IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NSTL WMA Pro listening test, MS claims test proves WMA Pro > HE-AAC
[JAZ]
post Jan 11 2006, 21:40
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1788
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



QUOTE (gameplaya15143 @ Jan 11 2006, 03:32 AM)
i think they are 'supposed' to represent a % quality.. but they are just high-to-low (or should it say low-to-lower... uh oh.. i better watch out for tos8)
*



Have you heard problems with a ~240Kbps VBR (Q98) wma 9.1 file to say it is low quality?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Woodinville
post Jan 12 2006, 01:01
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Jan 11 2006, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE (gameplaya15143 @ Jan 11 2006, 03:32 AM)

i think they are 'supposed' to represent a % quality.. but they are just high-to-low (or should it say low-to-lower... uh oh.. i better watch out for tos8)
*



Have you heard problems with a ~240Kbps VBR (Q98) wma 9.1 file to say it is low quality?
*



How about this new report (DBT and all) on WMA Pro quality?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...Comparison.aspx


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Jan 12 2006, 19:03
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1788
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



** Test codecs:

WMA Pro at 64Kbps? Interesting...It might be the codec they are making for Vista.
Let's see if now they ditch WMA Standard (or start to do so, even though "PlaysForSure")

OTOH, wouldn't HE-AAC V1 achieve better results than HE-AAC v2 at 64kbps?

**Test methodology:
Faults ( IMO ):

From the .pdf, it seems that nor ABX neither ABC-HR was done when electing the samples(1), plus the randomness in which the samples where played is questionable(2).

Overall, most of the results seem random(3), except for a few samples(4) where there could really be a difference.


(1) "The first clip to be played for every song was the reference clip. After listening to the reference clip, the participant would hear two additional clips, Clip-A and Clip-B. The participant was asked to compare both Clip-A and Clip-B to the reference file, and determine which sounded more like the reference file. NSTL would replay any of the three clips for the participant upon request, but once a decision was made on a song, the test would advance to the next song"

(2) BBABBBAAABAA ( B->HE-AAC first, A-> WMA first. ). They did this for 2/3rd of the participants, and inverted the order for the other 1/3rd.


(3) For most of the samples, the listeners elected "Identical". The percentage in which they elected wma or he-aac is similar. No big differences in prefference (only ~5% although generally is in favour of WMA...)

(4) The results, from my POV (point of view):
BobMarley,ColdPlay,Greenday,si02 -> Favour WMA

SimpleMinds,BlankBaby,Floyd -> Seem to Favour WMA, but with a small margin.

LimpBizkid,DireStraits -> There really is a difference, but prefference between one or the other is random (or averaged)

GuanoApes,Maroon5, -> There could be a difference, but the distribution is much averaged.

TheVerve -> Seem to favour HE-AAC, but with a small margin.


**Conclusion:

It could be true that WMA Pro 10 at 64Kbps is better than Nero 7, HE-AAC v2 at 64Kbps from the results shown. It definitely shows some problematic samples (especifically BobMarley,Greenday,si02) for HE-AAC, and that WMA Pro 10 is now competitive at this bitrate.
Let's see if it can be included in the multiformat low-bitrate test that we will do soon.



[Edit -> Forgot to say a few things]

This post has been edited by [JAZ]: Jan 12 2006, 19:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


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: 25th October 2014 - 18:55