IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

14 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Autumn 2006 Listening Test, MP3 @ 128 kbps vs. Multiformat @ 80 kbps
Sebastian Mares
post Aug 11 2006, 13:11
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



I am back in Germany after some very stressing days in Bucharest, Romania because of the sudden death of my grandmother and the problems related with it (very early burial, very short time to obtain flight tickets, etc.).

Anyways, I see that the crowd wants a new listening test and since the 48 kbps multiformat test was delayed until the new WMA codec is open for testing, we have two reasonable possibilities: test MP3 at 128 kbps and include fast encoders like Helix, or test various formats at 80 kbps. Personally, I don't have any preference so I don't really care which one comes first. What do you guys think? Also, I am open for suggestions about which codecs to include in any of the tests.

Please don't say anything about the 48 kbps test in this thread because I won't change my mind. smile.gif


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Aug 11 2006, 13:26
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311



i always wanted to see how this free fhg encoder compares to others at 128kbps (it has only CBR).

thanks, J.M.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DigitalDictator
post Aug 11 2006, 14:06
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 313
Joined: 9-August 02
From: SoFo
Member No.: 3002



I vote for an mp3 test @ ~128 kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Aug 11 2006, 14:24
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144



Could we make this topic a poll? I vote for multiformat.

Although.. maybe I should convince my bias for LAME that it may not be the best encoder?

I have a slight penchant for the multiformat @80, but anything is good.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Aug 11 2006, 16:23
Post #5





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2361
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



what about multi-bitrate? does it makes sence?

LAME at 64, 96, 128, 160, 190? To see if at what point is most transparent with the least bytes?


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve999
post Aug 11 2006, 17:02
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 16-December 03
Member No.: 10473



I know higher bitrate is a bit of a pain becuase of test design reasons (getting significant results), but I'd like to see multi-format MP3 (including the ubiquitous-in-the-real-world itunes) at the 160 kbps bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Aug 11 2006, 17:38
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



You know, after thinking awhile, I agree with multi-MP3-encoder @ 128 kbps.

I mean, we take for granted that LAME is the best.

Reminds me of Musepack...

smile.gif


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
markanini
post Aug 11 2006, 18:32
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 550
Joined: 22-December 03
From: Malmö, Sweden
Member No.: 10615



Another vote for MP3 @ 128. Still the most popular format and bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephanV
post Aug 11 2006, 18:49
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 6-May 04
Member No.: 13932



Another vote for 128 kbps MP3.

QUOTE
test MP3 at 128 kbps and include fast encoders like Helix

Perhaps some benchmarks would be nice too then. smile.gif


--------------------
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sony666
post Aug 11 2006, 18:49
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 22-February 02
Member No.: 1375



QUOTE (jmartis @ Aug 11 2006, 14:26) *
i always wanted to see how this free fhg encoder compares to others at 128kbps (it has only CBR).


This is interesting.. a working, legal, recent FhG comandline encoder. Thanks tongue.gif

edit: omg 64bit, OSX and Linux too

Wow, I completely missed that Thomson has gone into offensive like that. Too bad they don't have a more intelligent lowpass after all these years.

This post has been edited by sony666: Aug 11 2006, 19:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Aug 11 2006, 19:06
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



Sooooo what encoders will we be testing against each other?

- LAME
- FhG
- Helix

And I second stephanV there... not only listening tests, but while we're at it, some good ol' speed benchmark. Or am I misunderstanding you, stephanV?


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Aug 11 2006, 19:33
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



Speed benchmark, hmm... We should use full tracks for this I guess.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
quas
post Aug 11 2006, 19:36
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 9-May 06
Member No.: 30573



My vote is for MP3 too.

How about:
- LAME
- FhG
- Helix
- iTunes
+ speed benchmarks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Aug 11 2006, 19:43
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Aug 11 2006, 14:33) *
Speed benchmark, hmm... We should use full tracks for this I guess.

Speed benchmarks should be a different process, IMO.
I think everyone is aware that HELIX is the fastest encoder we have.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Aug 11 2006, 19:47
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311



QUOTE (quas @ Aug 11 2006, 20:36) *
How about:
- LAME
- FhG
- Helix
- iTunes
+ speed benchmarks.

well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3 tongue.gif
QUOTE (Shade ST @ Aug 11 2006, 20:43) *
Speed benchmarks should be a different process, IMO.
I think everyone is aware that HELIX is the fastest encoder we have.

the fhg encoder is evil fast too smile.gif

J.M.

This post has been edited by jmartis: Aug 11 2006, 19:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Aug 11 2006, 19:48
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



Do you think Gogo should be tested? Also, what about anchors?


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Aug 11 2006, 19:51
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144



QUOTE (jmartis @ Aug 11 2006, 14:47) *
well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3 tongue.gif
iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade. And Shine, maybe. But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory. So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eofor
post Aug 11 2006, 19:54
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-March 06
Member No.: 28803



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Aug 11 2006, 20:48) *
Do you think Gogo should be tested? Also, what about anchors?


To keep it strictly MP3, my suggestion:

Low anchor: ye olde Blade @ 128
High anchor: LAME VBR @ ~192
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Aug 11 2006, 19:56
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



QUOTE
iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade. And Shine, maybe. But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory. So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.


Blade? Come on...

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Aug 11 2006, 19:57


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Aug 11 2006, 19:57
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311



QUOTE (Shade ST @ Aug 11 2006, 20:51) *
QUOTE (jmartis @ Aug 11 2006, 14:47) *
well, then maybe gogo (and maybe also xing) could be also included if we are to test something as crappy as itunes mp3 tongue.gif
iTunes updated their mp3 encoder lately... If you want to include something interesting, I would pick Blade. And Shine, maybe. But I'd really like Blade to be in there.
Lame and Xing (new - realplayer) are mandatory. So is FHG (WMP 10). So is iTunes.

again I forgot that the Helix is Xing successor rolleyes.gif (by Xing I meant the "new" xing without short blocks)

I vote for Blade too (low anchor) blink.gif

J.M.

(edit- how many times I forget to fix the quote name mad.gif )

This post has been edited by jmartis: Aug 11 2006, 19:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Aug 11 2006, 19:58
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 3629
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613



As low anchor it's OK, but not as contender. Decide between Blade and Shine. I would go with Shine.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Aug 11 2006, 20:29
Post #22


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Why not Windows Media Player mp3 encoder ? It should be a very common one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmartis
post Aug 11 2006, 20:33
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Aug 11 2006, 21:29) *
Why not Windows Media Player mp3 encoder ? It should be a very common one.

It is a FHG one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shade[ST]
post Aug 11 2006, 20:35
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144



QUOTE (Sebastian Mares @ Aug 11 2006, 14:58) *
As low anchor it's OK, but not as contender. Decide between Blade and Shine. I would go with Shine.

I want Blade! I want to hear what I encoded to, "way back when" tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gameplaya15143
post Aug 11 2006, 20:39
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 8-January 06
From: Earth
Member No.: 26978



Blade for low anchor would be good. It got used a lot in the past.

I'd like to see xing 1.5 and lame 3.90.3/3.93.1 in the test.
I wouldn't complain if l3codecp.acm 1.2 was included too smile.gif


--------------------
Vorbis-q0-lowpass99
lame3.93.1-q5-V9-k-nspsytune
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

14 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 23rd July 2014 - 17:33