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.'"

Comments

QuickTime codec

[MacGod]

Would I be correct in assuming that it is the QuickTime codec that is used in iTunes? I can't imagine Apple would go to the trouble of writing two different codecs.

Interesting results

[thatguywhoiam]

I'm a little confused as to why the article just references 'QuickTime' when really we're talking about only one codex out of the (what, 200?) media types QT understands.

What I'm curious about is, there was some discussion before about the differences between the original AAC encoder that came with QT, and the newer one that now ships with QT 6.3 (and ties to iTunes). The original encoder was said to have sucked. This one, if I'm reading this right, is now very good...?

Anyways, I must have lead ears. I used to rip my MP3s at 160kbps, now I do 160kbit AACs, and cannot really tell the difference. AAC seems a tiny bit better maybe but could be a placebo effect.

Re:Interesting results

[Winterblink]

"Anyways, I must have lead ears. I used to rip my MP3s at 160kbps, now I do 160kbit AACs, and cannot really tell the difference. AAC seems a tiny bit better maybe but could be a placebo effect"

Heh, I hear ya. (pun alert!) In my experience, two major factors affect your being able to discern quality differences between audio codecs: environment, and equipment. Listen to the stuff on a crummy pair of computer speakers and you'll hardly be able to tell the differences between bitrates, much less formats. Listening in a room with ten computers with their fans whining away doesn't help either. Myself personally, if I'm listening for differences between formats I'll put on a decent pair of headphones, and close my eyes while listening. But that works for me. :) Others are different, and that's the trick with encoding-- music registers quite differently with everyone.

I also like to use music I've listened to for YEARS. If I take a song that I've listened to a zillion times in the past and run it through various codecs it's much easier to tell if the song sounds "right", to me. :) If you recognize every note being played it's easier to tell if an encoder's stripping some bits out that wreck the harmonics more than another one does. But that's just me!

I think you're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

" Its pretty widely known that WMA offers superior quality"

Actually, the tests that show this were at the 64kbs range which is not useful except for voice. The break-even point is 128, and above that sampling rate, virtually everything (including MP3) is superior to WMA.

So I guess if you want a good voice-streaming codec, WMA is your codec. But for music, it isn't very good.

But perhaps you're a person who primarily listens to books on tape or something like that?

Re:Things I've heard from Audiophiles...

[BlightThePower]

I'd like to see some psychophysical analyses of these things. Failing that, see what blind test/retest data are like. I do a get a bit puzzled when audiophiles claim to be able hear differences between things outside the ability of people tested with very high level equipment in laboratory conditions to discern or discriminate between. I'm not saying they are necessarily lying or imagining things, but on the other hand at the present time some (not all) claims made by audiophiles are akin to those made by people claiming to be psychic.