Note to the mods - it's really funny that I get modded down for a post that criticises iOS, then get modded down for a post that criticises Android, then get modded down for a post that criticises WP7.
I am not a mod at the moment and I haven't read all your posts, but I would have modded down your post as well.
Not because you criticized iOS (What criticism?) but because you compared iOS Devs/Users to kidnapping victims.
This is both hyperbolic and insulting to the millions of people who use/develop for iOS (I am neither FWIW), even insulting to actual kidnapping victims.
I understand, that some people don't like some companies, but why do they so often resort to insulting the users?
Microsoft demonstrated Office running on ARM at the CES conference in January.
I also don't see anything that states that Windows 8 on ARM will only run Metro apps.
I noted in my post that they demoed this at CES. But they did not demo at Build and the message coming out of Build is that WinARM will only get Metro applications. So again, the silence on an MS Office port needs additional clarification now.
Straight from Steven Sinofsky at Build: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/09/13/windows-8-on-arm/ ARM devices will have to rely on the Metro Style, touch-friendly apps that are largely designed for tablets. “All apps for ARM are going to come through the Store, which means they’re going to be Metro Apps,” he said. x86 versions of the operating system, on the other hand, will run both conventional desktop and Metro Style apps.
Well that should have been obvious. What about the MS Office port to WinARM?
Everyone knows (or should) that the ARM tablets were NEVER going to run native x86 code. The question that Sinofsky still seems to be waffling on is the status of MS Office port for ARM. They showed that at CES, but it's disposition remains unclear.
But his Build comments indicate no x86 ports will be coming to WinARM, and that only Metro programs will be accepted for WinARM. So does that mean only 3rd party ports won't be accepted or does it mean that MS Office port is also dead? This remains unanswered.
If there are no desktop ports coming for WinARM and if MS Office for ARM is also dead, will WinARM even have a desktop mode?? If so why??
I get the impression MS is not being clear on WinARM Office port, and the ARM desktop mode, because they still don't know what they are going to do and want to keep options open. But even there they fail at communications, they could just be direct and say that hasn't been decided instead of being vague.
I think there is a significant chance that Win8ARM may be a pure metro device with no legacy desktop mode at all. This may actually make the most sense for the ARM version, but MS really needs to communicate better on this.
It had everything to do with the ends justify the means right wing politics of Harper.
Read the OP: “In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List (PWL), it would not hamper — and might even help — the (government of Canada's) ability to enact copyright legislation,” the cable says.
Days later, Canada was elevated on the piracy watch list.
Harper has been copying the republican play book throughout his term in politics. Manufacture a crisis that needs the response he wants anyway.
I have generally have disdain for most CEOs who are just in their position from being part of the old boys network.
But Musk seems to be the real deal. Someone with vision, engineering chops, and the business acumen to actually execute on that vision.
Yet he still falls into the trap of feeding the trolls.
Seriously hiccups happen. There could be some regulatory hiccup, the price of aluminum could shoot up... Many things beyond Musks control. Why enrich a thorn in your side. This bet seems childish and ill conceived.
They had undergrads read short stories. And somehow grade how much they enjoyed it.
You don't see problems with that?
As an undergrad taking psych 1000, I had a choice of a writing assignment or participate as a research subject, this is assume where they normally get research subjects.
Show up read these short stories grade how much you like them, here is your course credit.
Do you really think that is generally applicable? What real investment are these subjects making in having an enjoyable entertainment experience in this clinical, read these stories and rate them for credit? It is nonsense.
When I read any book or watch any movie with unfolding story elements, I am totally engrossed. This does NOT happen on subsequent viewings/reading as there is no more mystery. This doesn't just Apply to big twists like in Enders Game, or The Sixth Sense, but most interesting story with unfolding elements being revealed that keeps you turning pages late into the night. That simply doesn't exist if you know everything.
Undergrads reading a few assigned short stories for course credit is certainly NOT the same thing.
I think I read elsewhere the CEO is "stepping down". AKA being fired.
