Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Well they have given an extra 96kbps. The broadband package I am
on at home is capped, and using the 128kbps streams from Last.FM
(which is acceptable quality whilst not great) still ends up using
quite a lot of my quota. Do any of the sub 128k streams provide
better quality than I am currently used to from Last.FM?

AAC+ at 32k is stereo medium wave. AAC at 128k is better than MP3 at
128k.
I don't know what Quciktime is using so can't say. OGG vorbis at 64k
beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the input
isn't clipped.


Utter nonsense.

FACT.


Then provide a single shred of evidence to back up your assertion.


OGG turns nasty with clipping whereas MP3 softens it.
MP3 at 128k will beat everything except OGG and AAC+ encoded at
bitrates between 64k and 128k.


You've just contradicted what you said he

"AAC at 128k is better than MP3 at 128k."

Add AAC to AAC+ and OGG.


Are you aware that using AAC+ will inevitably provide lower audio quality at
128 kbps than using AAC?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
I read that this had been launched recently over at Digital Spy,
but that the quality was as crap as the other EMAP stations.

If you are using the web feed, which one is the best quality

Virgin Radio
=============
Windows Media Player (20k)
Windows Media Player (96k)
Real One broadband (128k)
Real 10 AAC broadband (128k)
iTunes broadband(128k)
AAC+ (32k, FM quality)
MP3 broadband(128k)
Ogg Vorbis broadband(~160k)
Quicktime broadband (64k)


OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps and will give
you FM quality at about 40kbps (using a 32 kHz sample rate).


You're an absolute nutcase.

You are talking out of your arse. I have done the tests.


Then provide links to the test results.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
I read that this had been launched recently over at Digital Spy,
but that the quality was as crap as the other EMAP stations.

If you are using the web feed, which one is the best quality

Virgin Radio
=============
Windows Media Player (20k)
Windows Media Player (96k)
Real One broadband (128k)
Real 10 AAC broadband (128k)
iTunes broadband(128k)
AAC+ (32k, FM quality)
MP3 broadband(128k)
Ogg Vorbis broadband(~160k)
Quicktime broadband (64k)


OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps and will give
you FM quality at about 40kbps (using a 32 kHz sample rate).


You're an absolute nutcase.

You are talking out of your arse. I have done the tests.


Then provide links to the test results.


I have already told you the results.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Well they have given an extra 96kbps. The broadband package I am
on at home is capped, and using the 128kbps streams from Last.FM
(which is acceptable quality whilst not great) still ends up using
quite a lot of my quota. Do any of the sub 128k streams provide
better quality than I am currently used to from Last.FM?

AAC+ at 32k is stereo medium wave. AAC at 128k is better than MP3 at
128k.
I don't know what Quciktime is using so can't say. OGG vorbis at 64k
beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the input
isn't clipped.


Utter nonsense.

FACT.


Then provide a single shred of evidence to back up your assertion.


I have done tests.


OGG turns nasty with clipping whereas MP3 softens it.
MP3 at 128k will beat everything except OGG and AAC+ encoded at
bitrates between 64k and 128k.


You've just contradicted what you said he

"AAC at 128k is better than MP3 at 128k."

Add AAC to AAC+ and OGG.


Are you aware that using AAC+ will inevitably provide lower audio quality
at 128 kbps than using AAC?

That would depend on the codec. OGG outdoes both.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Well they have given an extra 96kbps. The broadband package I am
on at home is capped, and using the 128kbps streams from Last.FM
(which is acceptable quality whilst not great) still ends up
using quite a lot of my quota. Do any of the sub 128k streams
provide better quality than I am currently used to from Last.FM?

AAC+ at 32k is stereo medium wave. AAC at 128k is better than MP3
at 128k.
I don't know what Quciktime is using so can't say. OGG vorbis at
64k beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the
input isn't clipped.


Utter nonsense.

FACT.


Then provide a single shred of evidence to back up your assertion.


I have done tests.


Then show the results.


OGG turns nasty with clipping whereas MP3 softens it.
MP3 at 128k will beat everything except OGG and AAC+ encoded at
bitrates between 64k and 128k.


You've just contradicted what you said he

"AAC at 128k is better than MP3 at 128k."

Add AAC to AAC+ and OGG.


Are you aware that using AAC+ will inevitably provide lower audio
quality at 128 kbps than using AAC?

That would depend on the codec. OGG outdoes both.


Then show the results of your tests.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
I read that this had been launched recently over at Digital Spy,
but that the quality was as crap as the other EMAP stations.

If you are using the web feed, which one is the best quality

Virgin Radio
=============
Windows Media Player (20k)
Windows Media Player (96k)
Real One broadband (128k)
Real 10 AAC broadband (128k)
iTunes broadband(128k)
AAC+ (32k, FM quality)
MP3 broadband(128k)
Ogg Vorbis broadband(~160k)
Quicktime broadband (64k)


OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps and will
give you FM quality at about 40kbps (using a 32 kHz sample rate).


You're an absolute nutcase.

You are talking out of your arse. I have done the tests.


Then provide links to the test results.


I have already told you the results.


I want to either see or hear something that justifies your claim.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Well they have given an extra 96kbps. The broadband package I am
on at home is capped, and using the 128kbps streams from Last.FM
(which is acceptable quality whilst not great) still ends up
using quite a lot of my quota. Do any of the sub 128k streams
provide better quality than I am currently used to from Last.FM?

