In the case, I know that these results are not reliable but wow I wasn't expecting wma to be on top.  I was expecting it to be around last or second to last.

Let's see how long AAC+ stays in the top sector. 

According to the current results, AAC+ is ~30% better than Nero LC-AAC and Vorbis aoTuV and -more important- with a high reliability of these results. It implies that AAC+ should stay not on top (as WMA and MPC current positions are not reliable thus fixed) but at least as clearly superior to Nero LC-AAC, Vorbis aoTuV and LAME MP3. If positions will change in the future then the reliability indicator would appear as... not reliable 

Am I wrong?

I see no reason to perform an ABX comparison test at a bitrate above 130-150kbps. Cause the 128kbps test show that 90-something % of all test samples are already transparent. So I can't imagine how hard it would be to differ lossy and source at a bitrate 50% above this. Good luck!

Sorry, this is my fault – there is no popular explanation of SoundExpert (SE) testing methodology on the site still (except two boring ones in pro zone). So I have to explain over and over again: SE testing uses sound artifacts amplification technique (SARTAMP) which helps to evaluate perceived audio quality of devices and compression algorithms with extremely low artifacts and distortions, not audible in “normal” cases. Thus, all SE ratings above 5.00 show amount of perception margin of human auditory system for those tested devices (only codecs now). The absence of reference sample in SE test setup is not essential as the artifacts are clearly audible to more or less extent. The actual aim of SE listening session is to grade the annoyance of those artifacts.

Since 2001 a fixed set of reference (critical) sound samples (from SQAM disc mostly) is used for SE listening tests. All average bit rates are calculated on basis of these samples and called “file based bit rate” (FBR). As the sample set consist of different sound pieces including solo instruments, voices and speech the resulting bit rates (in VBR mode) are slightly lower than in case of pop/rock music (quite close to the bit rates for classical music though).

Why use -b320 with stereo in lame 3.90.3 instead the --alt--preset insane ?
EDIT:included the version of lame.

Why use -b320 with stereo in lame 3.90.3 instead the --alt--preset insane ?
EDIT:included the version of lame.

• Ogg Vorbis, AAC+, AAC LC and WMA 9.1 showed the best audio quality
• MP3 and MPC are second
• AAC LC from iTunes is last due to the bug

I would like to somment on the usability:

AAC-LC - I agree, there are many iPods, but how many other players can play AAC? Some mobile phones, maybe.

Ogg Vorbis - Almost every good HW player supports it (Cowon - iAudio, iRiver even iPod with Rockbox firmware). It's a sad true, that there is almost no Ogg Vorbis support in car players and cellphones. There are probably no SW players (or only very few) without Ogg Vorbis support. And don't forget it's the only free fromat from the contenders.

AAC+ - Very poor HW support.

WMA 9.1 - Almost no HW support, very poor SW support.

MPC - Supported in HW only via RockBox. SW support isn't very good neither.

MP3 - Supported everywhere.

I would like to somment on the usability:

AAC-LC - I agree, there are many iPods, but how many other players can play AAC? Some mobile phones, maybe.

Ogg Vorbis - Almost every good HW player supports it (Cowon - iAudio, iRiver even iPod with Rockbox firmware). It's a sad true, that there is almost no Ogg Vorbis support in car players and cellphones. There are probably no SW players (or only very few) without Ogg Vorbis support. And don't forget it's the only free fromat from the contenders.

AAC+ - Very poor HW support.

WMA 9.1 - Almost no HW support, very poor SW support.

MPC - Supported in HW only via RockBox. SW support isn't very good neither.

MP3 - Supported everywhere.

Hi Serge! What is about new Lame 3.98 beta 3???