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 276920 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #150 –
Quote
And yes, I know that it sounds bad. But again, there are tons of encoders that produce shitty encodes. The point is to include one that is of some significance to the real world usage.
Now why does the anchor have to have any significance to the real world?? Isn't the anchor just a reference in order to know how to rate the others??
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #151 –
Quote
According to Nero developers, their HE AAC down to 32kbps is good enough to challenge MP3 at 128. So, no, your proposal for anchor is not good enough (or, rather, "bad enough")
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Depends on who takes the test (I stated *very clearly* what I claimed, so don't try to twist my words.). You cannot check the audience on such a test, so any reference to my claim is effectively bogus.

Based on my experience, the result you actually get back will be from the experienced ones more than from people that couldn't tell a difference.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #152 –
Quote
Quote
I'm afraid that this test is going in a wrong direction.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342765"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'd have to say I feel the same way.  Oh well...

This is getting a bit extreme. This discussion is held to have some general consensus about how it should be performed. I certainly can't say that leaving out MP3/LAME would make the test more interesting or relevant (the contrary is true). Also adding a low anchor that isn't really one, doesn't make much sense either.

Quote
I think Roberto is right. If Microsoft really wanted the people to use WMA Pro, they would've added it to PlaysForSure. On the other hand, if we are testing the creme de la creme of the encoders (we're testing LAME and not FhG which is included in MMJB and other rippers for the mass; and we're testing AoTuV and not the Xiph builds), maybe we should test WMA Pro and not Standard.

There is a difference though. LAME and FhG both produce MP3, Xiph and AoTuV both produce Vorbis, but WMA Std is not WMA Pro. If you want to test the most popular formats/codecs (which you said you wanted to do) test WMA Std, not Pro.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #153 –
How about this:

1) Instead of Nero @ 128kbps, use Nero HE-AACv2 at a lower bitrate
2) Include CT HE-AACv2 at the same bitrate

This gets you

1) Anchor(s)
2) Some result on new Nero vs CT
3) Some result on low bitrate HE-AAC vs near-transparent codecs
4) More likelihood of an 'interesting' result (including 2 AAC codecs will most likely give a statistical tie. IMHO the 'relative quality' of HE-AAC would be more interesting to find)

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #154 –
is FAAC completely out of question? - this could be a 'medium' anchor (i mean even if the wma-pro wins, do we really care?)
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #155 –
Quote
is FAAC completely out of question? - this could be a 'medium' anchor (i mean even if the wma-pro wins, do we really care?)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342869"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't think there is a point to including a codec that hasn't changed since the last time it was tested.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #156 –
Quote
How about this:

1) Instead of Nero @ 128kbps, use Nero HE-AACv2 at a lower bitrate
2) Include CT HE-AACv2 at the same bitrate

This gets you

1) Anchor(s)
2) Some result on new Nero vs CT
3) Some result on low bitrate HE-AAC vs near-transparent codecs
4) More likelihood of an 'interesting' result (including 2 AAC codecs will most likely give a statistical tie. IMHO the 'relative quality' of HE-AAC would be more interesting to find)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342868"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's an 128 kbps listening test. Also, if I include CT, it would be the third AAC encoder - that isn't really multi-format any longer.

Quote
is FAAC completely out of question? - this could be a 'medium' anchor (i mean even if the wma-pro wins, do we really care?)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342869"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


As stated above, three AAC encoders are too much.

If you want to compare various AAC encoders, wait for the next AAC listening test.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #157 –
Quote
It's an 128 kbps listening test. Also, if I include CT, it would be the third AAC encoder - that isn't really multi-format any longer.

[..]

As stated above, three AAC encoders are too much.

If you want to compare various AAC encoders, wait for the next AAC listening test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342875"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you are going to do an AAC listening test too, then perhaps it makes more sense to exclude Nero from this test.

I can live with that as long as we are eventually tested

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #158 –
Quote
Quote
It's an 128 kbps listening test. Also, if I include CT, it would be the third AAC encoder - that isn't really multi-format any longer.

[..]

As stated above, three AAC encoders are too much.

If you want to compare various AAC encoders, wait for the next AAC listening test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342875"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you are going to do an AAC listening test too, then perhaps it makes more sense to exclude Nero from this test.

I can live with that as long as we are eventually tested
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342876"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If I am going to run an AAC listening test, it will most probably be at a lower bitrate and after Apple released an HE-AAC encoder, but that's another story.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #159 –
Quote
Quote
But you obviously don't realize that including another codec again increases the difficulty of the test. Is it really wotrh it because of a codec that is IRRELEVANT today? I don't think so.


The anchor is not meant to be relevant. It is meant to sound guaranteedly bad.

According to Nero developers, their HE AAC down to 32kbps is good enough to challenge MP3 at 128. So, no, your proposal for anchor is not good enough (or, rather, "bad enough")
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it's not (and yes, I did test that) and this is a great opportunity to prove it. And the people that can't hear a difference between 32kbps HE-AAC and the top 128kbps encoders, certainly won't hear the much smaller differences between the various 128kbps encodes. So they aren't really well suited for this test.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #160 –
Quote
if we are testing the creme de la creme of the encoders (we're testing LAME and not FhG which is included in MMJB and other rippers for the mass; and we're testing AoTuV and not the Xiph builds), maybe we should test WMA Pro and not Standard.

I believe so.  So what if Pro isn't popular?  Maybe, if it performs well, it will become so.

I don't agree with discounting it because it is not being pushed by Microsoft, or simply because it has been developed by Microsoft.  If it is a potential contender, unlike Standard, then it should be seriously considered, IMH(and unknowledgeable)O.

