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: Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test (Read 47046 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #25 –
Why not, but will this be as replacement to something else?
I'd rahter see something like atrac3+ if we had to add a new contender. Why? Because it's supported by several portable players (Sony). For a community like HA.org I'd say that hardware support is a more convincing argument.
Unfortunately, atrac3+ supposes SonicStage and a lot of work to get valid samples.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #26 –
Well, if we use Vorbis, HE-AAC and WMA, there is room for one more contender and this is either Real or ATRAC since I don't know any other codec that performs fair at 48 kbps (MP3 is out, Musepack is out).
Hardware support doesn't play such a high role here since we're testing WMA10+ that has no hardware support ATM.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Well, if we use Vorbis, HE-AAC and WMA, there is room for one more contender and this is either Real or ATRAC since I don't know any other codec that performs fair at 48 kbps (MP3 is out, Musepack is out).
Hardware support doesn't play such a high role here since we're testing WMA10+ that has no hardware support ATM.


I'd be interested in Real over ATRAC+
It's said they've made good progress, but I'm so far away from their audience.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #28 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Why not, but will this be as replacement to something else?
I'd rahter see something like atrac3+ if we had to add a new contender. Why? Because it's supported by several portable players (Sony). For a community like HA.org I'd say that hardware support is a more convincing argument.
Unfortunately, atrac3+ supposes SonicStage and a lot of work to get valid samples.
IMO 48 kbps are directed more toward streaming application than portable players.

Of course I could be wrong.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #31 –
I don't know much about Real, so don't laugh if I say bullshit, but didn't they use ATRAC as audio compression a while back (or still?)?

Edit: OK, seems that different RA versions use different codecs. RA 8 used ATRAC, RA 10 uses AAC. Does it make sense to test RA at all then?

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
What does the rest of you think about Real?

While I agree that Real is definitely on the decline, there is considerable web-streaming at or near the rate you're testing.  Should be included.

Woody

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #33 –
There's no point testing real. Besides, no one uses Real anymore, it's all MP3, WMA, and (HE-)AAC. And the fact that Real 10 is AAC makes it even more pointless to test.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
I don't know much about Real, so don't laugh if I say bullshit, but didn't they use ATRAC as audio compression a while back (or still?)?

Edit: OK, seems that different RA versions use different codecs. RA 8 used ATRAC, RA 10 uses AAC. Does it make sense to test RA at all then?


Up to RA9, Real Audio cook - an in-house developed codec, created by Ken Cooke - was the preferred format for low bitrates. These days, they are more or less replacing it with AAC+ indeed.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #35 –
Another vote for Real instead of Atrac3...

There are a lot of streaming files all around the web which are available in real format (even in online music stores). So, could be great to have some comparisons with AAC/Vorbis/WMA contenders.


edit: typo

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #37 –
I would say to not test RA at all. If you do bother, use RA9's Cook, I guess.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Well, what Real Audio version then? 10 is pretty pointless if it's in fact HE-AAC. Then you don't want ATRAC - RA 8 is ATRAC...

I'm just checking Helix Producer 11 and there is no target bitrate for 48 kbps with Cook Codec...  (the nearest target bitrate is 44 kbps for Cook with Stereo @44.1KHz)

However, we can have a target bitrate of 48 kbps but with HE-AAC.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #40 –
Thought about it again... I think we should forget about Real because it comes in too many flavours and one website might be streaming Real 8, the other 10... HE-AAC is already represented by Nero, so no point testing it again. Personally, I would go with ATRAC3plus since there are also several portable players supporting it. Or does anyone want QDesign?

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #41 –
Why no skip the 4th participant, in favor of paying more attention to the other participants?

High anchor: iTunes LC-AAC 128 kbps
Nero HE-AAC
AoTuV Vorbis (aoyumi decides which version and settings to use)
WMA10+
Low anchor: Lame 3.97b2 48 kbps
Do not taunt audiophiles; they may bite.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Well, that is also an option, but three contenders is really too few IMHO (the whole hassle just to test three encoders).


Right, it would be somewhat of a waste of the efforts involved in this test.

If you are considering QDesign, you might as well consider MP3pro too. Neither has a future, but MP3pro is still a little more popular (and it has a little hardware support!)

Or you could go completely nuts and try ePAC, VQF, LBpack... plenty of choices, massa!

Last but not least, you could cut the crap and try the Winamp AAC encoder. Yes, yes, I know it has been tested already and Nero won, but it would still be much more interesting than any other alternative proposed here :B

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #44 –
How about doing an 80 or 96 kbps test instead to see how good these bit rates are now that 128 kbps is virtually transparent? That would bring more codecs into play.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #45 –
Well, he's doing 48kbps presumably to follow up on the earlier multi-vendor 48kbps HE-AAC test, and see how  Nero Digital compares to other codecs at this bitrate.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #47 –
Fair enough.

Multiformat 48 kbps Listening Test

Reply #48 –
Please add LAME ~128 kbps as a high anchor instead of AAC.
It would be nice to check the codecs against it instead of much better AAC 128kbps.

Also use latest AoTuV, as it seemingly contains some major low bitrate improvements.
SBR+PS will own it anyway, however it should hold up well against LC.

As to the other codec: MP3Pro would still be interesting.
ruxvilti'a