Comment Re:What's the point? (Score 1) 277
They (at hydrogenaudio.org) have previously done AAC codec tests at 64 and 128 kb/s, so this time 96 was chosen. Conducting what they condiser to be a proper and worthwhile test takes a lot of time and effort, on the part of both the talented people who administer the tests, as well as the pool of able and willing test subjects. So these tests are not done very frequently. Expected changes in quality due to codec development is also a factor. So tests at certain bitrates are not repeated until it is deemed worthwhile.
Why don't they test 160, 192, or 256 kb/s? At bit rates above 128 kb/s, the number of willing volunteers drops greatly. Why? The number of people able to produce meaningful test results drops greatly. Why? ....
I'll leave the question of whether this speaks to the quality of lossy encoders, or the potential flaws in the test methodology, to other threads in the discussion.
Why don't they test 160, 192, or 256 kb/s? At bit rates above 128 kb/s, the number of willing volunteers drops greatly. Why? The number of people able to produce meaningful test results drops greatly. Why?
I'll leave the question of whether this speaks to the quality of lossy encoders, or the potential flaws in the test methodology, to other threads in the discussion.
