Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogenaudio AAC Listening Test Results
caffeine_monkey writes "Hydrogenaudio's AAC public listening test, previously posted on Slashdot, is now over and the results are in. The test compared five codecs at 128 kbps, including Psytel, Nero, Sorenson Squeeze, QuickTime, and FAAC. The winner? 'QuickTime is a clear winner, performing much better than the competition. Sorenson Squeeze, Psytel AACenc and Nero are tied, with Sorenson slightly higher than the others. Faac is clearly the worst.'"
Because comparing apples to oranges is never a bright idea. The comparison is between AAC codecs not a few AAC codecs vs WMA.
Do not confuse FAAC and FLAC (the lossless audio format from Xiph).
Btw, why does this test compare only proprietary formats and not free (as speech) formats like Ogg Vorbis or FLAC ?
Hey! I resemble that remark! Well, not really; but as someone who works with pro audio, I must say that most self-professed "audiophiles" are indeed full of it. [Oh, and by the way, if the cables really make a difference you need to A) get out more, and B) switch to XLR balanced analog or AES/EBU digital connections.]
Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
Actually I do not agree with you at all. Comparing different encoders for a certain format is a complete test. In this particular case, the goal was to find out which AAC encoder is the best. The results answered that question.
As an Open-Source (and open standards) advocate it is easy to look at such a test and say "but Ogg/MP3/whatever is better anyways, they should have included them". Actually saying so leads nowhere at all.
If you want a comparison between Ogg, AAC, WMA and MP3, then do such a comparison. But this was not a test to find our which format/algorithm was the best, it was a test to find out which AAC encoder was the best, which is also what the test answered.
Not every test in the world should always include all and every variant of the test subject in question. Just because you're comparing the quality of carrots from different farmers, you shouldn't automatically be expected to include potatoes in the comparison just because there are people that prefer potatoes over carrots. If the test question was "which is the best vegetable", then omitting potatoes could be considered careless.
And, in very much the same way, if the test question is "which is the best AAC encoder", including MP3-or Ogg-encoders would be just as wrong.
That's my view, at least.
/Viktor...
About half that stuff makes sense to me. Many of the things you wrote seem reasonable and valid - I don't see what you are making fun of. For example, many pre-amps (not mine) change character during loud transients. Opera singers seem to jump out at you when they hit the really high/loud notes. A lot of the quoted statements make perfect sense - it is just that they are having trouble explaining their experience, and you are taking the quotes out of context to make them look stupid. Slashdot is not capible of discussing high end audio - stick to your MP3 players and surround sound computer speakers.
And to further your argument, if the question is 'which is the best sounding format, aac, ogg, or mp3?' then this test is a prerequsite. To compare the formats, one must pick an encoder to encode the samples. The only fair way to do this is to use the best encoder from each group. This test shows that it would be unfair to use faac, for example, to encode the AAC samples.
So, the self-righteous open-standards advocates (no denegration intended) ought to be organizing a test just like this article talks about for ogg and mp3 if there's not a suitable prior study.
Only then can they properly organize the audio-format bake-off.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)