AAC+ at 32k is stereo medium wave. AAC at 128k is better than MP3
at 128k.
I don't know what Quciktime is using so can't say. OGG vorbis at
64k beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the
input isn't clipped.


Utter nonsense.

FACT.


Then provide a single shred of evidence to back up your assertion.


I have done tests.


Then show the results.

Take a listen to these files and you will see why AAC is ABSOLUTE CRAP !

Download http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test.zip which contains the
following samples.

test1.flac is an 8 second sample

test1.aac is the above sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro AAC codec
at 256 kbps using the Main profile.

test1a.aac is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro AAC
codec at 256 kbps using the LC profile.

test1.ogg is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro OGG
codec at 256 kbps (ABR 8).

test1a.ogg is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro OGG
codec at 160 kbps (ABR 5).

As you will hear both the AAC files sound nothing like transparent when
compared with the original whereas the 256 kbps OGG file is virtually
indistinguishable from the original. The quality of the AAC files is the
same as that as the OGG 160 kbps file or worse and the reason why is obvious
if you look at the file sizes since they are the same.

When AAC is asked to compress at 256 kbps is doesn't even bother but
compresses at the equivalent of 160 kbps instead so it sounds crap !

The test file will remain on the server until about 4 or 5 am and will then
be deleted.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Then show the results.

Take a listen to these files and you will see why AAC is ABSOLUTE
CRAP !
Download http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test.zip which contains the
following samples.

test1.flac is an 8 second sample

test1.aac is the above sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro AAC
codec at 256 kbps using the Main profile.

test1a.aac is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro
AAC codec at 256 kbps using the LC profile.

test1.ogg is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro
OGG codec at 256 kbps (ABR 8).

test1a.ogg is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro
OGG codec at 160 kbps (ABR 5).

As you will hear both the AAC files sound nothing like transparent
when compared with the original whereas the 256 kbps OGG file is
virtually indistinguishable from the original. The quality of the AAC
files is the same as that as the OGG 160 kbps file or worse and the
reason why is obvious if you look at the file sizes since they are
the same.
When AAC is asked to compress at 256 kbps is doesn't even bother but
compresses at the equivalent of 160 kbps instead so it sounds crap !


Oh, so you've actually been slagging off the format that was designed to be
the successor to MP3 as being crap because one audio codec (out of many that
exist) has a bug in it that means that audio is encoded at 160 kbps instead
of the 256 kbps that you wanted it to use.

Moreover, I don't know how old this AAC encoder is in Cool Edit Pro, but
it's got to be quite a few years old now, because Syntrillium who developed
Cool Edit was bought out by Adobe a few years ago.

If you want to try an AAC encoder, use a modern one; either download iTunes
or better still download the Nero command line encoder:

http://www.nero.com/nerodigital/eng/...tal_Audio.html

(and use something like EAC to drive it)

And you know you said that AAC sounded crap, here's a WAV and a 90 kbps AAC
file of that WAV:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/3.wav (5 MB)
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/90k_aac.m4a (324 KB)

Would you say that's crap?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

And you know you said that AAC sounded crap, here's a WAV and a 90
kbps AAC file of that WAV:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/3.wav (5 MB)
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/90k_aac.m4a (324 KB)


That .m4a file won't let me download for some reason, whereas the WAV file
will let you. Strange


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Then show the results.

Take a listen to these files and you will see why AAC is ABSOLUTE
CRAP !
Download http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test.zip which contains the
following samples.

test1.flac is an 8 second sample

test1.aac is the above sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro AAC
codec at 256 kbps using the Main profile.

test1a.aac is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro
AAC codec at 256 kbps using the LC profile.

test1.ogg is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro
OGG codec at 256 kbps (ABR 8).

test1a.ogg is the original sample compressed using the Cool Edit Pro
OGG codec at 160 kbps (ABR 5).

As you will hear both the AAC files sound nothing like transparent
when compared with the original whereas the 256 kbps OGG file is
virtually indistinguishable from the original. The quality of the AAC
files is the same as that as the OGG 160 kbps file or worse and the
reason why is obvious if you look at the file sizes since they are
the same.
When AAC is asked to compress at 256 kbps is doesn't even bother but
compresses at the equivalent of 160 kbps instead so it sounds crap !


Oh, so you've actually been slagging off the format that was designed to
be the successor to MP3 as being crap because one audio codec (out of many
that exist) has a bug in it that means that audio is encoded at 160 kbps
instead of the 256 kbps that you wanted it to use.

Moreover, I don't know how old this AAC encoder is in Cool Edit Pro, but
it's got to be quite a few years old now, because Syntrillium who
developed Cool Edit was bought out by Adobe a few years ago.

Poppycock. The encoder files date to between July 2004 and March 2005.


If you want to try an AAC encoder, use a modern one; either download
iTunes or better still download the Nero command line encoder:

http://www.nero.com/nerodigital/eng/...tal_Audio.html

(and use something like EAC to drive it)

And you know you said that AAC sounded crap, here's a WAV and a 90 kbps
AAC file of that WAV:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/3.wav (5 MB)
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/90k_aac.m4a (324 KB)

Would you say that's crap?


Why should I listen to your wave file you have specifically chosen that
works best with your encoder. When you encode my wave file, which comes from
a music genre that MPEG has always been bad at encoding, in the AAC encoder
of your choice then I'll listen to it and see if its any good.