Seriously, didn't this product look like a total failure the moment it was announced. I am sure we had a story on the announcement, and I am sure most of stated: WTF??? This was the most obvious DOA product since the JooJoo.
It is bad enough to launch an obvious stinker but it sounds like they also put so much money behind it as to put the company in jeopardy. Seriously how out of touch and clueless was the CEO.
Want a good way to tell the difference? Use decent in-ear headphones (I have a pair of Shure's)
Those should be a decent choice. But what are you using for amplification? Motherboard speaker output is likely going to be fairly crappy to start with.
I run optical out, to my Denon Receiver and use that for absolutely clean sound.
But even then, when I downloaded the files from top of page and set them up. I could only detect one bad sample per group, and that is in there on purpose just so you know it is working. The rest are so close to my ears that they all sound the same. I think they pretty damn good for 96K encodes.
But I am over 40 and I can't really here above 15KHz so I might be missing some high artifacts.
I have a Sansa clip, but it wouldn't be so great for ABX testing, I prefer my computer for that.
I think I have an OK output chain, I use my computer optical (I have tested and have no Aliasing issues at 48KHz/44.1KHz) out to my Denon Receiver and while cheap I like my Panasonic canal phones for a critical listening test. They seem the best of 5 different headphones of various designs I have here: http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-RP-HJE300-Portable-Headphones-Carrying/dp/B000OKH74S/ref=pd_sim_e_1
But in my case I wouldn't blame equipment, just hearing. I am over 40 and running a hearing frequency test. I top out around 15KHz.
So I am going to miss the subtle high harmonics that would likely be trashed by lossy encoders, or nuances in a symbol crash. I have to rely on artifacts in lower range.
But my comments are aimed at the people who claim to easily hear the difference. Clearly they have (or think they have) the equipment and the hearing to easily detect these differences. Yet these are the same people who all refuse to participate. It is almost like they don't want their bubble bursted.
My participation is useless, but I tried for the heck of it. All I can discern is the low anchor in each set. Everything else pretty much sounds like reference to me.
I'd be curious to see how it appears from any of those with golden gear/ears would deign to bother trying it.
The low anchor encoder is pretty bad, but likewise that is the only one I can detect. Good thing it is there or I wouldn't be sure the test is working. I think all the samples are correct. They are not messing with us.
Chalk it up to some combination of the encoders being that good and our average hearing.
Too bad none of the guys with super hearing were brave enough to give it a shot.
And you're doing... what... to find the answer? Whining on slashdot? That's what's sad. I've already got the answer for my compression needs. Do your own testing and let me know how that came out.
I already did my own ABX testing for my personal needs a few years back and settled into using ~160K VBR.
I also did a casual test of the samples above as well and I am quite impressed at the progress in encoders. 96K AAC is doing quite well.
I am just sad that on slashdot, a place where I expect some respect for scientific method, when people are given the chance to test experimentally how current encoders are working out(and optionally contribute data), they instead resort to baseless assumptions and preconceptions instead of experimentation.
It doesn't matter if it is transparent to a machine. You are simply going by something you read as opposed to actually testing how well it works in practice.
If you want to toss around cute quotes, here is one for you: "In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not."
Absolutely right. I think 96khz data rate is a threshold where you can start hearing degradations. All these people are doing is testing each other's hearing, not the audio files. We know they're flawed.
So you add another unsubstantiated, untested proclamation.
The whole point of this is to find low rate encoders that people can't distinguish.
To determine that, you need people to test it.
Instead all we get are baseless opinions and no testing... sad.
I have no doubt that there are some individual with superior hearing that may have real complaints.
But I don't any of them are the people posting above and dumping on compressed audio, without even bother to try a simple blind test when presented to them.
I just did a casual run through of this test and again only the low end control stood out for me.
These are 96K files. The state of the art has certainly moved on.
Frequency-domain codecs have known artifacts that CANNOT be eliminated. Pre-echo is probably the best-known example. A sample with heavy percussion or other complex impulses (like audience applause) will stand out like a sore thumb...
Have you tried the test or is are you relying on something you read?
