Autumn 2006 Listening Test
Reply #93 – 2006-08-15 22:55:24
My interest for a MP3-listening-test-only is not very high, but my interest for a MP3 test using CBR or ABR is really low. I'd personally focus on VBR performance of various MP3 encoders. List of possible contenders allowing VBR: - LAME - Helix - Fraunhofer Fastenc - iTunes - gogo It's not really surprising but these encoders are also the most interesting MP3 encoders available. I don't really see the point of testing them at an unefficient setting. If we force LAME to use ABR/CBR then we should logically force all other competitors to use the same kind of setting (otherwise the test will look as a very dubious one). If I had to perform myself such test (as a personal exercise), I would: 1/ select all encoders mentioned above 2/ build a bitrate table to see if they all offer a setting close to 128 kbps and of course which one may work [three encoders are finely tunable then it shouldn't be a problem; LAME has -V5 which correspong to ~130 kbps; iTunes is maybe harder to include for this reason] 3/ think about the samples 4/ think about anchors I would try to avoid VBR/CBR confrontation (and as I said, I don't consider a CBR-only test as a useful solution). I'd tend to forget the idea of making a "popular encoders" listening test for that reason (assuming that one at least would be CBR only, like WMP encoder IIRC). It's just my personal point of view on this subject.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder, one encoding for all scenarios WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz