View Single Post
Old 13 April 2006, 01:58 pm   #2
Shy
Admin
 
Shy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 372
Default

1. In the words of Frank Klemm, "1.14 is uninteresting" and it's not as good as 1.15 versions as far as overall as well as low bitrate quality goes.

2. Graphs, those are often uninteresting as well since most people don't even know how to interprate them. Roberto himself got fed up with people's misinterpretations of his 128kbps tests' graphs, where Musepack never went below 1st place. "4.7" or "4.5", the difference is meaningless according to the ANOVA analysis method used, and people don't, and sometimes "won't" understand it.

3. 128kbps, as I've mentioned before, is a senseless and ridiculous bitrate to consider an anchor by which to measure quality of audio codecs. The reason I and anyone concerned with the actual quality of a codec would say so, is that in the range of 128kbps, no codec comes near being transparent on avarage. It generally provides low sound quality, which is not what we're after.
The year is 2006 and still people insist on staying in the buttom of the ocean, tied to an anchor that should never have even been created. It's mainly Fraunhofer's and MPEG's fault, ever since they decided to go with the MP3 format, on which their focus was intentionally and knowingly on low, non transparent bitrates.

The "crowds" are not who we're concerned with. If most people care to focus on low quality sound, good for them, but Musepack's main focus is on high quality, and high quality means transparent quality. Obviously, Musepack also focuses on good quality for non transparent audio, which anyone can test for themselves, and as has been shown in too many public tests.

Today, with Musepack, Vorbis, AAC, the avarage bitrate range to consider a true transparency balance should be around 225-245kbps, and for providing high, mostly transparent quality, around 180-200kbps. Of course, the success of each codec varies at those bitrates with various audio content. Musepack's success is great, whereas others may have similar or less success, but I'm saying what the anchors should be.

You would find that it's hard to get any mention from other codecs' people on what they consider high or transparent quality bitrates for their codecs. This is a rough estimate of ours.
Shy is offline