Audio Format Listening Tests Concluded

Pointing to the conclusions of this listening study, nullity writes: "The results are interesting, and show a high variation in the performance of the various codecs on different musical styles. Ogg seems to work well on dance music, WMA8 on chamber music, etc."

Comments

Who cares about 64 kbps tests?

[splorf]

These tests are all at 64 kbps and most people use much higher bitrates for real music. I'd like to see comparisons at 128k bits minimum, and preferably 160k or 192k, which is what most quality mp3's are at, for direct comparison.

Re:Who cares about 64 kbps tests?

[keller]

People who wnat to stream audio of course! .K

Re:Who cares about 64 kbps tests?

[flipflapflopflup]

> Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

I thought your sig was part of your comment, and was going to agree entirely. 64 kbps tests are pointless because no-ones uses those rates, and at higher rates the differences become negligable.

At the kind of bit rates that real people actually use (160, 192, and up), it takes a real pro/audiophile/picky git to tell the difference. Which makes the whole thing seem a bit pointless really.

Chances are then, it's not going to be audio quality that makes or breaks these standards. Look at betamax...

Re:Who cares about 64 kbps tests?

[nagora]

64Kbps is where the flaws of a codec are truely exposed.

Running your car over a cliff is where the flaws in its safety system are truely exposed but I don't tend to drive over cliffs much.

However, if the difference between sounding 'good' and sounding 'accurate' mean little to you, as someone who'd make an argument of 64Kbps tests being worthless would, then you really aren't the intended audiance of such tests.

What do you mean by this? 64Kbits is worthless for listening to any music I own while 128 is good enough to not actually annoy me much of the time so why should I be interested in these tests? Are you saying that the intended audience for these tests are people that are not interested in the quality of the music they're listening to?

TWW

Re:Who cares about 64 kbps tests?

[gleam]

You don't often intentionally hurl your car at 45 miles an hour into a steel box, either, but insurance companies do it all the time to see how well a particular car stands up to the abuse.

Even if you don't knowingly take the insurance institute's results (or federal crash-test ratings) into account, the company selling you insurance does, and your premiums will be higher.

To say "just because i'll never do something this way it has no merit" is silly. Performance in a 45-mile-per-hour offset crash will tell a car company how well it would stand to you accidentally bumping into the corner of your garage, or into the bumper of another car.

Tests like this are important because they're indicative of performance at all bitrates. If you want to know WHICH codec will sound the best at 128kbit, you should look at which codec sounds the best at 64kbit--the two are likely to be the same.

There are two intended audiences for this test: 1) people trying to decide which audio format to use for a stream (which are very often in the 32-64kbit range)

and

2) people who realize these tests can tell us much more than simply which codec performs best at 64kbit, and want to know how to maximize the quality-to-diskspace ratio on their own encodings.

Hope this clears something up for you.

-gleam

Test compares codecs, not formats

[benwaggoner]

This is an interesting and relatively well done test (although it appears that the listeners knew which format they were listening to, so it wasn't truly double-blind, and a anti-MS and pro-Ogg bias can't be ruled out).

However, some discussions seem to be focusing on this saying AAC is bad or WMA is bad, when really it refers to the particular implementations in codecs of those formats.

For example, the Apple MPEG-4 AAC-LC encoder was used for AAC. This is a Low Complexity version of the format. Also, the Apple encoder has a strange limitation where it automatically converts 44.1 stereo to 32 stereo at that data rate. This isn't required by the AAC format. Other AAC encoders yield MUCH better results, and beat MP3 Pro in double-blind testing. I haven't seen any double-blind comparisons between AAC and Ogg.

Also, the WMA8 encoder is due to be replaced by the backwards-compatible WMA9 in early September. Of course, there may well be improved versions of the other encoders by then as well.