My personal 128K mutiformat test 2004-01-07 15:59:26 I've recently finished my latest multiformat test @128kbps, featuring iTunes AAC, LAME 3.93.1, WMA9 VBR and Vorbis 1.01.Results were interesting enough...On 7 of 12 "classical" samples I used (thanks to Roberto for sharing) results were more, than just interesting...AAC: nearly perfect, but sometimes have little troubles with hi-freq (percussion) signals and noices.Vorbis q4: very slightly better, than AAC, but its attempt to encode hi-freqs made it fail on one sample (too annoying difference). Generally the same, as AAC.LAME -b128: Poor. Difference is mostly obvious. It either artifacts badly or has degraded sound.WMA Q75: Complete crap. Mostly even worse, than LAME (sic!). Incredible amount of artifacts.If anyone interested in details I could provide them...What do you think about WMA? Should I retest it in CBR (no pro, 'cause test was oriented on codecs with HW support) or just leave this crap? Any suggestions?Codecs chosen:iTunes for AAC for high quality in previous tests and price LAME 3.93.1 - just it seems to be one of the most popular onesWMA9 VBR - kinda the best (even though WMA8 CBR seems to be the most popular one)Vorbis 1.01 for possible uality improvements over 1.0So overall it's just a demonstration with no tweaking (this test was for newbies, not audiomaniacs).