|
|
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Since it is at 64 kbps that is what you would expect, but its stands up very well considering. So do you agree that when you said this you were talking crap: "OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps" Except that's NOT what I said. I said anything else apart from. I put it in quotation marks because IT IS A DIRECT QUOTATION of what you said. Your attempt at dissembling my original comments proves you are a fraud. It's simple to search for that quote on Google Groups - try it, you'll find it. 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. If AAC at 128 kbps is only just beating OGG at 64 kbps No, I wouldn't say it "just" beats it. Just. No, it ****s on it from a great height. Right, that's it, I'm not going round in circles all day with someone as stubborn and misguided as yourself. -- 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 ... DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: 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. Here's a Zip with the original WAV, Ogg at 160 kbps and AAC at 256 kbps: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone2.zip (11.0 MB) I can't tell the difference between the WAV and the AAC file, can you? It's totally pointless downloading it since the Sfakianakis sample defeats AAC entirely and one exception is all I need to prove my point. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're still harping on about the file you created using some ****ty AAC encoder. OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. Yes they have. http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip OGG goes all the way to 19 kHz whereas AAC cuts of at 16 kHz. That's a difference comparable to that between CD and FM radio. If you continue with this crap I'm going to killfile you, I'm sick of it. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. Yes they have. http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip I can't tell the difference between the 128 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions. -- 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 ... 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. Out of touch with the modern Pop scene as well I see. You do know who Holly Vallance is ? Yes, but I'm sure there's more than one Kiss Kiss ever released. The original was by Tarkan and then it was covered by Lefteris Pantazeis and then Holly Vallance had a hit with it world wide. 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. Nope. I have proven my claim outright. OGG at 128 beats AAC at 128 by a factor of two. The encoded files we've just tested prove it. Hahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa ha. There's no point in discussing this with you, because you just make things up as you go along. No that's you. 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 The author of this article is TALKING OUT OF HIS RECTUM ! You disagree - what a surprise. Essentially he is saying that people (meaning himself alone since he is talking out of his arse) can't tell the difference between FM Radio and CD. He didn't mention FM radio anywhere. Stop making things up. You are the one making it up. 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. Oh well. No wonder MP3 is so crap. 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. Mr Brandenburg is an arsehole. He is using insulting MARKETING BULL**** in order to conceal the fact that his MP3 encoders can't deal with frequencies above 16 kHz without impairing overall quality. EMPERORS NEWS CLOTHES is what I have to say. Anyone in the industry that really believes his insulting clap trap would be wandering the streets stark naked in their birthday suits right now. OGG Vobis proves that he is wrong in his assumption that are base on his own bigoted and unproven speculations not on the facts which as he admits show that people CAN perceive the difference at higher frequencies. I see. Why else would we now have DVD-Audio and SACD that sample at around 96 kHz or more ? Because. That should be obvious. 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. You are a bigot because you don't like people which do as prove by your insulting comments earlier on. I don't like the music you like. Nothing more. You are a bigot that's what you are. I quoted "It beats your mad Greek music, and it's no wonder you're a nutcase when you listen to that kind of music." 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. Yes I have. In fact I have provide proof to go beyond it. You haven't done anything of the sort. 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. 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. No it doesn't. It proves my point entirely. AAC at 128 kbps can barely beat OGG at 64 kbps. That's nothing to boast about. 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. Sfakianakis files only. Here's a 128 kbps AAC version of your file: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa...reek_music.zip I can't tell any difference between that and the FLAC file in your Zip file. Well I can tell the difference between that and the OGG version of the same file. The FLAC file has a response of 22050 Hz, the OGG 128 kbps file has a response of 19000 Hz but the AAC 128 kbps file only has a response of 17000 Hz and I could tell the narrower response after about 3 repetitions. OGG is the best codec hands down. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Since it is at 64 kbps that is what you would expect, but its stands up very well considering. So do you agree that when you said this you were talking crap: "OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps" Except that's NOT what I said. I said anything else apart from. I put it in quotation marks because IT IS A DIRECT QUOTATION of what you said. NO ITS NOT ! You took it out of context and dissembled it even after I explained what I meant. Your attempt at dissembling my original comments proves you are a fraud. It's simple to search for that quote on Google Groups - try it, you'll find it. You are a dissembler. My comments were directed at the stream the OP describe. When I found I missed one out I corrected myself. Your are still a dissembler. 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. If AAC at 128 kbps is only just beating OGG at 64 kbps No, I wouldn't say it "just" beats it. Just. No, it ****s on it from a great height. Right, that's it, I'm not going round in circles all day with someone as stubborn and misguided as yourself. FOOL ! |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. Yes they have. http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip I can't tell the difference between the 128 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions. That's your problem. I can and that's all the matters. |
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 OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. Yes they have. http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip I can't tell the difference between the 128 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions. Oh I just thought, what are you using to listen to the files with ? Is it an ordinary sound card or a high quality DAC connected to your computer. If is an ordinary sound card then they only have a response of 16 KHz whereas an external DAC such as the one I'm using will give you 22050 Hz. Also what kind of headphones are you using. Mine are Technics RP-F280 which now cost over £40 and have a response of up to 30 KHz. That's your problem. I can and that's all the matters. |
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 OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. Yes they have. http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip I can't tell the difference between the 128 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions. That's your problem. I can and that's all the matters. Then we're at stalemate, and we need someone else to come forward with a comment. -- 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 ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. Yes they have. http://www.enthymia.co.uk/test/test1c.zip I can't tell the difference between the 128 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions. Oh I just thought, what are you using to listen to the files with ? Is it an ordinary sound card or a high quality DAC connected to your computer. If is an ordinary sound card then they only have a response of 16 KHz whereas an external DAC such as the one I'm using will give you 22050 Hz. Also what kind of headphones are you using. Mine are Technics RP-F280 which now cost over £40 and have a response of up to 30 KHz. PC sound card via S/PDIF to Sony MD player, which is being used in DAC mode. -- 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 Here's a 128 kbps AAC version of your file: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa...reek_music.zip I can't tell any difference between that and the FLAC file in your Zip file. Well I can tell the difference between that and the OGG version of the same file. The FLAC file has a response of 22050 Hz, the OGG 128 kbps file has a response of 19000 Hz but the AAC 128 kbps file only has a response of 17000 Hz and I could tell the narrower response after about 3 repetitions. OGG is the best codec hands down. Utter nonsense. -- 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com