IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
NSTL WMA Pro listening test, MS claims test proves WMA Pro > HE-AAC
guruboolez
post Jan 14 2006, 15:31
Post #26





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 14 2006, 03:24 PM)
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 14 2006, 04:20 PM)
You should read the testing procedure again. Step#6:
Select "Nero Digital Audio (HE-AAC v.2)....
The person has set Nero to use HE-AAC v.2 as described in the frontend. If the result is LC-AAC, then it would rather look to a bug than a feature.
*


I read the testing procedure and it says that person also went on to the detailed encoder settings and changed them. As I already said, using the defaults, or using a preset, all would have produced a good result.
*


In other words, your frontend is working correctly without bug when it suddenly goes from HE profile to LC one just because the user manually set the bitrate to 64 kbps after selecting the HE profile.
It's something I don't understand, but you're probably right.
BTW, I can't reproduce either the bug you're mentionning.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Jan 14 2006, 15:34
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



I don't have a version "2", the only available option is selected in the screenshot.

The only other things I did were these:

7. - open settings
8. - select CBR 64 kbps
9. - save

Edit

I tried to find out what exact version I have. The first version number I found is 7.0.1.2 in the about Nero Burning Rom dialog. I downloaded the package in late November.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Jan 14 2006, 15:54


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jan 14 2006, 15:59
Post #28


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4884
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



Bah, would have to locate exactly the version they used then, or see if we can get the samples.

Since the chance of a recent Nero encoder having been used seem 0 (test was conducted in October, we released new one in November), it doesn't really matter to me.

Fact remains: MS gave them an encoder, told them exactly how to use it, and they didn't apply the same carefullness for the competitor. Is that a fair test?

This post has been edited by Garf: Jan 14 2006, 16:09
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Althalus
post Jan 14 2006, 16:41
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 147
Joined: 14-December 01
Member No.: 647



QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 14 2006, 03:59 PM)
Fact remains: MS gave them an encoder, told them exactly how to use it, and they didn't apply the same carefullness for the competitor. Is that a fair test?
*

No. But did Nero pay anything for this test? smile.gif. This is pure business/marketing after all.
I'm not questioning these results, they might be perfectly valid. It's just that tests like these annoy me quite a bit, because IF the results were in competitors favour the results would never been published.
How many similar tests have been conducted where the results weren't 'good enough' and thus everything was just shelved? it's impossible to know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 14 2006, 16:46
Post #30





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 14 2006, 03:59 PM)
Since the chance of a recent Nero encoder having been used seem 0 (test was conducted in October, we released new one in November), it doesn't really matter to me.
*

Good point indeed. The older (< Nero 7) HE-AAC encoder is clearly worse than the one bundled with Nero 7 (and also worse than Coding Technology implementation - see here).

But there's something which leads me to believe that HE-AAC was used and not LC-AAC: it's the results of si02.wav (= castanets). It's the only sample which revealed a huge difference between AAC and WMAPro (correct me if I didn't understand the graphs). To explain so big difference, either the AAC encoder performed really poorly or the WMAPro encoding was as sharp as a razor blade. The second is unlikely (WMAPro doesn't handle very well pre-echo). But if HE-AAC was really used, then the results would be coherent: SBR encodings have currently really poor performance for pre-echo. Consequently, even with weak performance WMAPro should appear as clearly better than HE-AAC, but not LC-AAC (with a modern implementation like Nero) with a sample like castanets/si02.
From this and according to my own experience, I'd say that HE-AAC was used. But for all other samples, results are surprising me. From my experience HE-AAC is usually better than WMApro. But if the test include the same family of HE-AAC encoder I've tested this summer (HE-AAC at 80 kbps was as poorer as LC-AAC from iTunes and not that far from standard WMA) then the tests results could be in coherence with my experience.

Too bad that the test was performed in october :/

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Jan 14 2006, 17:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Jan 14 2006, 17:04
Post #31


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 14 2006, 05:46 PM)
From this and according to my own experience, I'd say that HE-AAC was used. But for all other samples, results are surprising me. From my experience HE-AAC is usually better than WMApro. But if the test include the same family of HE-AAC encoder I've tested this summer (HE-AAC at 80 kbps was as poorer as LC-AAC from iTunes and not that far from standard WMA) then the tests results could be in coherence with my experience.
*

Hey! They used WMA 10 Pro+, not WMA 9.1 Pro. The version 10, let alone +, isn't eyet available publically.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 14 2006, 17:08
Post #32





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Jan 14 2006, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 14 2006, 05:46 PM)
From this and according to my own experience, I'd say that HE-AAC was used. But for all other samples, results are surprising me. From my experience HE-AAC is usually better than WMApro. But if the test include the same family of HE-AAC encoder I've tested this summer (HE-AAC at 80 kbps was as poorer as LC-AAC from iTunes and not that far from standard WMA) then the tests results could be in coherence with my experience.
*

Hey! They used WMA 10 Pro+, not WMA 9.1 Pro. The version 10, let alone +, isn't eyet available publically.
*


Assuming that WMA10+ correspond to a new encoder and not WMP 10, that's right. But is Microsoft able to transform an encoder which doesn't perform really good in sharpness even at 192 kbps to something excellent at 64 kbps? I don't think so. I've never seen before such metamorphosis.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Jan 14 2006, 17:26
Post #33


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



Well I would personally really appreciate if we could perform a public test with latest Microsoft and latest Nero Digital Audio encoders.

Discussing this internal test without any data (except the test report) sounds pretty pointless to me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nite
post Jan 14 2006, 17:39
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 1-January 04
From: Halifax N.S.
Member No.: 10849



QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Jan 14 2006, 08:26 AM)
Well I would personally really appreciate if we could perform a public test with latest Microsoft and latest Nero Digital Audio encoders.

Discussing this internal test without any data (except the test report) sounds pretty pointless to me.
*


Am I missing something here? How could this test have utilised Nero 7 in October, when in fact it had not even yet been released?

Moreover, what is the point in challenging He-aac v2 at 64kbps, when that implimentation is designed for optimum bitrates of 32 or 48kbps?

The premise makes little sense, but how did they get NERO 7 prior to release. Hummm???
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Jan 14 2006, 17:41
Post #35


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



For sure, October Nero7 release contained 2-years old AAC encoder, which was replaced somewhere in November with the improved SBR encoder.

Concerning HE-AAC v2 (HE-AAC + Parametric Stereo) - it was also introduced in November, and for sure there is no way to activate it in the GUI at 64 kbps - as it was not even designed for such bit rate.

This post has been edited by Ivan Dimkovic: Jan 14 2006, 17:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2014 - 21:35