IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Personal evaluation at ~130..135 kbps, 200 samples, AAC (iTunes, Nero) - MP3 - Vorbis aoTuV
henkersmahlzeit
post Nov 15 2005, 14:43
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 31-December 03
Member No.: 10840



Thanks Thanks Thanks ... what a job! smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zurman
post Nov 15 2005, 14:46
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 22-February 04
Member No.: 12193



QUOTE (Busemann @ Nov 15 2005, 04:36 AM)
Surprising to see how close Vorbis and iTunes are to the high anchor. I guess one could safely use 160kbps VBR for transparency with iTunes now (I previously used 192kbps).
*

Well, I think this test shows exactly the contrary huh.gif
Good quality, yes, but transparency, no (at least to Guru's ears tongue.gif )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Nov 15 2005, 14:52
Post #28


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 15 2005, 11:46 AM)
QUOTE (Busemann @ Nov 15 2005, 04:36 AM)
Surprising to see how close Vorbis and iTunes are to the high anchor. I guess one could safely use 160kbps VBR for transparency with iTunes now (I previously used 192kbps).
*

Well, I think this test shows exactly the contrary huh.gif
*


How come? If VBR 128 comes close to transparency even to Guruboolez, VBR 160 should be transparent to most of us.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zurman
post Nov 15 2005, 15:11
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 22-February 04
Member No.: 12193



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 15 2005, 05:52 AM)
QUOTE (Zurman @ Nov 15 2005, 11:46 AM)
QUOTE (Busemann @ Nov 15 2005, 04:36 AM)
Surprising to see how close Vorbis and iTunes are to the high anchor. I guess one could safely use 160kbps VBR for transparency with iTunes now (I previously used 192kbps).
*

Well, I think this test shows exactly the contrary huh.gif
*


How come? If VBR 128 comes close to transparency even to Guruboolez, VBR 160 should be transparent to most of us.
*


I messed up with the bitrates crying.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Nov 15 2005, 15:24
Post #30





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



Wow blink.gif ! How far can a guruboolez appreciation month be now laugh.gif ?!

Seriously, your contribution to the community and HA site is incredible and very much appreciated, man!

A whole hearted thank you very much!

Spent the whole lunch break brwosing your results, awesome stuff!


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
arman68
post Nov 15 2005, 15:28
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 111
Joined: 11-December 01
Member No.: 625



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Nov 15 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (dimzon @ Nov 15 2005, 12:09 PM)
Thanx!
guruboolez, how about low-bitrate comparision (64kbps and below)
*

I'm not very happy with the quality of current encoders at this bitrate. Not really suitable for my personal use. Curiosity would therefore be my only motivation for such exercise.
*



Although I do agree it would be nice to have someone as professional as guruboolez to do those tests; with such low bitrates, almost anyone can ABX and make their own mind. Why don't you try it? It is very interesting to discover the different audio artifacts introduced by lossy compression. It kinds of ruins your listening experience, as you will then recognize them easily crying.gif but I think it is worth it.

This post has been edited by arman68: Nov 15 2005, 15:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sunhillow
post Nov 15 2005, 16:28
Post #32





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 483
Joined: 13-October 01
From: Stuttgart
Member No.: 286



DARcode seems to be VERY impressed biggrin.gif

guruboolez should write for a big HiFi magazine... No, wait, he doesn't support voodoo thingies! Noone would like to read him there!

Really impressing and, as always, very conclusive. From me also a big Thank you!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lordraiden
post Nov 15 2005, 16:31
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11-November 05
Member No.: 25699



Somebody can do a short conclusion about test I don't understand very well

What is the best? and the 2.....
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Nov 15 2005, 16:46
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 2078
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



Wow, thanks guruboolez as you have done so much work that I myself just could not do. I am quite surprised at the results. I is nice to see that Vorbis is still going hard and strong but I was really surprised by the iTunes mpeg-4 AAC results in that it narrowed the gap between itself and Vorbis for all sample stested. It is also nice to know that consumers can get their hands on both products for free.

Even after all the buzz about the new Nero AAC encoder it is interesting to see that it is beaten out by the iTunes AAC encoder. Hats off to the Lame community as the Lame mp3 encoder is still in healthy competition with other formats.

Again, thanks buruboolez for the results and all the hard work. I will make sure to use your results in further discussions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Nov 15 2005, 16:51
Post #35





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



QUOTE (lordraiden @ Nov 15 2005, 04:31 PM)
Somebody can do a short conclusion about test I don't understand very well

What is the best? and the 2.....
*


The absolute best encoder is the high anchor (LAME -V2 at ~190 kbps), but this setting is off-competition (bitrate is too high, and comparison with other would be unfair).
That's why the real first place is for iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV, which are statistically equivalent.
With classical music, LAME is third and Nero Digital fourth.
With non-classical, LAME and Nero Digital are both last, despite the better mark obtained by Nero.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lordraiden
post Nov 15 2005, 16:55
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11-November 05
Member No.: 25699



is better iTunes AAC than Nero Digital for music at 160 kbps or 190 kbps?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Nov 15 2005, 16:59
Post #37





