Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Newer comparison page (Read 2282 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newer comparison page

http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.heijli...ompression.html

I really like the way this comparison was done, however, the copyright on the bottom of the page is 2003.  I've seen a few other sites that are also quite dated, like http://www.rjamorim.com/test/.

Does anyone know of a site that have more recent comparisons, using the latest and greatest encoders (i.e. current versions of QT and LAME)?

Thanks!

Newer comparison page

Reply #1
I call troll. Do not feed.

Edit: Ok, sorry, maybe not completely troll. On first read I thought the author was using solely the "original-minus-encoded subtraction" to determine quality. It seems that he only does that to find possible artifact spots.

But still, the comparison isn't too objective. There is no more blinding than just the "shuffle" function on his iPod. And claims such as
Quote
The 320 kbit/sec (file size 1.6MB for 42 seconds) is almost the same as the AIFF. The AIFF seems to sound a fraction more 'peacefull' and 'thin'. The AAC has a bit of 'grain' over the file... Although is some cases MP3 might sound a bit "warmer", it misses the accuracy as provided by AAC.

sound a bit placeboed to me, even though he describes older encoders.