[Mp4-tech] public AAC at 128kbps listening test open

[bond]

forwarding the reply of Robert Amorim:
> A bigger problem might be the lack of a low-quality anchor, so the  
> differences and rankings between the competitors could be exaggerated  
> again which would not give a "real life" perspective compared to MP3  
> codecs for example. But all this is speculation and might come out  
> completely different in the end.

About MP3: Lame has already been tested against the best AAC encoder 
at the time, and it lost (128kbps extension test). It'll be tested
again in the next 128kbps multiformat test, and I expect it to be worse
then AAC again. I guess that gives a good perspective that MP3 is,
indeed, inferior to MP4.
About rankings exaggerated: I also believed in that, but I realized
that it isn't that important after the MP3 test I conduced. The 
supposed anchor (Xing) performed very well indeed, and that didn't 
make the test any less useful.
Besides, the ranking labels are already laid out at the ABC/HR app,
ranging from Imperceptible to Very annoying. That gives some safety
that the test participants won't rank a codec too low because the
others are too high. I expect them to use common sense when ranking.
Regards;
Roberto.