Skip to main content

Topic: Newer comparison page (Read 1989 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • ReD-BaRoN
  • [*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Newer comparison page

I really like the way this comparison was done, however, the copyright on the bottom of the page is 2003.  I've seen a few other sites that are also quite dated, like

Does anyone know of a site that have more recent comparisons, using the latest and greatest encoders (i.e. current versions of QT and LAME)?


  • znode
  • [*][*]
Newer comparison page
Reply #1
I call troll. Do not feed.

Edit: Ok, sorry, maybe not completely troll. On first read I thought the author was using solely the "original-minus-encoded subtraction" to determine quality. It seems that he only does that to find possible artifact spots.

But still, the comparison isn't too objective. There is no more blinding than just the "shuffle" function on his iPod. And claims such as
The 320 kbit/sec (file size 1.6MB for 42 seconds) is almost the same as the AIFF. The AIFF seems to sound a fraction more 'peacefull' and 'thin'. The AAC has a bit of 'grain' over the file... Although is some cases MP3 might sound a bit "warmer", it misses the accuracy as provided by AAC.

sound a bit placeboed to me, even though he describes older encoders.
  • Last Edit: 24 March, 2005, 12:32:25 AM by znode