Multiformat 128 kbps Listening Test
Reply #615 – 2005-11-28 13:53:42
So, as solution it wouldn't hurt anybody personally involved here, to adjust the target bitrate of all competitors down to something like 104k ? or are technical reasons against, any unseen new difficulties, like previously with 128k and wma-problem ?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=345935"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Two answers: - we must be sure than iTunes VBR and LAME VBR could also be set to reach 104 kbps. I doubt so... - the purpose of the test was to evaluate encoders at 128 kbps. 135 kbps is close to this value; 104 is really far (closer to 96 kbps than 128). I have nothing against the idea of testing encoders at ~100 kbps; but it would also be nice to see tests at ~130 kbps, with or without WMA.Another alternative solution comes to my mind, if the primary goal should still be popular formats at 128k, but with wma-standard ?--> test at 128k abr/cbr This would give an interesting ranking/result, if wma standard offers 128k abr or cbr. Could the other competitors aac, Vorbis, (lame no problem), be adjusted to 128k abr/cbr ? Forcing ABR/CBR is not very interesting. With format like Vorbis it has no sense. It's also going against latest development of encoders (LAME VBR, iTunes VBR).Another alternative:exclusion of wma-standard and test at 128k vbr. But then the goal of testing popular portable formats is missed clearly . Obviously! The portable criterion can't be invoked anymore if WMA is missing. We need to use another main criterion. High Quality VBR as example. Or why not High Quality VBR encoders still in development ? There's only four formats corresponding to this criterion: AAC, MP3, Vorbis, WMAPro. Then, no debate anymore