Welcome to the Rockbox Technical Forums!
I'm really sorry, but I can't help but dig out an old quote from Linus Nielsen Feltzing:"Someone with a clue needs to step forward and do this. The problem is that people with a clue don't use WMA."Sorry... A bit drunk...
Quote from: Didgeridoohan on March 10, 2007, 08:25:28 PMI'm really sorry, but I can't help but dig out an old quote from Linus Nielsen Feltzing:"Someone with a clue needs to step forward and do this. The problem is that people with a clue don't use WMA."Sorry... A bit drunk...Don't be sorry, bit drunk me self I respect the people that have a clue, but for those of us that don't, (or were bs'd into believing wma was superior), I believe the support would be beneficial,
Another thought is people with a clue wouldn't use mp3 either...
All the tests I have seen have put Vorbis (with the later aotuv encodings), AAC and MPC ahead.
I haven't seen anything about reaching transparency. Most tests are done at under 200kbs at which none of the codecs are transparent (last I heard).
All the tests I have seen have put Vorbis (with the later aotuv encodings)
I love the idea of Vorbis, but unfortunately developement is essentially dead. Â (At least for the time being.)The aotuv tunings are just that, tunings. Â LAME, on the other hand, routinely bores and strokes the engine of MP3, proving that active, consistent, development of a more mature encoder can make lemonaid out of lemons.
AAC might not be nearly as warm and cuddly as Vorbis, but Nero is showing, much as the LAME project does, that working and reworking an encoder can produce significant improvements in output quality, even while the specification remains unchanged. Â AAC is, most likely, the successor to MP3. Â Cell phones support it almost universally now, iPods support (a subset) of it out of the box, and the quality at low-bitrates is improving quickly. Â The transparency battle has already been fought, and it was a stalemate, with favor going to the one with most penetration (MP3). Â The low bitrate war is already in full-swing, and unless Vorbis awakes from its multi-year coma, it doesn't have a chance. Â (MP3 isn't even showing up to this fight.)Superior technology is rarely enough of a mega-weapon to win a war*, and superior specifications even less so. Â Marketshare and mindshare almost always rule the day, and Vorbis offers no compelling reason to those other than ideological converts.But that's just my opinion, I might be wrong.*Not to mention that Vorbis, as it stands today, is not superior to AAC in terms of features.
Yes lame does look pretty good in that test and is not behind the others (significantly).
The best the test could do is not disprove transparency. I don't know the rules of that test.
Would the original wav have got 5 exactly?
Here is a test including the same LAME and vorbis encoder which doesn't get transparency for any codec at 180kbs:http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465Average equipment but probably good ears and experience. LAME is significantly (statistically) inferior to aotuv vorbis. And everything abxable from wav.
I think this shows that those codecs are not transparent at 180kbs, so also presumably not at 128kbs."Transparent to some" no doubt, but not to all, so... not transparent.
AAC I heard doesn't work completely in rockbox (?) and aotuv vorbis looked better than the others.
Its not behind at all. Â (Read the link I posted, its all in there)
Why not read them then before you come to conclusions?
One person, older version of LAME.
Also, picking arguably the most experienced expert in digital audio compression listening tests and claiming his hearing is indicative of people as a whole is not particularly fair. Â guruboolez is part of the reason MP3 and Vorbis are as good as they are today, but I wouldn't use him as the standard of transparency. Â With enough training, essentially no codecs are transparent.Provided you have not updated your codecs in 2 years and are guruboolez, this is a valid conclusion.
Page created in 0.052 seconds with 21 queries.