Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Reply #37 –
Ok, quieter now. Also encoded to xing(old) and faac 1.17. abchr results:
sample faac xingold lame l3enc
bigyellow 3.1 1.0 4.3 3.6
dafunk 2.1 3.0 5.0 4.2
enolagay 4.7 2.1 4.7 4.2
experiencia 3.2 4.7 4.7 4.0
gone 4.2 1.8 5.0 3.0
illinois 4.0 3.4 4.3 4.8
mybloodrusts 5.0 1.0 3.7 2.8
newyorkcity 4.5 2.5 4.8 4.0
polonaise 4.7 1.0 4.4 3.9
riteofspring 4.4 1.0 3.7 5.0
scars 5.0 2.1 4.0 4.2
waiting 3.7 2.5 4.0 4.4
Means:
lame faac l3enc xingold
4.38 4.05 4.01 2.17
---------------------------- p-value Matrix ---------------------------
faac l3enc xingold
lame 0.347 0.291 0.000*
faac 0.906 0.000*
l3enc 0.000*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
lame is better than xingold
faac is better than xingold
l3enc is better than xingold
So I'd say that xingold would be too sucky, and based on faac 1.17's performance on the previous aac test and lame's performance on the mutli-format test, any of the three other choices: lame, faac 1.17, or l3enc would be adequate choices as anchor. but since faac and l3enc seem to be marginally worse than lame (for me), I would personally choose either of those two.
ff123
Edit: l3enc appears to narrow the stereo, which is why I downrated it on some samples.