Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: ekei.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to ekei.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:higher quality music? by DrYak · · Score: 4, Informative · on Microsoft Opens MSN Music Store
    A lot of comparing has been done :
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    Recently found on Slashdot.org :
    Vorbis fork AoTuV scored the highest and ranks as the winner together with open source contender Musepack closely followed by Apple's AAC implementation and LAME MP3, which improved markably since last year thanks to further tunings of its VBR model done by Gabriel Bouvigne. Sony's ATRAC3 format ranks last after WMA on the third place.


    Overall the tests tends to show that :
    • Depending on the bitrate, the best codec isn't the same.
    • Open-Source codecs (Ogg Vorbis and MP3 Lame) did improve a lot over time. for exemple, compare conclusion from oldest studies : "Vorbis isn't mature enough", with latest : "Ogg+AoTuV is the best"
    • WMA plain sucks, it's only advantage is that it comes pre-installed with Windows on the largest part of all PCs.


    So if we trust these studies, we can say :
    YES, you're right.
    160kbps WMA are better than 128kbps WMA, but it's no way better than what you can found on concurrent services at 128kbps.

    Therefore : we can conclude that microsoft's service won't that good, because you get the same quality as everywhere else, only the file will be bigger, and in the end you'll be able to squeeze less musique of the same quality on the memory of your player.
  2. Re:You're kidding, right? by iamhassi · · Score: 1 · on Rio Reveals iPod Mini Slayer
    "WMA support which is, regardless of what Apple maniacs might say, much more useful than proprietary AAC support "

    Let's not forget that AAC is dead: OGG vs. MP3 vs. WMA vs RA
    "Obsolete codecs
    AAC
    We've been reading about AAC from the early 1998's. There is even an ISO comparison which proves (with statistics...) AAC's superiority to MP3. However, we have not found a single implementation that did not produce serious amounts of distortion in our testing sample. Nobody seems interested any longer."

    Not to mention they said 96 kbps WMA is CD quality (5 out of 5).

  3. Ogg support please... by Slashdot+Admin · · Score: -1, Troll · on Squeezebox MP3 Player Hacked to Play Video
    Maybe if this was ogg Vorbis I would care. I'm not surprised that it isn't, though. ogg needs to start advertising. Nobody is going to give a shit about ogg if computer companies (apple) is distributing aac and their old Napster mp3s don't play on an ogg player. Fact of the matter is that there is a LOT of power behind the MPEG (4, 7, 21) movement.

    Ever since I found out about the OGG file format i've been encoding my music to it. I sensed immediately that I got better sound quality with it - and I was right. http://ekei.com/audio/ has links to various comparisons, and in general the OGG encoder handles the mid range much better than, say, lame mp3. This is great because afaik headphones don't have the greatest highs...

  4. Re:Seriously people....get off it by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 4, Informative · on Microsoft-Sony Plan: A Media-Rights Ploy?

    On a side note, I just realized that windows media 9 kicks ass. If you go to amazon to listen to a song off a cd, listen to it in windows media, then real player. There's no comparison. If you listen to the two side by side then that would be a comparison. If there isn't a comparison then I don't understand what you're trying to do.

    Actually, WMA doesn't kick ass.

    We already have proven that OGG kicks WMA and MP3's ass.

  5. found an OGG vs. MP3 vs. WMA vs. RA comparison by Russellkhan · · Score: 3, Informative · on AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3

    While googling for the name of a magazine I haven't picked up in years in order to refer to it in my previous posting, I ran into this comaprison of OGG vs. MP3 vs. WMA vs. RA. I thought it seemed relevant an might be interesting to some of you guys.

  6. Re:Ogg Vorbis support? by MoceanWorker · · Score: 1, Flamebait · on New MP3 Portables

    Please bear with me on this

    Ogg Vorbis is not the greatest thing known to man.. let's face it.. and NO I AM NOT TROLLING...

    Linux Zealots LOVE Ogg.. why? Because of the licensing.. not the compression rate..

    Ogg's compression rate/size is not even a case for a competition against MP3.. against WMA for that case..

    Here's the proof.. and I know i'm going to get modded down, but folks.. MP3 is the mainstream.. your typical Joe Shmoe will have no clue what the hell you're talking about when you say Ogg Vorbis.. for all he/she will think.. it's some foreign film or something..

  7. MPEGplus by weeeeeww · · Score: 4, Informative · on What Sounds Better, MP3 or Ogg?
    You should look into alternatives to those two. MPEGplus (*.mpc; *.mp+) is a variable bit rate (VBR) codec that gives much higher sound quality than MP3 at equivalent bit rates. I used it in conjunction with Exact Audio Copy (EAC - the *best* CD ripping software out there), and was quite pleased with the results. Supposedly, if you use the "-insane" parameter on the encoder, it's completely indistinguishable from the original, with average bit rate of around 230 kbps. I didn't test this, but here is a link to a simple comparison, and here is a more detailed one. MPEGplus' homepage has a pretty detailed description of how it works. Unfortunately it doesn't sound very good at low bit rates (but at 170 kpbs it sounds better than high (192-256+ kbps) bit rate MP3s), but hey, what's that 100 GB drive for?

    Of course, with a drive that size, you could go all-out and use Monkey's Audio, lossless audio compression (you can decode to get *exactly* the same WAV file that was encoded. Compression ratio of only 2:1 or so, but again...what's the 100 GB drive for?!! Get on Google and search around for some comparisons, and make an educated choice.