Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Media Music The Internet News Science Technology

Public AAC Listening Test @ ~96 Kbps [July 2011]. 277

The folks at the Hydrogen Audio Forums have for years been benefiting the world with their patience, technical skills, and hyper-focus on sound quality, by comparing the real-world sound of various codecs and bit-rates for audio encoding. Under the scope for the latest public listening test (slated to run until July 27) are the following AAC encoders: Nero 1.5.4; Apple QuickTime 7.6.9 true VBR; Apple QuickTime 7.6.9 constrained VBR; Fraunhofer (Winamp 5.62); Coding Technologies (Winamp 5.61); and ffmpeg's AAC (low anchor).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public AAC Listening Test @ ~96 Kbps [July 2011].

Comments Filter:
  • Re:FLAC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maeka ( 518272 ) on Sunday July 24, 2011 @06:27PM (#36866012) Journal

    The difference between AAC/MP3 and FLAC (and CD player *) my hi-fi allows to hear quite clearly.

    If you really can easily distinguish well-encoded AAC or MP3 from FLAC you should lend us at HA your golden ears!

    I rather strongly suspect once subjected to rigorous double-blinding you might not come back speaking so boldly.

  • by Skarecrow77 ( 1714214 ) on Sunday July 24, 2011 @07:42PM (#36866580)

    in my experience, the equipment attached to your skull is more important than the equipment you purchased.

    I've seen people with complete CRAP gear ABX at higher bitrates than I can, and I've got a pretty stout rig.

  • by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Sunday July 24, 2011 @08:46PM (#36866920)

    Rather than typical net snobbery against lossy encoders, the self proclaimed golden ears should really help out, they are the ones that can spot encodes a mile away, they should be able help find really good/bad encodes here.

    I found myself humbled when I attempted to help out before. I had a hard time distinguishing anything but the poor encode used as control.

    Really guys this is a chance to help out, or recalibrate your preconceptions about how good/bad modern encoders are.

    Or would you rather just keep up with the unjustified snobbery?

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...