Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2nd Multi-Format 128kbps Public Listening Test

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the music-to-one's-ears dept.

technology is sexy writes "Roberto Amorim has launched his latest public listening test evaluating the performance of different audio codecs at 128kbps, among them Apple's AAC implementation (used in iTunes), LAME, Ogg Vorbis fork auTuV, WMA, Musepack and even Sony's Atrac3 format, which is soon to be used in their own music store. Read more on Hydrogenaudio and check out the results of prior tests. As opposed to most evaluations of audio codecs, this is a scientific test adhering to ITU-R BS.1116-1 as much as possible while still allowing everybody to participate."

13 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Listening test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never heard of it.

  2. Ogg! by gekkotron · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ogg, ogg ogg. Ogg oggity ogg ogg!

    Now that that's out of the way, let the insightful comments begin.

    1. Re:Ogg! by gekkotron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Vorbis vorbis vorbis!

      Nope, it just doesn't have the same ring to it.
      Plus, vorbisty just doesn't work.

    2. Re:Ogg! by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wish there was a filter that scored any post with the words "You're new here, aren't you?" -5 stupid joke.

      I, for one, would welcome our new filter overlords.

    3. Re:Ogg! by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Funny

      Badger badger badger!

      Now that has a ring to it!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Ogg! by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're not doing it right. Try this:

      Vorb-Vorb Vorbbity Vorb Vorb.
      Bissy Bis... ba bis bis bis.
      Vorbbity Vorbbity va va vorb. bissity bis.

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
  3. Re:Objective audio analysis by k-zed · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..because your hearing doesn't work like that. the sound quality perceived can't be easily told from frequency graphs and so on (ever heard of the PWB effect?)

    --
    we discovered a new way to think.
  4. Re:How about: by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Funny

    FLAC! Flac-a-flac-a-flac!

    Aflac? What does a silly duck have to do with sound compression?

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  5. Re:How about: by iabervon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, a 128kbps FLAC file will probably be inferior, since it is likely to have a low sample rate or few bits per sample.

  6. Re:Objective audio analysis by JTek · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know about you, but I don't listen to my music on a spectrum analyser.

  7. Re:How about: by djtripp · · Score: 2, Funny

    aac aac AAC AAC AAC
    Sorry... i can't translate the Martian tongue... but i don't think it's Indian Love Call by Slim Whitman... encoding that in AAC would cause your computer to blow up, if the actual playing of it hadn't already.

    --
    "This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
  8. Re:you have no clue ... by neurojab · · Score: 2, Funny

    >You can easily convert a 1.5Mbs wav to a 128Kbps .wav.

    >All you have to do is limit the length of the song to .083 seconds!

    good lord. There's TWO of them.

  9. MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Come on, why not?

    Sigh, that's what I get for showing up late, all the other directions were taken.