Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

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

It's probably blocked by your ISP. That's why I had to use a zip file.



--
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
...
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

It's probably blocked by your ISP. That's why I had to use a zip file.


I've renamed it as

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/90k_aac.txt

so download it and rename it to .m4a.


--
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 in message
...

"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.

Forgot to answer this. No the encoder has not got a fault. The encoder is
supposed to behave that way. When I set it to encode the same file at 64
kbps it decided to encode it a 128 kbps instead. Its trying to find the best
bit rate for the sound and its crap at doing it. OGG will encode the same
file at 58 kbps when set to 64 kbps ABR. On some sections of other songs
which are more demanding OGG will encode at up to 80 kbps when set to 64
kbps.


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.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

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

It's probably blocked by your ISP. That's why I had to use a zip file.


I've renamed it as

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/90k_aac.txt

so download it and rename it to .m4a.

Why should I. I have done my part already. I have provided you with a file
that AAC is not transparent to. Point proven.

If you which to dispute my encoder then encode the FLAC version of my file
using the encoder of your choice and I'll listen to it and compare it to the
original.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

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

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.


It still doesn't mean that it's a good AAC encoder, and ultimately, it was
you that missed the fact that it was a bug that was causing your problems.


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.


It beats your mad Greek music, and it's no wonder you're a nutcase when you
listen to that kind of music.


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.


Here's a 128 kbps AAC (132k actual) file of it:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/test1.txt (rename it to .m4a)

and here's the WAV that it was encoded from:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/test1.wav (1.32 MB)

Playing them back-to-back (not side-by-side, if you get what I mean), I
can't hear any difference, but then again, I'm trying to limit the number of
times I hear it, or else I'll turn insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane like you.


--
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
...
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

It's probably blocked by your ISP. That's why I had to use a zip
file.


I've renamed it as

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/90k_aac.txt

so download it and rename it to .m4a.

Why should I. I have done my part already. I have provided you with a
file that AAC is not transparent to. Point proven.


Development of an audio codec is a moving target, so you can't say AAC is
**** and expect that to be true forever.

You've slagged off the whole AAC format based on a poor implementation of an
encoder. That's a bit like saying that you think all football teams are ****
because you saw one once on a Sunday morning and all the players are ****.


If you which to dispute my encoder then encode the FLAC version of my
file using the encoder of your choice and I'll listen to it and
compare it to the original.


Done (posted in another post), and if you want any other bit rate just say
the word. I used Nero's encoder, in case you're wondering.


--
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
...

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.


It still doesn't mean that it's a good AAC encoder, and ultimately, it was
you that missed the fact that it was a bug that was causing your problems.


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.


It beats your mad Greek music, and it's no wonder you're a nutcase when
you listen to that kind of music.


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.


Here's a 128 kbps AAC (132k actual) file of it:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/test1.txt (rename it to .m4a)

and here's the WAV that it was encoded from:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/test1.wav (1.32 MB)

Playing them back-to-back (not side-by-side, if you get what I mean), I
can't hear any difference, but then again, I'm trying to limit the number
of times I hear it, or else I'll turn insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane like you.

Playing them back-to-back it sounded distorted from 2 seconds in. The OGG
vorbis 128 kbps (131 kbps actual) version I made of the file sounds twice as
good. See file below.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip

In fact I'm now beginning to think that the OGG 128 kbps version sounds
better than the OGG 160 kbps version I made which is really weird.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Development of an audio codec is a moving target, so you can't say
AAC is **** and expect that to be true forever.

You've slagged off the whole AAC format based on a poor
implementation of an encoder. That's a bit like saying that you think
all football teams are **** because you saw one once on a Sunday
morning and all the players are ****.


Here's an example of test results that AAC encoders can vary pretty wildly:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/plot10.png

from:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html


--
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
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Development of an audio codec is a moving target, so you can't say
AAC is **** and expect that to be true forever.

You've slagged off the whole AAC format based on a poor
implementation of an encoder. That's a bit like saying that you think
all football teams are **** because you saw one once on a Sunday
morning and all the players are ****.


Here's an example of test results that AAC encoders can vary pretty
wildly:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/plot10.png

from:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html


Ok so Faac is a **** encoder but your Nero encoder isn't much better. Vorbis
at 128 kbps sounds twice as good as it when encoding Notis Sfakianakis,
Lavomatia.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

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

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.


It still doesn't mean that it's a good AAC encoder, and ultimately, it
was you that missed the fact that it was a bug that was causing your
problems.


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.


It beats your mad Greek music, and it's no wonder you're a nutcase when
you listen to that kind of music.


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.


Here's a 128 kbps AAC (132k actual) file of it:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/test1.txt (rename it to
.m4a)

and here's the WAV that it was encoded from:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/test1.wav (1.32 MB)

Playing them back-to-back (not side-by-side, if you get what I mean), I
can't hear any difference, but then again, I'm trying to limit the number
of times I hear it, or else I'll turn insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane like you.

Playing them back-to-back it sounded distorted from 2 seconds in. The OGG
vorbis 128 kbps (131 kbps actual) version I made of the file sounds twice
as good. See file below.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip

In fact I'm now beginning to think that the OGG 128 kbps version sounds
better than the OGG 160 kbps version I made which is really weird.

Nope. Made a mistake. I just looked at the file properties and it seems I
was listening to a 64 kbps encode sample by mistake and thought it was 160.
Well at least it proves I can tell the difference in quality.