View Single Post
Old 20 January 2007, 04:27 pm   #14
Shy
Admin
 
Shy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 372
Default

I too find the results interesting, because it's very interesting how such ratings and recommendations are concluded even though the very rules set for how to conclude them completely contradict.

You seem to have missed the entire discussion in this thread, because as I said it's not 192kbps segments that usually exhibit artifacts, but much higher bitrate ones and not the continuous, avarage bitrate ones. The content in that test is easy to encode and doesn't represent any known problematic characteristics.

In case you haven't noticed, the more people testing a codec in that test, the higher score it gets, even if it doesn't mean anything. Unsurprisingly, not as many people tested MPC, but of course the error margin was also much lower than that of AAC.

Feel free to do so if you want to doubt the quality of a codec because someone has nothing better to do than first say it's impossible to hear artifacts if X codec gets a rating of above 5.0, and then rates and even unrecommends a codec that got the same results as the other codecs that got "rated" based on nothing.

It's in fact pretty funny to see how all that's important to such experts is having their little expert tests to wave in front of people who don't know too much, and not quality or any proper methodology that could be used to actually achieve something that isn't a load of nonsense.
Shy is offline   Reply With Quote