View Single Post
Old 13 April 2006, 02:30 pm   #3
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: in the great wide open
Posts: 11


ad 1.:
Of course, those people, ie. kwanbis, R. Amorim, should know exactly, that the old test contained 1.14, that we have 1.15 for long time,
so there has been developemnt for mpc.
This makes the graph comparison even more invalid.

ad 2.: yes.
Roberto wrote explicitly in that ha topic, that this artificially constructed graph has the purpose to demonstrate in a simplified way, why mpc is inferior to the new ogg, aac....

ad 3.:

well, you and me some others know, that mpc deserves the attention, and know, where transparency starts.

The problem coming for mpc, and I see it already as existant,
those advocates of new aac, ogg, even new lame, they are on a publicity train to write mpc as dead horse, qualitywise!

This started in ignoring mpc in latest 128k test,
(of course, mpc@128 cannot be the goal, though mpc had proven in 2 older 128k tests, that it has top quality even there in comparison with the other contenders),
and now, those guys, who have a leadership of HA's group opinion, use even invalid, unfair, artifically constructed, wrong pseudo-scientific graphs, to "prove", what they are dreaming of, mpc being qualitywise inferior.

I think, if we let above picture slip through, mpc is lost.
I think of qualitywise interested people, who find out about lossy formats, find HA, and will deal with the other formats, not mpc, as "HA" buried mpc.
Buried based on wrong graphs.
The really high quality interested guys will then choose ogg/aac at high bitrates instead of mpc.

I understand fully, that opened these own forums for developemnt and user-support, as the atmosphere at HA (mpc-)-forums was way earlier disturbed by some anti-mpc zealots.

As my native language isn't English and I gave already my reasons in that topic, maybe some more people can write there against the abuse of those graphs.
The most hilarious issue is now the justification of that graph, the 5.0 = transparency level would be enough as comparable anchor (anchor to compare the perfomance of those old and new encoders in old and new tests).
Garf wrote some theory, that it might be possible, to compare those absolute values between independent old and new tests, but it depends on the statistics of course.
IMO, this graph needs to be erased from HA, as the creator kwanbis has not given the maths, with which statistical validity/probability/safety the graphs can be compared.

If we don't attack what happened there, mpc is lost at ha, and then nearly everywhere besides here.
It is format politics what some people over there are doing...
users' guides:
user is offline