Pre-Test discussion
Reply #86 – 2003-07-20 01:28:53
@Guruboolez: I understand your concern about QT not being really usable. But it has the best quality, it won the AAC test, and I'm not willing to fathom the criticism I expect will come from all sides about "WTF, QuickTime won the AAC test but you used Nero on the extension test though? Are you working for Ahead now, you bastard?". What I tried to say is : if you really want to include Nero encoding in one of both test, put it in a "mass" or "popular" part.I really want to see QT@128 compete with other formats. It was designed as the winner, confirming the positive impressions I had before the public test, and I felt again during this test. There are no reason for me to eliminate QuickTime. On contrary : I have more difficulties to conceive good reasons for giving to Nero encoder a second chance - especially on a dedicate "HA test", - designed to be the high-quality-and-quality-only test . I like Ivan's work ; I know that Nero's codec was handicaped by a forced CBR encoding during test ; I'm aware that some progress were made since first test... but without public testing , proving its superiority on QT 6.3 on most samples, introducing Ahead in the next test is for me something really odd.
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