Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"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.

I think I've figured out why some encoders are sounding better than others
and some are just crap.

Analysis of all the samples with Cool Edit Pro shows that the 128 kpbs AAC
sample which you gave me had a frequency response with a sharp cut off at
17000 Hz whereas the 128 kbps OGG sample which I made has a response with a
sharp cut off at 19000 Hz. Since I instinctively know what the instruments
are supposed to sound like, being familiar with the genre, I know that the
sound of 17000 Hz sample is wrong even before I notice the compression
artefacts because of the lack of the harmonics from the strings.

OGG Vobis at 128 kbps *IS* better than AAC at 128 kbps and there is no
denying it since it has a higher frequency range and on top of that is
better at encoding to that whole range whereas AAC could never handle 19 kHz
at 128 kbps..

The Faac encoder *IS* crap because the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) AAC
samples have a frequency response which cuts off at 16000 Hz. It is a crap
encoder and now there is no denying it. Even though the 256 kbps (152 kbps
actual) encoded sample still sounds better than the 128 kbps AAC sample you
gave me, the 128 OGG version I made is on level terms with the Faac 256 kbps
(152 kbps actual) sample or better.

OGG Vorbis at 160 kbps cuts the frequency response short at 20000 Hz and
that is why I can tell it apart from the uncompressed CD sample since that
goes all the way to 22050 Hz. The OGG Vorbis 256 kbps sample has a response
that goes all the way to 22000 Hz (not all the way to 22050) and that is why
I can barely tell it apart from uncompressed CD sample.

These tests clearly show that OGG is a better codec than AAC at all bit
rates and that I was wrong about saying that AAC at 256 kbps was comparable
to OGG at 160 kbps. In fact its comparable to OGG at 128 kbps. OGG at 160
kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps hands down with the Faac encoder and will
probably beat the Nero encoder too !!!!

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:
"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.


When I listened to the WAV followed by the 128 kbps AAC file I couldn't tell
the difference between them.

Anyway, upload your 128 kbps Vorbis file of this track you're referring to
so we can hear this massive difference you're referring to.


--
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:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"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.

I think I've figured out why some encoders are sounding better than
others and some are just crap.

Analysis of all the samples with Cool Edit Pro shows that the 128
kpbs AAC sample which you gave me had a frequency response with a
sharp cut off at 17000 Hz whereas the 128 kbps OGG sample which I
made has a response with a sharp cut off at 19000 Hz. Since I
instinctively know what the instruments are supposed to sound like,
being familiar with the genre, I know that the sound of 17000 Hz
sample is wrong even before I notice the compression artefacts
because of the lack of the harmonics from the strings.
OGG Vobis at 128 kbps *IS* better than AAC at 128 kbps and there is no
denying it since it has a higher frequency range and on top of that is
better at encoding to that whole range whereas AAC could never handle
19 kHz at 128 kbps..


A wider audio bandwidth does not make automatically make the sound better
than a file with a narrower audio bandwidth. For example, if a file has a
wider audio bandwidth but sounds attrocious whereas a file with a narrower
audio bandwidth sounds good, you cannot say that the file with the wider
audio bandwidth has a higher audio quality.

Look, if I'm going to listen to samples, provide some that aren't of Greek
music, because I don't like it. Then, once you've found something that other
people can bear to listen to, upload the WAV file and your Vorbis encoding
of it.


The Faac encoder *IS* crap because the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) AAC
samples have a frequency response which cuts off at 16000 Hz.


Who said anything about Faac? We're supposed to be comparing modern, not old
encoders.


It is a
crap encoder and now there is no denying it. Even though the 256 kbps
(152 kbps actual) encoded sample still sounds better than the 128
kbps AAC sample you gave me, the 128 OGG version I made is on level
terms with the Faac 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) sample or better.

OGG Vorbis at 160 kbps cuts the frequency response short at 20000 Hz
and that is why I can tell it apart from the uncompressed CD sample
since that goes all the way to 22050 Hz. The OGG Vorbis 256 kbps
sample has a response that goes all the way to 22000 Hz (not all the
way to 22050) and that is why I can barely tell it apart from
uncompressed CD sample.


