Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Audio Format Listening Tests Concluded

Posted by timothy on from the good-time-to-bet-on-ogg dept.

Pointing to the conclusions of this listening study, nullity writes: "The results are interesting, and show a high variation in the performance of the various codecs on different musical styles. Ogg seems to work well on dance music, WMA8 on chamber music, etc."

9 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. WMA8 by af_robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ogg seems to work well on dance music, WMA8 on chamber music, etc.

    Like requiem...

    1. Re:WMA8 by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ogg seems to work well on dance music, WMA8 on chamber music , etc.

      This might explain why I only think of WMA as being good enough for recording the sounds that I hear while sitting my "chamber" on my "throne".

      (no offence to those sounds intended).

      --
      Sigs are bad for your health.
  2. Hmmmm by cca93014 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tests confirmed that attempting to encode "Aphex Twin" with any of these codecs caused the PC to tremble at a frequency that, when connected to a refracting laser stuck up Bill Gates' ass, had it spell out "we're all dead" on the nearest wall.

    --

    Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting

  3. Re:Who cares about 64 kbps tests? by perlyking · · Score: 3, Funny
    64 kbps tests are pointless because no-ones uses those rates, and at higher rates the differences become negligable.
    Not quite true, I used 64kbps wma files for about a week and listening using really shitty earbuds and walking alongside noisy truck filled roads on the way to work I couldnt tell the difference :-) Now I have some decent portable earbuds though (etymotics) you wont catch me using 64k wma (or I suspect any bitrate of wma!).
    --
    no sig.
  4. "LIVE" format is best... by turnstyle · · Score: 2, Funny
    Just worth mentioning that the single best audio format is "LIVE" - it sounds so good, it'll seem that you can reach out and touch the performers (please don't).

    I know that the thread is about compression formats, but hey - go to a bar/club with "LIVE" music, pay $10 at the door, have a drink and a good time.

    Hopefully, the guys playing are getting a percent of the door, and they'll be happy to see you in the audience. Feel that bass!

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  5. Re:Who cares about 64 kbps tests? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Funny
    Everyone is saying 'you would need golden ears to tell the difference' yadda yadda. In my view the whole test is bogus because we don't have figures for the original CD track.

    I would not be at all suprised to see people favor the compressed over the original. The fact is that a lot of so called audiophiles are really pretty ignorant gadget freaks. At university I knew a friend who made money by helping to repackage the components of a bog standard Philips CD player in a pretty box to sell to audiophiles for ten times the price.

    I had a so called audiophile witter on for ages about how this was actually quite rational and how using a more stable motor with reduced wow and flutter dramatically improved the sound. He still does not believe that the quartz crystal controls the sound output rate.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  6. The Cow is Still in the Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    At the spring 1998 National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas, Microsoft had a large booth to promote their new (still in beta, IIRC) wma audio format. They gave out a little promo gizmo which was a miniaturized milk carton. When you tipped it, you would hear the muffled sound of a cow mooing. I still have it and it still works (that, and MS-DOS 6.22 are the most reliable things I ever got from Microsoft).

    Anyway, they had listening booths set up which allowed for blind comparisons of mp3 and wma encoded audio (classical, rock, jazz ...). I tried it and as I stepped out of the booth an excited MS flak asked me what I thought of WMA audio. I told him that it sounded like a cow in a milk carton, watched him try to suppress his consternation and I walked away.

    From time to time I have again tried listening to WMA encoded audio and it continues to sound to me like the cow isn't out of the box. Actually, one of the things that drives me nuts about both MS and Real audio is a high frequency phasing/envelope effect that I hear. To be fair to MS, I really don't think that true quality has ever been their objective; only sufficient quality so that Joe Sixpack will accept it, so that they can move on to the next stage of their total Internet/PC audio domination plan.

  7. Re:Sound Artifacts by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Funny
    "That is because you have crap hearing. Get a very cleanly (over) produced song - I recommend TLC - Unpretty (no, you don't have to like it. [...] If you can't hear this difference having done exactly what I've said then I suggest you are not qualified to ever post a comment to a thread discussing audio quality again."

    And if you log onto kazaa and download the mp3 to and then attempt to do this quality comaprison, you are not qualified to ever post on slashdot again. :P

  8. Re:Didnt read the article yet but.... by Kevin+Mitnick · · Score: 0, Funny

    ...And RAP sounds like shit in all of them