Slashdot Mirror


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."

13 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. i prefer just to steal the music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    this makes the format rather irrelevant.

  2. aahh... AAC sux, anyway... by Corporate+Drone · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... especially if they allow Miami, BC, and Syracuse in...

    --
    mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
  3. DVDA by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I prefer DVDA.

    What hyphen?

    graspee

  4. Re:crap in, crap out by jpt.d · · Score: 5, Funny

    256khz mp3? That is amazing, I only ever use 44khz

    --
    What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
  5. Pfffft... by Squirrel+of+Doom · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the Billy and the Boingers' "U Stink But I Luv U" encoding test, the OOP-AAC compression scheme won by a wide margin.

  6. Re:WTFDAACM ? by stagmeister · · Score: 2, Funny

    THANK YOU for linking to e2!

    Now for the next hour - or maybe the next few - I will waste my time going to pages such as this.

    Once again, thanks!

    --Jason

    --
    http://www.virtualvillagesquare.com/ Online Communities: The Next Generation
  7. Ogg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I'm not using AAC until it supports Ogg.

  8. Apple vs. punk rock ethic by switcha · · Score: 5, Funny
    for a company who sold one of their first computers for $666 dollars, I'd imagine some of the bands are very disappointed in them using such a good codec.

    I mean, damn them! Nirvana didn't pay $606.17 to record Bleach so that some Corporate Asswipe could make a high fidelty copy of it!

    The Ramones would be very peeved to find all the work they put into keeping most songs to three, dingy, distorted chords, ripped to a high fidelty format.

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  9. Law & Order by xihr · · Score: 3, Funny

    The African American Congress? Okay, okay, I'll be the first to admit I watch too much Law & Order.

  10. Re:crap in, crap out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    oh shit.. patent that quick.. i see a new form of copy protection brewing..

  11. Re:crap in, crap out by nattt · · Score: 2, Funny

    The fact is, that CD ripping works fine, and has done for many years. You can rip the same bit twice if you want and compare bit for bit to see that each rip is the same. CD Paranoia is just the word for it. For all their technical voodoo, they sound like they're talking bollacks. CD ripping is a perfectly mature technology that works well.

    --
    -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
  12. Re:My own test by evilviper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since you said it, it must be true...

    I did my own test a while back. My results were:

    1. Phonograph
    2. DVD
    3. Reel-to-reel
    4. CD
    5. SACD

    Yes, I'm joking, but mod me up too... I post at +2, and have a good list of fans (unlike the parent), so I must be right...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  13. Re:crap in, crap out by nattt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Strange - ever since I got a CD-ROM drive for my Mac IICX, I've never had a problem getting decent audio files off a CD. Perhaps the problems are a PC phenonema?

    --
    -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc