Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: New codecs blind testing. (Read 2918 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New codecs blind testing.

Hi ALL,

Three new codecs were added to SoundExpert rating system: MPEG-4 Audio for QuikTime, PsyTEL® MPEG-4 AAC Encoder and long-awaited OggVorbis 1.0. Now full set of audio codecs includes:

AAC: MPEG-4 Audio for QuikTime 
AAC: PsyTEL® MPEG-4 AAC Encoder 
AAC: Liquid Player Promotional
mp3: Lame 3.91
mp3: MUSICMATCH Jukebox
mp3PRO: Nero mp3PRO Encoder Plugin 
OggVorbis: OggEnc v1.0
QDesign Music 2: QDesign Music Encoder 2 Pro 
RealAudio 8: RealJukebox 2 
WMA 8: Windows Media 8 Encoding Utility

Don't forget to take part in testing.

www.soundexpert.info
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org

New codecs blind testing.

Reply #1 –
> og1 - OggVorbis audio format.
> CODER: OggEnc v1.0 (libvorbis 1.0) (Quality controlled VBR)
> - usage (32.7) kbps: oggenc -q 0 --resample 22050 test.wav
> - usage (64.1) kbps: oggenc -q 1,75 --resample 32000 test.wav
> - usage (93.9) kbps: oggenc -q 2,99 test.wav
> DECODER: OggDec 1.0 from OggVorbis package.
> - usage: oggdec test.ogg

Again: take part in such a *flawed* test? No, thanks.

Surely -q-1 --resample 36.000 will do better for 32kbps
Surely -q0 without resambling will do better for 64kbps
and last but not leat...
Surely -q3 will give the adequate bitrate for a 96kbps test, i don't understand the the -q2,99 setting here.

...and finally, as someone has pointed, it's strange, to say the least, to see pure mp3 in good positions in the 32kbps and 64kbps tests... Strange, too strange.

New codecs blind testing.

Reply #2 –
Hmm, has anybody taken the test?
I read this older thread about soundexpert testing:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=464

I wonder who is/are these soundexpert folk(s). I personally like tests which I know have been troughly assessed beforehand how the test will be best implemented.
That's why I like FF123's tests the most...

I just wonder should I spend my time for this?
Juha Laaksonheimo

New codecs blind testing.

Reply #3 –
Quote
I just wonder should I spend my time for this?

SoundExpert testing organised in a way you must not spend much time for it. Just a little contribution...
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org