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



QUOTE (lordraiden @ Nov 15 2005, 04:55 PM)
is better iTunes AAC than Nero Digital for music at 160 kbps or 190 kbps?
*

You should try yourself. There are not many people that will be ready to start a listening comparison with modern AAC encoders at high bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gambit
post Nov 15 2005, 17:02
Post #38


Burrrn developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 917
Joined: 25-November 01
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Member No.: 534



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Nov 15 2005, 05:59 PM)
QUOTE (lordraiden @ Nov 15 2005, 04:55 PM)
is better iTunes AAC than Nero Digital for music at 160 kbps or 190 kbps?
*

You should try yourself. There are not many people that will be ready to start a listening comparison with modern AAC encoders at high bitrate.
*

I think that we will soon see that even the planned 128kbps test will be very hard for some people. The performance of modern codecs at those bitrates is really good, and I dare to say transparent for Joe Average's casual listening.


--------------------
Burrrn - http://www.burrrn.net/
MPEG Audio Collection - http://mac.sourceforge.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
arman68
post Nov 15 2005, 17:06
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 111
Joined: 11-December 01
Member No.: 625



QUOTE (Gambit)
I think that we will soon see that even the planned 128kbps test will be very hard for some people. The performance of modern codecs at those bitrates is really good, and I dare to say transparent for Joe Average's casual listening.


I could not agree more. I will try to take part in the test if I find the time, but I doubt I will be able to hear any difference in most cases, unless they are problem samples.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirGrey
post Nov 15 2005, 17:18
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 11863



Uh. Thanks, guruboolez ! cool.gif

QUOTE
The performance of modern codecs at those bitrates is really good, and I dare to say transparent for Joe Average's casual listening.

Yeah. I completely agree.
I'm still unsure if I should participate in 128 kbit test smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Nov 15 2005, 17:23
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 3630
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE (SirGrey @ Nov 15 2005, 06:18 PM)
I'm still unsure if I should participate in 128 kbit test smile.gif
*


It's appreciated if you do. smile.gif

By the way, thanks Guru for the effort and the excellent test! smile.gif

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Nov 15 2005, 17:23


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kuniklo
post Nov 15 2005, 18:07
Post #42





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 193
Joined: 9-May 02
From: Emeryville, CA
Member No.: 2010



One more voice of thanks for your thorough and professional work. Your tests should be in print somewhere.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
singaiya
post Nov 15 2005, 18:37
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 365
Joined: 21-November 02
Member No.: 3830



Like everybody else... wow! merci beaucoup. I think this is the last piece of evidence for my switch to Vorbis.

One interesting thing I noticed is that the high anchor (Lame V2 vbrnew) did much better with this expanded classical set than in your previous test of high bitrates
MPC vs VORBIS vs MP3 vs AAC at 180 kbps, 2nd checkup with classical music
where on those 18 classical samples it received a score of 3.6, here it gets 4.61. Actually, in that test you used 3.97alpha11 but I think there was no change to 3.97beta1.

edit: linked to post(#2), punctuation

This post has been edited by singaiya: Nov 15 2005, 18:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
richard123
post Nov 15 2005, 20:18
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 348
Joined: 9-January 03
Member No.: 4498



Allow me to add my thanks.

Great job.

Makes me feel better about using iTunes AAC at 160k
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yulyo!
post Nov 15 2005, 20:43
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 19-September 05
Member No.: 24567



Great test Guru.
it seems Nero new encoder isn't that good as Gabriel said. tongue.gif
by the way...where is Gabriel's and the others nero aac encoder devs?
do't get me wrong, i love Nero AAC and i hoped that the new one wil be better, but... crying.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Nov 15 2005, 20:46
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 3630
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE (yulyo! @ Nov 15 2005, 09:43 PM)
Great test Guru.
it seems Nero new encoder isn't that good as Gabriel said.  tongue.gif
by the way...where is Gabriel's and the others nero aac encoder devs?
do't get me wrong, i love Nero AAC and i hoped that the new one wil be better, but... crying.gif
*


Gabriel is a LAME developer. I think you mean Garf.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Nov 15 2005, 20:55
Post #47





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



cool guru.


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yulyo!
post Nov 15 2005, 20:58
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 19-September 05
Member No.: 24567



laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif right
sorry, my mistake
laugh.gif laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Nov 15 2005, 21:04
Post #49


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (yulyo! @ Nov 15 2005, 09:43 PM)
Great test Guru.
it seems Nero new encoder isn't that good as Gabriel said.  tongue.gif
by the way...where is Gabriel's and the others nero aac encoder devs?
do't get me wrong, i love Nero AAC and i hoped that the new one wil be better, but... crying.gif
*


1) I'd wait for results from more than 1 person before making a conclusion.
2) Guruboolez already stated it was a major improvement over his previous test.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yulyo!
post Nov 15 2005, 21:13
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 19-September 05
Member No.: 24567



i know Garf, it really is.
but i remember someone saiying that the new encoder will be the best encoder tongue.gif
by the way, great work.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 22nd September 2014 - 01:24