iPod compatible formats listening evaluation
Reply #5 – 2007-11-02 22:40:24
I've merged all 85 scores and analysed it with friedman:FRIEDMAN version 1.24 (Jan 17, 2002) [url=http://ff123.net/]http://ff123.net/[/url] Tukey HSD analysis Number of listeners: 85 Critical significance: 0.05 Tukey's HSD: 0.226 Means: Nero 160kbps iTunes LAME 100kbps 4.33 4.24 4.00 3.47 3.17 -------------------------- Difference Matrix -------------------------- 160kbps iTunes LAME 100kbps Nero 0.089 0.331* 0.856* 1.156* 160kbps 0.241* 0.767* 1.067* iTunes 0.526* 0.826* LAME 0.300* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Nero is better than iTunes, LAME, 100kbps 160kbps is better than iTunes, LAME, 100kbps iTunes is better than LAME, 100kbps LAME is better than 100kbps Graphical results looks like this: It is safe (for me) to say that: • Nero Digital (Feb 2007) is better on a wide selection of classical music than iTunes AAC and LAME MP3 • AAC@130 kbps (Nero only, classical music) may offer similar (and even slightly better) quality than top-MP3@160 kbps • iTunes AAC is better than LAME -V5 • AAC@100 kbps is clearly lower quality than top-MP3@130 kbps. • Nero@130 kbps > Nero@100 kbps • MP3@160 > MP3@130 (trivial conclusion but would it appear on a collective listening tests involving several “non-critical” listeners?) => Nero Digital AAC (Feb 2007) is what I'll use first, though it's not perfect at this quality setting (-q0,45).