Nero AAC, listening test :-)
Reply #4 – 2002-11-27 17:40:59
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'] ··· gURuBoOleZZ results (work in progress) ··· [/font][/span]I suggest a unique message for each participant There are many files that need tests : not easy to publish detailed results for 40 ABX comments. Better complete in the next day the same place in order to avoid chaos. Soundcard : Terratec DMX6Fire Headphone : BeyerDynamic DT-531 Software : ABC/HR Language : french 41_30.aac --- 128kb/s passage : 0.00 - 3.00 Sample A : Note = 2.0/5 ABX = 12/12 Sample B : Note = 4.0/5 ABX = 12/13General comments : sampleA : heavy distorsion at the beginning sampleB : tremulous signalpassage : 3.00 - 6.00 Sample A : Note = 3.5/5 ABX = 12/12 Sample B : Note = 3.5/5 ABX = 12/12General comments : sampleA : muffled sound. Loss of color and treble. Cymbal slightly metallic sampleB : same remarkspassage : 15.00 - 18.00 Sample A : Note = 2.0/5 ABX = 12/12 Sample B : Note = 2.2/5 ABX = 11/12General comments : sampleA : muffled sound. Distorsion. Strange phenomenon : there is a 'gap' in the midle, where I found the signal to be blurred, without life and details, like a strong video post-preocessing. sampleB : same remarks. Maybe better treble I tried to ABX sampleA and sampleB : failure. passage : 27.00 - 30.00 Sample A : Note = 3.0/5 ABX = 12/12 Sample B : Note = 4.0/5 ABX = 12/12General comments : sampleA : embarrassing distorsions. Saxo is altered. sampleB : Distorsions, but better sound, esp. on saxo. I tried to ABX sampleA and sampleB : failure, but good beginning (maybe lake of concentration). ==> build B is better41_30.aac --- 96kb/s --- 44.1Khz Hard to choose. But build B seems to be little sharper on cymbals, but maybe distorted too. I gave a better note on build B on cymbals. Difficult to isolate a passage that distinguish A and B.==> build A & build B are nearly the same41_30.aac --- 96kb/s --- 32Khz passage : 0.00 - 3.00Main difference : sampleA : Awful distorsion at the beginning I tried to ABX sampleA and sampleB : Success (11/12) passage : 14.5-16.6Main difference : sampleA : Same phenomenon : like a dry cleaning of noise and détails [I called it "post-processing" a moment ago] : unatural sound. I tried to ABX sampleA and sampleB : Success (10/10) ==> build B is far better on some point.41_30.aac --- 80kb/s --- 44.1Khz Not easy to choose. I focused on cymbal again [4.7-5.5], and found build B to sound worse. I ABXed with hesitation the difference betwwen two files : 12/16 and 14/20, I found A > B.==> I prefer build A
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