Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topic
Newer comparison page, Found this great review...but it's old
post Mar 24 2005, 05:08
Post #1

Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 130
Joined: 24-March 05
Member No.: 20884


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)?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 24 2005, 06:06
Post #2

Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 15-November 04
From: 34.0N, 117.9W
Member No.: 18141

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
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.

This post has been edited by znode: Mar 24 2005, 06:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th November 2015 - 15:15