K
knutinh
Gjest
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-48-1/results.htm
These are the summary results of the Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 48 kbps.
User comments are available here. If your packing utility supports RAR archives, you can also download a signed, locked and solid RAR file containing all results for all samples.
Encryption key can be downloaded from here.
How to interprete the plots: Each plot is drawn with six codecs on the X axis and the rating given (1.0 to 5.0) on the Y axis. The number of listeners used to compute the means (average ratings) and 95% confidence intervals are given on each plot. The mean rating given to each codec is indicated by the middle point of each vertical line segment and the value is printed next to it. Each vertical line segment represents the 95% confidence interval (using ANOVA analysis) for each codec.
This analysis is identical to the one used in Roberto Amorim's listening tests.
One codec can be said to be better than another with 95% confidence if the bottom of its segment is at or above the top of the competing codec's line segment. For example, in the Locomotive_Breath plot below, WMA Professional 10 is rated better than WMA Standard 9.2 with 95% confidence.
Important note: These plots represent group preferences (for the particular group of people who participated in the test). Individual preferences vary somewhat. The best codec for a person is dependent on his own preferences and the type of music he prefers.
....
Overall rating: The results for each sample were grouped together without modifications.
Then I performed an ANOVA analysis. The results are graphed below.
The high anchor iTunes LC-AAC at 96 kbps is first, Nero follows on #2, Vorbis and WMA Professional are tied on #3, WMA Standard is on #4 and the low anchor iTunes LC-AAC at 48 kbps loses.
I think this test shows that with modern encoders, the quality at 48 kbps is acceptable and should be good enough for Internet streaming or portable use with cell phones for example. It's also interesting to see that WMA Professional perfomed quite well although it was the only contender that used CBR.
These are the summary results of the Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 48 kbps.
User comments are available here. If your packing utility supports RAR archives, you can also download a signed, locked and solid RAR file containing all results for all samples.
Encryption key can be downloaded from here.
How to interprete the plots: Each plot is drawn with six codecs on the X axis and the rating given (1.0 to 5.0) on the Y axis. The number of listeners used to compute the means (average ratings) and 95% confidence intervals are given on each plot. The mean rating given to each codec is indicated by the middle point of each vertical line segment and the value is printed next to it. Each vertical line segment represents the 95% confidence interval (using ANOVA analysis) for each codec.
This analysis is identical to the one used in Roberto Amorim's listening tests.
One codec can be said to be better than another with 95% confidence if the bottom of its segment is at or above the top of the competing codec's line segment. For example, in the Locomotive_Breath plot below, WMA Professional 10 is rated better than WMA Standard 9.2 with 95% confidence.
Important note: These plots represent group preferences (for the particular group of people who participated in the test). Individual preferences vary somewhat. The best codec for a person is dependent on his own preferences and the type of music he prefers.
....
Overall rating: The results for each sample were grouped together without modifications.
Then I performed an ANOVA analysis. The results are graphed below.
The high anchor iTunes LC-AAC at 96 kbps is first, Nero follows on #2, Vorbis and WMA Professional are tied on #3, WMA Standard is on #4 and the low anchor iTunes LC-AAC at 48 kbps loses.
I think this test shows that with modern encoders, the quality at 48 kbps is acceptable and should be good enough for Internet streaming or portable use with cell phones for example. It's also interesting to see that WMA Professional perfomed quite well although it was the only contender that used CBR.