I just downloaded the files mentioned in the main post. There are 20 samples I gave them a quick run through inside ABC-HR.
The low mark (I assume) stands out like a sore thumb.
But for the other 5 samples, the seem quite indistinguishable on a casual listen.
There is one sample with a sharp percussive instrument (castenatas?) and really I can't spot the difference.
Rather than typical net snobbery against lossy encoders, the self proclaimed golden ears should really help out, they are the ones that can spot encodes a mile away, they should be able help find really good/bad encodes here.
I found myself humbled when I attempted to help out before. I had a hard time distinguishing anything but the poor encode used as control.
Really guys this is a chance to help out, or recalibrate your preconceptions about how good/bad modern encoders are.
Or would you rather just keep up with the unjustified snobbery?
Someone beat me to it, but it is already in high quality MP3, that sounds perfectly equivalent to me (I did ABX testing) and plays everywhere. I have no need to re-encode because size is already small and again it plays everywhere.
I have no problem if you want Flacs for whatever reason if you are trying to preserve your original disks or something, but there really is no sonic reason not to use MP3.
Though many think they can, until actually blind tested.
I listen mostly classics and jazz. MP3@320kbps sounds different from the FLAC. More I can't tell you. Test wasn't scientific and only partially blind: I accidentally picked from my friend's library a copy of my own CD in MP3 and played it. It sounded differently to what used to hear. Upon checking I found that those were not my FLACs, but my friend's MP3s instead.
Chances are your friend messed up the encode or disc ripping. I have heard a great many terrible MP3 encodes from friends/net etc... I am not sure how some people mess them up, but they do.
Any encodes I have done myself have never had these problems.
Almost no one can hear a difference between loss-less and any of the codecs at high bit rates (256K+).
Though many think they can, until actually blind tested.
If you can reliably tell the difference in proper blind testing, you are likely have better hearing/perception than 99.9999 % of the population.
I think I have great hearing, but when I did some ABX testing, my ability to distinguish drops off completely by 160 K VBR on MP3s and that is in quiet room with quality headphones straining to ID any difference.
I am skeptical of any golden eared claims these days pooh-poohing modern codecs.
While this may be a decent tablet interface, it looks like a poor desktop interface, but it is being pushed for a strategic reason: Market Share.
Despite what some fanboys might think, a funky new interface alone isn't enough for MS to make big inroads into the tablet market. Same applies for WinPhone7, it has similar Tile interface and is floundering.
They need a jumpstart big time.
By forcing the new Tile/Touch interface on every new/upgraded Windows computer, they immediately can leverage their PC monopoly to grow the market share for their Tile/Touch PC interface.
This will give them a market likely 50 to 100 times larger for their Tile/Touch apps to attract a development community, it makes how many tablets the sell almost irrelevant initially. They can likely surpass the installed touch base for iOS/Android in a little over a year. They won't actually have more tablets out there, but they will have a Touch/Time market that big. Solving the Chicken/Egg problem of having the market share to attract developers.
While I think this thing reeks as a desktop interface, I have to give it to them on the strategic side. Brilliant Strategy. Now I understand why they killed WinCE tablets last year when it looked like they were going to follow the industry into lightweight unique tablet OS. Someone came up with a strategy to get them back in the game while maintaining the Windows Everywhere mantra.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFA
Note to the mods - it's really funny that I get modded down for a post that criticises iOS, then get modded down for a post that criticises Android, then get modded down for a post that criticises WP7.
I am not a mod at the moment and I haven't read all your posts, but I would have modded down your post as well.
Not because you criticized iOS (What criticism?) but because you compared iOS Devs/Users to kidnapping victims.
This is both hyperbolic and insulting to the millions of people who use/develop for iOS (I am neither FWIW), even insulting to actual kidnapping victims.
I understand, that some people don't like some companies, but why do they so often resort to insulting the users?
Mod down, well earned IMO.
Microsoft demonstrated Office running on ARM at the CES conference in January.
I also don't see anything that states that Windows 8 on ARM will only run Metro apps.