I can remember having an argument with you about audio bandwidth a long time
ago, and if you think that one file has a better audio quality than another
file only on the basis that the audio bandwidth is wider, then save your
breath, because not only are you completely wrong, I don't want to waste my
time discussing it with you.


These tests clearly show that OGG is a better codec than AAC at all
bit rates


You've still provided no evidence for this.


and that I was wrong about saying that AAC at 256 kbps was
comparable to OGG at 160 kbps. In fact its comparable to OGG at 128
kbps. OGG at 160 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps hands down with the Faac
encoder and will probably beat the Nero encoder too !!!!


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn.


--
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
...

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.


I can't hear any difference between them. The type of music isn't helping me
trying to listen because I'm so unaccustomed to listening to Greek music. If
you have any non-Greek music I'd appreciate it.


--
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

Now, now, children...

Meanwhile, we'd believe that the Ogg 160k, or Real AAC 128k, will both sound best online. However, the best sounding stream will differ for different people, since audio is always a matter of personal taste. The most important thing is to remember that big bitrates doesn't always equal best sound.

In terms of our audio quality elsewhere, we're currently re-evaluating our audio processing on all platforms; including online and Freeview.

We'd welcome any subjective comments on our audio quality on any of our platforms. We'd be especially interested in comparisons between any of the Digital One DAB services, like Virgin Radio, with services on other DAB Digital Radio multiplexes - particularly comparisons between Planet Rock at 128k and The Arrow, or Virgin Radio Classic Rock, at 128k where you can receive both. Please feel free to either feedback here or via the website to http://www.virginradio.co.uk/thestat...us/?to=techies

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Agamemnon wrote:

OGG vorbis at 64k
beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the input
isn't clipped.


Right, I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same
sample he

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB)

Do you agree that the Ogg version sounds "mushier" and more muffled than the
AAC version?

Any comments on the relative sound quality of these files are welcome from
anybody, not just Mr Agamemnon.

The encoders used we

Nero AAC encoder at 128 kbps

and I've downloaded the OggDropXPD, from he

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=15049

which presumably is using one of the latest versions of Vorbis.

I'm impressed at how well Vorbis stands up at bit rates as low as 64 kbps,
but it was never going to beat AAC at 128 kbps in a month of Sundays. And
haven't you even claimed somewhere that Ogg at 64 kbps beats AAC at 256
kbps?

In future, please do your homework *prior* to making bold claims.


--
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:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"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.

I think I've figured out why some encoders are sounding better than
others and some are just crap.

Analysis of all the samples with Cool Edit Pro shows that the 128
kpbs AAC sample which you gave me had a frequency response with a
sharp cut off at 17000 Hz whereas the 128 kbps OGG sample which I
made has a response with a sharp cut off at 19000 Hz. Since I
instinctively know what the instruments are supposed to sound like,
being familiar with the genre, I know that the sound of 17000 Hz
sample is wrong even before I notice the compression artefacts
because of the lack of the harmonics from the strings.
OGG Vobis at 128 kbps *IS* better than AAC at 128 kbps and there is no
denying it since it has a higher frequency range and on top of that is
better at encoding to that whole range whereas AAC could never handle
19 kHz at 128 kbps..


A wider audio bandwidth does not make automatically make the sound better
than a file with a narrower audio bandwidth. For example, if a file has a
wider audio bandwidth but sounds attrocious whereas a file with a narrower
audio bandwidth sounds good, you cannot say that the file with the wider
audio bandwidth has a higher audio quality.

Look, if I'm going to listen to samples, provide some that aren't of Greek
music, because I don't like it. Then, once you've found something that
other people can bear to listen to, upload the WAV file and your Vorbis
encoding of it.

It's only 8 seconds and it's not even got vocals. Get used to it. The only
alternative is Turkish or Arabic. You liked Kiss Kiss didn't you ?



