime, more than annoying. And I can't bear Ahead codec distorsions ! Even with VBR (-streaming) , Ahead was rated 2.5 and PsyTEL 3.5 (QT = 5.0 on this test !). Can't really explain why. It is because I'm most familiar with harpsichord, and can't bear any distorsions ? Or maybe headphone issues ? In fact, I tried to perform this test with a set of poor earbuds (Sennheiser MX-500), began with BeautySlept sample, and found all codecs, including Ahead & FAAC, to be near transparency ! I gave up on this result... With a good set of headphone, the distorsion was not only easily perceptible, but awfully annoying.P.S. According to the general conclusion, BeautySlept is one of the two samples where FAAC provide a better sound than Nero encoding (3.81 vs 3.92 - second one is LifeShatters , 3.88 vs 3.89)
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder, one encoding for all scenarios WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz