FDK AAC, though, shows promise. Tests I've done show that it achieves transparency at 180 kbps. And that's compared to a similar Apple AAC file encoded at 320 kbps.
It has actually very simple explanation. Settings for ~96 kbps: http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.io/igorc/aac-96-a/index.htmTVBR - --tvbr 46 - real bitrate ~94-95 kbps - have score 4,391 in public test CVBR --cvbr 96 - real bitrate ~100-101 kbps - score is 4,342. It's bitrate variation. Both CVBR and TVBR are pretty the same.Use any of them.Quote from: ghostman6842 on 25 January, 2017, 04:10:46 PMFDK AAC, though, shows promise. Tests I've done show that it achieves transparency at 180 kbps. And that's compared to a similar Apple AAC file encoded at 320 kbps. Far from reality. There is no AAC encoder better than Apple at 96 kbps and higher. As simple as that.
Wasn't talking about 96 kbps, but FDK AAC 180 VBR vs Apple AAC 320kbps. Again, people should do their own ABX tests to find out what works for them. At that setting, FDK AAC sounded pretty damned transparent to my ears.
To my ears, Apple AAC sounds totally fucking horrible, even at 320 kbps. It's not tuned properly at all.
Quote from: ghostman6842 on 29 January, 2017, 03:56:07 AMTo my ears, Apple AAC sounds totally fucking horrible, even at 320 kbps. It's not tuned properly at all. Yet no ABX test.If you have an issue with proving statements with ABX testing you should probably have read the rules for the forum before joining.This is no a placebo tolerant place. Prove you statements or don't spread unproven nonsense.8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objectivMe? Troll? HAH! This from somebody who represents a forum who lets a so-called moderator, who's really a troll (i..e greynol) go after people all the time, then do nothing when he abuses his power to get away with it. The guy & his friends tricked me once into doing an ABX test & posting the results afterwards. Guess what? All they could do was make excuses, questioning the methodology of the test itself while "coincidentally" avoiding the results, which proved I was right, All they cared about what their agenda, attacking anyboe support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.The only troll is you that does not adhere to the basic rules of the forum.
Especially coming from somebody who represents a forum
That dude & his friends actually tricked me into that "posting ABX results" thing awhile back. Didn't matter that the results proved him wrong. He & his friends just attacked me, questioning the very methodology of the test to try and shut me up.
That's why I not going to bother wasting my time with that crap.
But I guess it's just "coincidence" that Apple came up with that "Mastered for iTunes" crap?
That was their way of telling the world "Yeah, we know TVBR sucks.
"Rules" are whatever the hell certain people here pull out of their asses to try and shut people up when their world view is threatened.
some leave this forum and never come back
You people are pathetic!