The Faac encoder *IS* crap because the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) AAC
samples have a frequency response which cuts off at 16000 Hz.


Who said anything about Faac? We're supposed to be comparing modern, not
old encoders.

Go look up the meaning of mode and is modern.



It is a
crap encoder and now there is no denying it. Even though the 256 kbps
(152 kbps actual) encoded sample still sounds better than the 128
kbps AAC sample you gave me, the 128 OGG version I made is on level
terms with the Faac 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) sample or better.

OGG Vorbis at 160 kbps cuts the frequency response short at 20000 Hz
and that is why I can tell it apart from the uncompressed CD sample
since that goes all the way to 22050 Hz. The OGG Vorbis 256 kbps
sample has a response that goes all the way to 22000 Hz (not all the
way to 22050) and that is why I can barely tell it apart from
uncompressed CD sample.


I can remember having an argument with you about audio bandwidth a long
time ago, and if you think that one file has a better audio quality than
another file only on the basis that the audio bandwidth is wider, then
save your breath, because not only are you completely wrong, I don't want
to waste my time discussing it with you.

Don't like Greek music, don't like Turkish or Arabic either probably, and
now won't consider the effects of bandwidth on music of that genre which is
highly demanding of it. You're a bigot, that's what your are so its
pointless listening to anything you say.



These tests clearly show that OGG is a better codec than AAC at all
bit rates


You've still provided no evidence for this.

Oh yes I have.



and that I was wrong about saying that AAC at 256 kbps was
comparable to OGG at 160 kbps. In fact its comparable to OGG at 128
kbps. OGG at 160 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps hands down with the Faac
encoder and will probably beat the Nero encoder too !!!!


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn.


I have proven my point. You have not proven yours. I win it seems.

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
...

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.


I can't hear any difference between them. The type of music isn't helping
me

The difference is obvious.

trying to listen because I'm so unaccustomed to listening to Greek music.
If you have any non-Greek music I'd appreciate it.

Will Arabic do ?

Its obvious that AAC which was created by a German based institute can't
handle the genre whereas OGG which was created as an international
collaboration can. It's not surprising that AAC is crap if the people doing
the testing are music bigots like you.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

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

Analysis of all the samples with Cool Edit Pro shows that the 128
kpbs AAC sample which you gave me had a frequency response with a
sharp cut off at 17000 Hz whereas the 128 kbps OGG sample which I
made has a response with a sharp cut off at 19000 Hz. Since I
instinctively know what the instruments are supposed to sound like,
being familiar with the genre, I know that the sound of 17000 Hz
sample is wrong even before I notice the compression artefacts
because of the lack of the harmonics from the strings.
OGG Vobis at 128 kbps *IS* better than AAC at 128 kbps and there is
no denying it since it has a higher frequency range and on top of
that is better at encoding to that whole range whereas AAC could
never handle 19 kHz at 128 kbps..


A wider audio bandwidth does not make automatically make the sound
better than a file with a narrower audio bandwidth. For example, if
a file has a wider audio bandwidth but sounds attrocious whereas a
file with a narrower audio bandwidth sounds good, you cannot say
that the file with the wider audio bandwidth has a higher audio
quality. Look, if I'm going to listen to samples, provide some that
aren't of
Greek music, because I don't like it. Then, once you've found
something that other people can bear to listen to, upload the WAV
file and your Vorbis encoding of it.

It's only 8 seconds and it's not even got vocals. Get used to it. The
only alternative is Turkish or Arabic. You liked Kiss Kiss didn't you
?


I think you're mistaking me with someone else, cos I'm sure I've never
kissed you.


The Faac encoder *IS* crap because the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual)
AAC samples have a frequency response which cuts off at 16000 Hz.


Who said anything about Faac? We're supposed to be comparing modern,
not old encoders.

Go look up the meaning of mode and is modern.


You're slagging off an entire audio format, so for your claim to be
correct - i.e. that AAC basically performs crap - then I only need to
provide 1 exception (i.e. an AAC encoder that performs well) to disprove
your claim.


