AAC Put To The Test

technology is sexy writes "Following the increasing popularity of AAC in online music stores and the growing amount of implementations in software and hardware, the format is now being put to the test. How well does Apple's implementation fare against Ahead Nero, Sorenson or the Open Source FAAC at the popular bitrate of 128kbps? Find out for yourself and help by submitting the results. You can find instructions on how to participate here. The best AAC codec gets to face MP3, MP3Pro, Vorbis, MusePack and WMA in the next test. Previous test results at 64kbps can be found here."

Comments

Re:Isn't AAC used for its DRM features?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to live in your own little world, you shouldn't. If you want to use products and services provided by others, you should.

Feel free to continue using whatever codec you like. If you pick an obscure or commercially irrelevant one, however, you should probably just type up a boilerplate and save it somewhere on your computer for convenient posting to Slashdot and elsewhere. Something like this ought to do the trick.

This product and/or service [is lame/is evil/sUx0rs] because it [does not support/does not sufficiently support/does not release the source code that implements their support of] my audio format of choice. Until this product and/or service supports my audio format of choice, I will not buy it. This, of course, spells commercial doom for this vendor.

Feel free to copy that and use it yourself. At least all the words are spelled right and the punctuation is in the right places.

Re:Isn't AAC used for its DRM features?

[Anonymous Coward]

AAC certainly isn't used for it's audio quality. Sucked ass in almost every test.

Apple Store doesn't sell mp3s, you idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get the hint? They sell AAC files.

Re:Isn't AAC used for its DRM features?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is a question about AAC offtopic?

Fucktards.