Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

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)


Peter

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"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).


Peter

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in
:


"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis wrote
in message . 1...
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).


Peter

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?



Peter

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis wrote in
message . 1...
"Agamemnon" wrote in
:


"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis wrote
in message . 1...
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).


Peter

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.
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.




Peter

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in
:

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. 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.
So I might as well chose AAC+ as this will take up the same bandwidth but
should produce better sound!

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

Stone Free wrote:
I read that this had been launched recently over at Digital Spy, but
that the quality was as crap as the other EMAP stations.


It's using 128 kbps, so that's why it sounds so crap, and I've just listened
to it, and it does indeed sound terrible.


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)


I listened to all of them some time ago, and the Ogg Vorbis stream at 160
kbps sounded by far the best.


--
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:
"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.


--
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:
"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
"Agamemnon" wrote in
:


"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
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).


Peter

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.


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."


--
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:
"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
"Agamemnon" wrote in
:


"Stone Free"
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis
wrote in message
. 1...
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).


Peter

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.



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.

Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
 

"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.

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.

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.

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