I noted in my post that they demoed this at CES. But they did not demo at Build and the message coming out of Build is that WinARM will only get Metro applications. So again, the silence on an MS Office port needs additional clarification now.
Straight from Steven Sinofsky at Build:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/09/13/windows-8-on-arm/
ARM devices will have to rely on the Metro Style, touch-friendly apps that are largely designed for tablets. “All apps for ARM are going to come through the Store, which means they’re going to be Metro Apps,” he said. x86 versions of the operating system, on the other hand, will run both conventional desktop and Metro Style apps.
Well that should have been obvious. What about the MS Office port to WinARM?
Everyone knows (or should) that the ARM tablets were NEVER going to run native x86 code. The question that Sinofsky still seems to be waffling on is the status of MS Office port for ARM. They showed that at CES, but it's disposition remains unclear.
But his Build comments indicate no x86 ports will be coming to WinARM, and that only Metro programs will be accepted for WinARM. So does that mean only 3rd party ports won't be accepted or does it mean that MS Office port is also dead? This remains unanswered.
If there are no desktop ports coming for WinARM and if MS Office for ARM is also dead, will WinARM even have a desktop mode?? If so why??
I get the impression MS is not being clear on WinARM Office port, and the ARM desktop mode, because they still don't know what they are going to do and want to keep options open. But even there they fail at communications, they could just be direct and say that hasn't been decided instead of being vague.
I think there is a significant chance that Win8ARM may be a pure metro device with no legacy desktop mode at all. This may actually make the most sense for the ARM version, but MS really needs to communicate better on this.
It had everything to do with the ends justify the means right wing politics of Harper.
Read the OP:
“In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List (PWL), it would not hamper — and might even help — the (government of Canada's) ability to enact copyright legislation,” the cable says.
Days later, Canada was elevated on the piracy watch list.
Harper has been copying the republican play book throughout his term in politics. Manufacture a crisis that needs the response he wants anyway.
I have generally have disdain for most CEOs who are just in their position from being part of the old boys network.
But Musk seems to be the real deal. Someone with vision, engineering chops, and the business acumen to actually execute on that vision.
Yet he still falls into the trap of feeding the trolls.
Seriously hiccups happen. There could be some regulatory hiccup, the price of aluminum could shoot up... Many things beyond Musks control. Why enrich a thorn in your side. This bet seems childish and ill conceived.
WebOS is too tainted to rise again after this. It will likely only making a any return on investment by licensing the patents to Google.
They had undergrads read short stories. And somehow grade how much they enjoyed it.
You don't see problems with that?
As an undergrad taking psych 1000, I had a choice of a writing assignment or participate as a research subject, this is assume where they normally get research subjects.
Show up read these short stories grade how much you like them, here is your course credit.
Do you really think that is generally applicable? What real investment are these subjects making in having an enjoyable entertainment experience in this clinical, read these stories and rate them for credit? It is nonsense.
When I read any book or watch any movie with unfolding story elements, I am totally engrossed. This does NOT happen on subsequent viewings/reading as there is no more mystery. This doesn't just Apply to big twists like in Enders Game, or The Sixth Sense, but most interesting story with unfolding elements being revealed that keeps you turning pages late into the night. That simply doesn't exist if you know everything.
Undergrads reading a few assigned short stories for course credit is certainly NOT the same thing.
I think I read elsewhere the CEO is "stepping down". AKA being fired.
Seriously, didn't this product look like a total failure the moment it was announced. I am sure we had a story on the announcement, and I am sure most of stated: WTF??? This was the most obvious DOA product since the JooJoo.
It is bad enough to launch an obvious stinker but it sounds like they also put so much money behind it as to put the company in jeopardy. Seriously how out of touch and clueless was the CEO.
CEO get 7 figure salaries for what again??
Want a good way to tell the difference? Use decent in-ear headphones (I have a pair of Shure's)
Those should be a decent choice. But what are you using for amplification? Motherboard speaker output is likely going to be fairly crappy to start with.
