QuoteAny other non-AAC format that stands a chance at this bitrate.I'm not sure what else there would be.
Any other non-AAC format that stands a chance at this bitrate.
I'm not sure what else there would be. I remember vorbis being lower than nero here.
Quote from: Garf on 09 December, 2013, 07:36:00 AMIf the Winamp encoder in whatever the latest Winamp release was is current, that's great.Are there relevant differences between the libfdk_aac that you sold to Google and this encoder?Yes, Winamp 5.666 has the latest AAC encoder quality-wise, no new quality tunings which are ready for release.I'll let you know when quality is improved. Or just ask The Winamp/Sonnox/... encoder has a completely different code-base than fdkaac and is a bit better tuned, especially for VBR.Chris
If the Winamp encoder in whatever the latest Winamp release was is current, that's great.Are there relevant differences between the libfdk_aac that you sold to Google and this encoder?
Were there improvements (not bugfixes) that imrove an audible quality of your AAC encoder at 96 kbps in las 2 years? If the answer is yes could You please indicate on what samples because I really fail to find any audible difference. There was only one sample (which was actually submited to You by me) "In the roof with Quasimodo" that is coded diferent by different versions of your encoder. But there is still no audible difference for me.
SE's test results didn't agree with yours so they must be wrong,
The next time I see data from two different tests that aren't in agreement, I'll just ask you to point me in the right direction. The scientific method of repeating an experiment to confirm the results be damned.
For (2) I'd say stuff that's generally considered to be "music". There is quite some codec research regarding speech but our tests steer clear of that.
Quote from: Garf on 10 December, 2013, 04:29:54 AMFor (2) I'd say stuff that's generally considered to be "music". There is quite some codec research regarding speech but our tests steer clear of that.I appreciated the two spoken samples (3 & 15) in the HA2011 test. While it's much less likely I'd use this test's bitrate (80,96,128) for speech, I would very much like to have at least one sample be single voice chanting / acapella singing like sample 4 in that test.
Quote from: jensend on 09 December, 2013, 05:16:55 PMYou're dismissing the best available listening evidenceYou're dismissing the SE result which doesn't exactly agree. I guess I'll have to take you at your word as to why that is.The whole point of this is that FhG could beat Apple in a re-match, especially when it tied Apple in a perfectly valid test, personal attacks against me aside.I would like to see such a re-match.
You're dismissing the best available listening evidence
Nero CVBR TVBR FhG CT low_anchor 3.698 4.391 4.342 4.253 4.039 1.545
Quote from: greynol on 09 December, 2013, 08:26:54 PMSE's test results didn't agree with yours so they must be wrong,Yes. Either there's flaw in SE's test, or in ours. It has been pointed out what the issue with the SE test is (limited, non-representative, biased sample selection). It's up to you to point out what could be wrong with IgorCs previous test if you believe the results are invalid. If they aren't invalid, the other test has to be wrong.
Those HA and SE @96 tests have different versions of participated codecs, slightly different settings,
different sample sets, different way of presenting stimuli to testers and obviously different type of participants. How can you expect exactly similar results from both tests? IMHO they correlate well having all this in mind.
As it's only about whether or not FhG AAC encoder should participate: the results of the HA test are so close that IMO of course FhG can win in another listening tests.
Not even the confidence intervals say that Apple AAC is better than FhG
these give only a statement on this particular test with the specific samples used and listeners participating.
You could download the results http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...ous/results.zipYou will get quite enough of people who have rated Apple significantly higher than FhG. And less results who have prefered FhG but not significantlyAs far as I can see only Kamedo2 took the job and had a closer look.
Nero CVBR TVBR FhG CT low_anchor3.64 4.22 4.69 4.23 3.71 1.604.05 4.47 4.13 4.52 3.46 1.413.30 3.51 3.24 3.34 3.20 1.603.57 4.52 4.55 4.73 4.41 2.424.04 4.53 4.54 3.97 4.43 1.334.19 4.58 4.59 4.62 4.65 1.523.65 4.10 4.32 4.53 3.85 1.473.83 4.62 4.41 4.49 4.18 1.673.62 4.27 4.26 4.72 3.91 1.603.66 4.30 4.34 4.24 4.26 1.723.82 4.28 4.21 3.96 4.13 1.583.48 4.67 4.37 4.35 3.81 1.484.13 4.54 4.64 4.08 4.24 1.503.42 4.32 4.40 4.29 4.10 1.343.60 4.54 4.72 4.18 3.69 1.513.92 4.70 4.52 3.98 4.26 1.443.85 4.41 4.55 4.49 4.57 1.323.67 4.79 4.37 5.00 4.83 1.423.08 4.26 3.78 4.11 3.96 1.253.34 4.72 4.65 3.43 3.88 1.27%samples 01 - Reunion Blues%samples 02 - Castanets%samples 03 - Berlin Drug%samples 04 - Enola Gay%samples 05 - Mahler%samples 06 - Toms Diner%samples 07 - I want to break free%samples 08 - Skinny2a%samples 09 - Fugue Premikres notes%samples 10 - Jerkin Back n Forth%samples 11 - Blackwater%samples 12 - Dogies%samples 13 - Convulsion%samples 14 - Trumpet%samples 15 - A train%samples 16 - Enchantment%samples 17 - Experiencia%samples 18 - Male speech%samples 19 - Smashing Pumpkins - Earphoria%samples 20 - on the roof with Quasimodo
...All You do is looking to an average score and draw conclusion based on that.....
In case two encoders turn out to have a very similar outcome we should take them both as participants for a new tests, especially as there seems to be serious interest in both of them.