When did users of this forum become so concerned whether Microsoft thought it had a future? 
I'm on a horse.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #161 –
So, here is my idea for the codec collection before the weekend starts:

LAME 3.97
Nero AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
QuickTime/iTunes AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
AoTuV 4.5
WMA (Pro or Std - discussion is still open)
HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps as low anchor

So, what do you think?
If it's OK, the last thing we need to decide about the codecs is whether to use WMA Pro or Std.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #162 –
Quote
So, here is my idea for the codec collection before the weekend starts:

LAME 3.97
Nero AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
QuickTime/iTunes AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
AoTuV 4.5
WMA (Pro or Std - discussion is still open)
HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps as low anchor

So, what do you think?
If it's OK, the last thing we need to decide about the codecs is whether to use WMA Pro or Std.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342974"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think this is a great setup.

I would vote for WMA Pro, merely because it hasn't been tested properly before.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #163 –
As said before, Pro all the way.  Anybody with XP can encode with it at no additional cost.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #164 –
Quote
So, here is my idea for the codec collection before the weekend starts:

LAME 3.97
Nero AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
QuickTime/iTunes AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
AoTuV 4.5
WMA (Pro or Std - discussion is still open)
HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps as low anchor

So, what do you think?
If it's OK, the last thing we need to decide about the codecs is whether to use WMA Pro or Std.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342974"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


WMA Std, please. WMA Pro is not currently a consumer product, and stands a good chance of changing when it does become a consumer product (with Vista). 

Even if Pro is superior in terms of quality, it is more or less only of academic interest to the consumer population at this point in time.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #166 –
Quote
I'm happy with it so far. And I vote for WMA Standard too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342989"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

+1 

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #167 –
Quote
So, here is my idea for the codec collection before the weekend starts:

LAME 3.97
Nero AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
QuickTime/iTunes AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
AoTuV 4.5
WMA (Pro or Std - discussion is still open)
HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps as low anchor

So, what do you think?
If it's OK, the last thing we need to decide about the codecs is whether to use WMA Pro or Std.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342974"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My vote is for WMA Pro.

And I also suggest excluding Nero from this group. It has been confirmed before that at this bitrate iTunes is at least equal to or better than Nero. Like Garf, I'm more interested in seeing how it performs at really low bitrates in another test.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #168 –
If only one WMA codec is in, definitely test WMA Pro (as the other encoders in the test are the best representatives for their codec). It's a known fact that Standard performs slightly worse, but it would still be interesting to see exactly how big a difference there really is.. Perhaps both should be tested instead of Nero?

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #169 –
Quote
And I also suggest excluding Nero from this group. It has been confirmed before that at this bitrate iTunes is at least equal to or better than Nero. Like Garf, I'm more interested in seeing how it performs at really low bitrates in another test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342992"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry, but the four codecs mentioned are fixed.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #170 –
Quote
So, here is my idea for the codec collection before the weekend starts:

LAME 3.97
Nero AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
QuickTime/iTunes AAC (whatever version will be up-to-date)
AoTuV 4.5
WMA (Pro or Std - discussion is still open)
HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps as low anchor

So, what do you think?
If it's OK, the last thing we need to decide about the codecs is whether to use WMA Pro or Std.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=342974"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I would probably drop one of the AAC codecs and include both WMA Std and Pro.

As Garf already pointed out, testing 2 AAC codecs is somewhat redundant and will probably provide similar enough results to end up in a tie or very close to one, and the end result of the whole test will be less interesting because of it.

On the other hand, WMA Std and Pro are two clearly different codecs which will probably provide more significantly different results.

If you did this, every codec included in the test would be different, making for a more comprehensive result.  If it's a multiformat listening test, why not make it as multiformat as possible?  I think a nice goal of the test would be to highlight major differences between codecs, not so much subtle differences among two competing implementations of the same codec -- that would be better left for another test IMO.

Other than that, I think it's looking good.

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #171 –
okay, I'm beginning to like the sound of both WMA Std and WMA pro now as well when put in the above light.  It truly is AAC overkill...

This is so close to being decided after 7 pages, I can feel it (maybe by page 10? ).

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #172 –
Quote
I would probably drop one of the AAC codecs and include both WMA Std and Pro.

same here, drop NERO's, this way, we would be testing 6 diferent technologies and encoders =)

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #173 –
Quote
HE-AACv2 @ 32 kbps as low anchor


I really like to see how 128 kbps HE-AAC compared to other non-SBR 128 kbps
Its really interesting to see how good SBR can reproduce high frequency, can it really trick us.

Quote
I would probably drop one of the AAC codecs and include both WMA Std and Pro.


Agree, Guru has tested it thoroughly with hundreds of samples, iTunes has more transparent samples compared to Nero..... I completely agree that we should only have one representative for each format...well, of course Apple will be representing AAC in this "tournament" 

This is a "multiformat test", not "single format- different encoders" test....just my viewpoint. We can test iTunes vs Nero vs etc etc next time
WMA and WMA PRO is 2 different formats, and I've heard that WMA PRO is written by the inventor of AAC?

mp3 - LAME
AAC - iTunes
Vorbis - aoTuV
WMA - WMA9.1
WMA PRO - WMA9.1 PRO
HE-AAC - Nero or CT??? (I suggest 128k)

EDIT: Nero doean't have 128kbps for HE-AAC.... only CT offers up to 128kbps

Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test

Reply #174 –
Quote
EDIT: Nero doean't have 128kbps for HE-AAC.... only CT offers up to 128kbps
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=343004"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's because it doesn't make sense to use it at 128kbps.  The format was not designed for that bitrate, and the AAC devs have said many times that standard AAC should be used instead.