I run optical out, to my Denon Receiver and use that for absolutely clean sound.
But even then, when I downloaded the files from top of page and set them up. I could only detect one bad sample per group, and that is in there on purpose just so you know it is working. The rest are so close to my ears that they all sound the same. I think they pretty damn good for 96K encodes.
But I am over 40 and I can't really here above 15KHz so I might be missing some high artifacts.
I have a Sansa clip, but it wouldn't be so great for ABX testing, I prefer my computer for that.
I think I have an OK output chain, I use my computer optical (I have tested and have no Aliasing issues at 48KHz/44.1KHz) out to my Denon Receiver and while cheap I like my Panasonic canal phones for a critical listening test. They seem the best of 5 different headphones of various designs I have here:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-RP-HJE300-Portable-Headphones-Carrying/dp/B000OKH74S/ref=pd_sim_e_1
But in my case I wouldn't blame equipment, just hearing. I am over 40 and running a hearing frequency test. I top out around 15KHz.
So I am going to miss the subtle high harmonics that would likely be trashed by lossy encoders, or nuances in a symbol crash. I have to rely on artifacts in lower range.
But my comments are aimed at the people who claim to easily hear the difference. Clearly they have (or think they have) the equipment and the hearing to easily detect these differences. Yet these are the same people who all refuse to participate. It is almost like they don't want their bubble bursted.
My participation is useless, but I tried for the heck of it. All I can discern is the low anchor in each set. Everything else pretty much sounds like reference to me.
I'd be curious to see how it appears from any of those with golden gear/ears would deign to bother trying it.
The low anchor encoder is pretty bad, but likewise that is the only one I can detect. Good thing it is there or I wouldn't be sure the test is working. I think all the samples are correct. They are not messing with us.
Chalk it up to some combination of the encoders being that good and our average hearing.
Too bad none of the guys with super hearing were brave enough to give it a shot.
And you're doing... what... to find the answer? Whining on slashdot? That's what's sad. I've already got the answer for my compression needs. Do your own testing and let me know how that came out.
I already did my own ABX testing for my personal needs a few years back and settled into using ~160K VBR.
I also did a casual test of the samples above as well and I am quite impressed at the progress in encoders. 96K AAC is doing quite well.
I am just sad that on slashdot, a place where I expect some respect for scientific method, when people are given the chance to test experimentally how current encoders are working out(and optionally contribute data), they instead resort to baseless assumptions and preconceptions instead of experimentation.
It doesn't matter if it is transparent to a machine. You are simply going by something you read as opposed to actually testing how well it works in practice.
If you want to toss around cute quotes, here is one for you:
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not."
Absolutely right. I think 96khz data rate is a threshold where you can start hearing degradations. All these people are doing is testing each other's hearing, not the audio files. We know they're flawed.
So you add another unsubstantiated, untested proclamation.
The whole point of this is to find low rate encoders that people can't distinguish.
To determine that, you need people to test it.
Instead all we get are baseless opinions and no testing... sad.
I have no doubt that there are some individual with superior hearing that may have real complaints.
But I don't any of them are the people posting above and dumping on compressed audio, without even bother to try a simple blind test when presented to them.
I just did a casual run through of this test and again only the low end control stood out for me.
These are 96K files. The state of the art has certainly moved on.
This is not true.
Frequency-domain codecs have known artifacts that CANNOT be eliminated. Pre-echo is probably the best-known example. A sample with heavy percussion or other complex impulses (like audience applause) will stand out like a sore thumb...
Have you tried the test or is are you relying on something you read?
I just downloaded the files mentioned in the main post. There are 20 samples I gave them a quick run through inside ABC-HR.
The low mark (I assume) stands out like a sore thumb.
But for the other 5 samples, the seem quite indistinguishable on a casual listen.
There is one sample with a sharp percussive instrument (castenatas?) and really I can't spot the difference.
And these are 96K files!!
The state of the art is improving all the time.
Rather than typical net snobbery against lossy encoders, the self proclaimed golden ears should really help out, they are the ones that can spot encodes a mile away, they should be able help find really good/bad encodes here.
