AAC 5.1 vs WMV9 Pro 5.1

[Sagittaire]

Sorry SMD ...

Now you're totally messing it up: WMA9 pro doesn't offer the bitrate used in that test. It cannot encode at 64 kbps!

False ...

For this test Windows Media Audio v9 VBR quality 50
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/presentation.html

WMA9 sdt VBR quality 50 and WMA9 pro VBR quality 50 encode with approximately the same bitrate ...

Interessing by Ogg 5.1 q0 ... ?

[Teegedeck]

That's just the presentation page to the test mentioned above.

[Sagittaire]

64kbps public listening test

Ahead/Nero 6.0.0.15 HE AAC VBR profile Streaming :: Medium, high quality
Ogg Vorbis post-1.0 CVS -q 0
MP3pro (from Adobe Audition 1.0) VBR quality 40, Current Codec, allow M/S and IS, allow narrowing, no CRC
Real Audio Gecko (from Real Producer 9.0.1 64kbps
Windows Media Audio v9 VBR quality 50
QuickTime 6.3 AAC LC 64kbps, Best Quality
Lame MP3 encoder 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128 --scale 1. high anchor
FhG MP3 encoder (from Adobe Audition 1.0) 64kbps CBR, Current codec, allow M/S, no I/S, allow narrowing, no CRC. bottom anchor

WMA9 sdt VBR quality 50 and WMA9 pro VBR quality 50 encode with approximately the same bitrate ...

[SeeMoreDigital]

I really do think this thread has run it's course.

Yes, it would seem that a 6Ch 2pass WMA9 VBR encode does sound better than 6Ch 1pass AAC-HE VBR encode.

However, the same can not be said for a 6Ch 1pass WMA9 VBR encode. Where to my ears, the front channel steering is somewhat lost, revealing a clear indication that the WMA9 codec is attempting to spread bits over into other channels when it can't cope!

As we can't currently generate 2pass AAC-HE VBR encodes, it's left to our imaginations how good (or bad) such an encode would sound.

Does anybody else agree?

[bond]

Sagittaire,
you cant draw a conclusion on how an encoder acts @ 128kbps, when looking at the results of 64kbps
+ wma9 pro and wma9 std arent even the same codecs
+ rjamorims listening test clearly showed that wma9 pro and lc-aac @ 128kbps stereo are on par qualitywise, that alone already prooves your claim to be false, no need to talk fud pointing to the 64kbps comparison

but still you insist on spreading false information...
you had your warning, you had your second warning, now its enough

you are the worst zealot i ever saw, you bend the truth whereever possible to push your beloved formats. you spread overall conclusions based only on 1 comparison whereever you can, but still you not only bend the truth, you lie. this statement about wma9 pro being better than lc-aac is the proove, also your first 5.1 samples contained a faked lc-aac encode, with very low quality

maybe this just comes from ignorance, maybe not. maybe you are very smart or very dumb. i dont care anymore, you deserve the time-out
use the time to rethink the way you are posting on doom9
we want people who post in a correct and constructive way, if you are ready for this come back

[KpeX]

Time to sum things up. As mentioned before, no formal tests of surround sound material have ever been performed, and it is likely that such tests will be very difficult for the following reasons:
1) the lack of people that own 5.1 systems
2) the quality of 'average' 5.1 systems will make artifacts hard to discern
3) Movie soundtracks have high speech content, are highly compressible, and usually the focus is on the video portion as well

Also, it should be noted that WMA9, WMA9 Pro, and WMA9 Lossless are three completely different codecs, that are all different on a quality basis, and a decoder that supports one does not necessarily support the others.

Therefore, the most effective way to objectively judge these codecs is to look at the two significant formal tests comparing the different WMA codecs and AAC in 2 channel mode:


http://rjamorim.com/test/128extension/plot12z.png
In this test, WMA9 Pro at 128 kb/s and QuickTime LC-AAC at 128 kb/s are compared, and as you can see there is overlap between their bars, they are tied statistically.


http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/rja/plot12z.png
In the second test, WMA9 std , QuickTime LC AAC, and Nero HE-AAC are compared all at 64 kb/s. As you can see, LC AAC and WMA9 standard ( a different codec than pro) are statistically tied, and HE-AAC clearly beat all 64kb/s competitors.

As this thread will no longer lead to any productive discussion, I will close it now. Follow the FAAC 5.1 LC discussion originated here in this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74708).