AfterDawn: News

Public AAC listening test: The results

Recently the RareWares published an open AAC / MP4 audio encoder listening test and now the results are ready for you to review.

The encoders and parameters tested were:

Psytel AACenc 2.15 -br 128

Ahead/Nero 5.5.10.35 128kbps CBR, high quality

Sorenson Squeeze 3.5 (FhG Pro) 128kbps

Apple QuickTime 6.3 (Dolby) 128kbps high quality

FAAC 1.17b -a 64 (64kbps/channel)

What we can learn from the results is that the Apple QuickTime encoder, which is of higher quality than the codec used in iTunes, is the best of the pack. It is also quite clear that the free FAAC encoder still needs some work. The rest of the participants were quite even, which is partially suprising as Nero AAC is actually an updated version of the PsyTEL. One must also take into account that the test was conducted with 128kbps CBR (Constant BitRate) settings and the more efficient VBR (Variable BitRate) modes were not used.



Read the full test results and some commentary at RareWares.

Written by: Lasse Penttinen @ 16 Jun 2003 12:37

• Previous article

• Digital audio player market to boom

• Next article

• Sony launches music downloads in the UK

• 3 comments

• rjamorim

  Would just like to inform anyone interested that I'm scheduling a test to start in about a month, comparing the AAC winner (QuickTime) versus Vorbis, Lame, Musepack and WMA.
  
  If you plan to help out and participate, check out this page every now and then, the test will be announced there:
  http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/test/
  
  Thanks for announcing this, CD-rw.
  
  Regards;
  
  Roberto.

  16.6.2003 12:47 #1

• westgrveg

  What about testing bit-rates of 256-320kbps for archiving?
  
  

  BiAtcH 5.0

  17.6.2003 01:09 #2

• rjamorim

  Testing these bitrates would be very hard. Even if I used only problem samples, most people would come up with all samples ranked transparent, and therefore the results wouldn't be significative.
  
  Only "golden ears" with really pro gear would be able to pick up differences, and yet you probably wouldn't see codecs ranking too low.
  
  Hope that clarified. :)
  
  Regards;
  
  Roberto.

  17.6.2003 06:52 #3