I found myself humbled when I attempted to help out before. I had a hard time distinguishing anything but the poor encode used as control.
Really guys this is a chance to help out, or recalibrate your preconceptions about how good/bad modern encoders are.
Or would you rather just keep up with the unjustified snobbery?
Someone beat me to it, but it is already in high quality MP3, that sounds perfectly equivalent to me (I did ABX testing) and plays everywhere. I have no need to re-encode because size is already small and again it plays everywhere.
I have no problem if you want Flacs for whatever reason if you are trying to preserve your original disks or something, but there really is no sonic reason not to use MP3.
Though many think they can, until actually blind tested.
I listen mostly classics and jazz. MP3@320kbps sounds different from the FLAC. More I can't tell you. Test wasn't scientific and only partially blind: I accidentally picked from my friend's library a copy of my own CD in MP3 and played it. It sounded differently to what used to hear. Upon checking I found that those were not my FLACs, but my friend's MP3s instead.
Chances are your friend messed up the encode or disc ripping. I have heard a great many terrible MP3 encodes from friends/net etc... I am not sure how some people mess them up, but they do.
Any encodes I have done myself have never had these problems.
Almost no one can hear a difference between loss-less and any of the codecs at high bit rates (256K+).
Though many think they can, until actually blind tested.
If you can reliably tell the difference in proper blind testing, you are likely have better hearing/perception than 99.9999 % of the population.
I think I have great hearing, but when I did some ABX testing, my ability to distinguish drops off completely by 160 K VBR on MP3s and that is in quiet room with quality headphones straining to ID any difference.
I am skeptical of any golden eared claims these days pooh-poohing modern codecs.
Ask HTC, Velocity, General Dynamics and Onkyo about Microsoft.
They are paying royalties on Android to Microsoft to avoid being sued.
Apple is mainly suing Samsung for a blatant iPhone clone that would make a Chinese back alley knockoff maker blush.
You know this:
http://widgetlabs.info/uploadfiles/digestfolderinfo-1302100849/apple-sues-samsung-over-its-galaxy-phones-and-tablets_1.jpg
Actually from what I read these guys never actually registered the trademark.
Apple searched and bought the trademark from Xcerion, who actually did register it.
I was thinking of getting a Galaxy Wifi 5.0 as a portable internet/app/gaming/media device. (Smartphones/contracts too expensive IMO).
So when I saw the Vita specs and price I was quite pleasantly surprised.
It is amazing HW for the price.
But having something that is locked down pretty much defeats the purpose so I will go for the inferior device that I can run anything on.
I just need some kind of controller attachment like the http://icontrolpad.com/ .
Or I need the Vita to be more open. I think I will have a better chance of getting a controller for the Galaxy Wifi.
RIAA sues someone for downloading a few songs. Where is the revenue from that.
It seems real/imaginary damages are more important that revenues.
While this may be a decent tablet interface, it looks like a poor desktop interface, but it is being pushed for a strategic reason: Market Share.
Despite what some fanboys might think, a funky new interface alone isn't enough for MS to make big inroads into the tablet market. Same applies for WinPhone7, it has similar Tile interface and is floundering.
They need a jumpstart big time.
By forcing the new Tile/Touch interface on every new/upgraded Windows computer, they immediately can leverage their PC monopoly to grow the market share for their Tile/Touch PC interface.
This will give them a market likely 50 to 100 times larger for their Tile/Touch apps to attract a development community, it makes how many tablets the sell almost irrelevant initially. They can likely surpass the installed touch base for iOS/Android in a little over a year. They won't actually have more tablets out there, but they will have a Touch/Time market that big. Solving the Chicken/Egg problem of having the market share to attract developers.
While I think this thing reeks as a desktop interface, I have to give it to them on the strategic side. Brilliant Strategy. Now I understand why they killed WinCE tablets last year when it looked like they were going to follow the industry into lightweight unique tablet OS. Someone came up with a strategy to get them back in the game while maintaining the Windows Everywhere mantra.
Well played.