It is a
crap encoder and now there is no denying it. Even though the 256
kbps (152 kbps actual) encoded sample still sounds better than the
128 kbps AAC sample you gave me, the 128 OGG version I made is on
level terms with the Faac 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) sample or
better. OGG Vorbis at 160 kbps cuts the frequency response short at
20000 Hz
and that is why I can tell it apart from the uncompressed CD sample
since that goes all the way to 22050 Hz. The OGG Vorbis 256 kbps
sample has a response that goes all the way to 22000 Hz (not all the
way to 22050) and that is why I can barely tell it apart from
uncompressed CD sample.


I can remember having an argument with you about audio bandwidth a
long time ago, and if you think that one file has a better audio
quality than another file only on the basis that the audio bandwidth
is wider, then save your breath, because not only are you completely
wrong, I don't want to waste my time discussing it with you.

Don't like Greek music, don't like Turkish or Arabic either probably,


You can try other types of music if you want, I'm just saying that I didn't
like the music you uploaded, and especially listening to it several times on
the trot it was annoying me.


and now won't consider the effects of bandwidth on music of that
genre which is highly demanding of it.


I'm disputing your view that bandwidth has some major effect on audio
quality per se.

Read this, pages 9-10:

http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dr...plom/bra99.pdf

"5.7. The bandwidth myth
Reports about encoder testing often include the mention
of the bandwidth of the compressed audio signal. In a
lot of cases this is due to misunderstandings about human
hearing on one hand and encoding strategies on the other
hand.
5.7.1. Hearing at high frequencies
It is certainly true that a large number of (especially
young) subjects are perfectly able to hear single sounds
at frequencies up to and sometimes well above 20 kHz.
However, contrary to popular belief, the author is not
aware of any scientific experiment which showed beyond
doubt that there is any listener (trained or not) able to detect
the difference between a (complex) musical signal
with content up to 20 kHz and the same signal, but bandlimited
to around 16 kHz. To make it clear, there are
some hints to the fact that there are listeners with such
capabilities, but the full scientific proof has not yet been
given. As a corollary to this (for a lot of people unexpected)
theorem, it is a good encoding strategy to limit
the frequency response of an MP3 or AAC encoder to 16
kHz (or below if necessary)."

The author of that article is Karlheinz Brandenburg, the inventor of MP3.
Now, if I had to choose who knows more about compressed audio out of Mr
Brandenburg and your good self, although it's a close run thing, I'd have to
choose Mr Brandenburg. Sorry.


You're a bigot, that's what
your are so its pointless listening to anything you say.


I'm not a bigot just because I don't share the same taste in music as you.
I'm sure, and I'd actually hope that, you wouldn't like the music I like.


These tests clearly show that OGG is a better codec than AAC at all
bit rates


You've still provided no evidence for this.

Oh yes I have.


You've provided no proof of your original assertion.


and that I was wrong about saying that AAC at 256 kbps was
comparable to OGG at 160 kbps. In fact its comparable to OGG at 128
kbps. OGG at 160 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps hands down with the Faac
encoder and will probably beat the Nero encoder too !!!!


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn.


I have proven my point. You have not proven yours. I win it seems.


I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB)

I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC.

Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC
as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in
a few minutes.


--
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

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.


I can't hear any difference between them. The type of music isn't
helping me

The difference is obvious.


Well it's not obvious to me.


trying to listen because I'm so unaccustomed to listening to Greek
music. If you have any non-Greek music I'd appreciate it.

Will Arabic do ?


Yeah, I suppose, but I can't guarantee to like it or want to listen to it
much, so please take my preference for English music into account, ta.


Its obvious that AAC which was created by a German based institute


It was developed by more than just Fraunhofer. I think one of the main
people behind it worked for Bell Labs (or is it AT&T?) in the States.


can't handle the genre whereas OGG which was created as an
international collaboration can. It's not surprising that AAC is crap
if the people doing the testing are music bigots like you.


Share your paraonoid fantasies with someone who's interested...


--
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