Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired" (Read 16761 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #25 –
Quote
The essential thrust of the story seems accurate enough though:

1. Music available from commercial online sources is generally of bad quality.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348504"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


They mention iTunes 128kbps AAC specifically. If you think that is bad quality, please take Sebiastian Mares' test and come back afterwards, thankyouverymuch.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #26 –
Quote
The gist I got from the article was that MP3 is still the most supported, and sounds pretty flawless at high bitrates. At lower bitrates other codecs have the upper hand.

That's correct, no?


No, as was already pointed out.

Quote
The author never makes any specific claims about CODECs at specific bitrates.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348526"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You're right: he makes even worse general ones.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #27 –
I've read the entire article, and IMHO, it is among the better written "mainstream"-articles about lossy digital audio on the net.

Sure, not every detail is right, and the reader gets the impression, that some advantages of LAME (like the DBTs) are exclusive to it, and less applied to the other codecs. And a few minor details of course. However, overally, it gets more things right than it does get stuff wrong - and thats by far not usual in the mainstream press. And the basic premise of the article - from a consumer POV - is absolutely right: For most people, the advantages of other codecs are simply too minor to outweight the overwhelming support and compatiblity of LAME-encoded MP3s... with the only exception being narrow-band (i.e. webradio) scenarios.

YMMV - especially if you're a developer of an encoder other than lame :)

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #28 –
Quote
Quote
The essential thrust of the story seems accurate enough though:

1. Music available from commercial online sources is generally of bad quality.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348504"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


They mention iTunes 128kbps AAC specifically. If you think that is bad quality, please take Sebiastian Mares' test and come back afterwards, thankyouverymuch.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348594"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've got quite a few 128kbit iTunes AAC files because I transcode to that format for my iPod.  I don't think it sounds "bad", but it's certainly not transparent and there's no way I'd buy music at that bitrate.

If you guys think this article is that off base then you should write Wired and ask for a correction.  I still think that the essential points are basically correct, particularly from the point of view of the typical Wired reader.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #29 –
Quote
YMMV - especially if you're a developer of an encoder other than lame [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348612"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Couldn't agree more.
Well, it's not like I wouldn't defend a product that I make myself.
Especially one that I really take some pride on.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #30 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
The .wav file format, found on CDs issued by record labels

*Snort*
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348400"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While most people with PC's don't think that Audio CD's contain WAV files, I find that nearly all Mac users think that Audio CD's contain AIFF files. Why? Because Macs display AIFFs when you stick an audio CD in them, you can copy the files to the computer as if they were AIFF files, and you can copy AIFF's to CDRs and make Audio CD's in that way. So as far as a non-knowledgable Mac user can tell, Audio CD's are just CD's with only AIFFs on them.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348441"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Irrelevant i know, but does anyone know offhand what endianness is CDDA? I think .aiff is big endian. OS X has flitted and changed between how it displays the contents of audio CD's. In 10.2 i'm sure they were .cdda files which were actually different to the .aiff it presents them as now. (you needed SoX or something QuickTime based to read them) Interesting, nonetheless.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #31 –
Quote
I've got quite a few 128kbit iTunes AAC files because I transcode to that format for my iPod. I don't think it sounds "bad", but it's certainly not transparent and there's no way I'd buy music at that bitrate.


Good point, and I would certainly not call "audiophile-ready" a format that clearly cannot encode some clips without audible distortion, regardless of the bit rate or the codec settings you use.  And that format is not AAC in this story.

Let's digest some things from this article:

Quote
For Rossman, the epiphany came after he bought a new car stereo and started making CDs from files he had ripped using the AAC standard at 128 kilobits per second. He had already switched from the MP3 format to AAC, largely based on assurances from Apple Computer, which uses the format on its iTunes music store and claims that, bit for bit, AAC outperforms the older standard.


Well - AAC does, in fact, outperform MP3 in "bit to bit" - on the same bit-rate AAC is almost always better than MP3. 

Now, the fact that someone wants to compare 128 kbps CBR AAC with MP3 of much higher average bit-rate is a completely different story - I don't think anyone claimed that AAC at 128 kbps CBR could be better than, say MP3 @180 kbps VBR for a typical sample set. This is just wrong comparison, and I am quite sure the person who was quoted knows that very well. It is just the journalist who translated that into a misleading paragraph.

Now, hiding that obvious flaw, author goes even more with "scientific stuff applied in LAME" such as DBT, Computer Science and other buzzwords such as allmighty "model as the Linux Operating Systems" - like other codecs were not developed by using the same scientific means... Sheesh.

Finally - the "Ordinary Wired Reader" would get an impression how LAME is actually better than AAC - and how it is developed with uber-cool scientific methods

This is the core of the "mis-leadingness" of the article - I could only imagine a huge flamewar here if someone compared 128 kbps CBR LAME with, say, 180 Kbps WMA VBR  and started talking about "modern scientific approach applied to blahblah powerful algorithms used in WMA" - leave alone some well-known magazine.  It would be one hell of the flame

And... for the case of defending "free as in freedom" codec, it seems that people are willing to get over all that

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #32 –
Quote
Now, the fact that someone wants to compare 128 kbps CBR AAC with MP3 of much higher average bit-rate is a completely different story - I don't think anyone claimed that AAC at 128 kbps CBR could be better than, say MP3 @180 kbps VBR for a typical sample set. This is just wrong comparison, and I am quite sure the person who was quoted knows that very well.

I wasn't planning to mention it, but i guess the above quote makes it almost inevitable.

Yes, you are right that this comparision is unfair.... however, it seems that the marketing department of nero isn't that much interested in "even" comparisions...

From http://www.nero.com/nerodigital/eng/Nero_D...highlights.html :
- "In fact, CD quality stereo at 48 kb/s"
- "Transparent quality at 128 kb/s. MPEG-4 AAC provides transparent audio quality at 128 kb/s according to all professional and formal listening tests conducted so far. At 96 kb/s MPEG-4, AAC offers quality of 128 kb/s MP3."
- "MP3 quality with 50% of the space. With High Efficiency AAC in MPEG audio, you will get same quality from an MP3 with 50% of the space"

Funny thing is that unless one fills in the blanks, some of the above claims by nero even contradict each other - if one takes them as generalized as they imply to be.

Now, i know that two wrongs dont make a right - but i just thought a friendly reminder may be in order.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #33 –
Quote
Let's digest some things from this article:

Quote
For Rossman, the epiphany came after he bought a new car stereo and started making CDs from files he had ripped using the AAC standard at 128 kilobits per second. He had already switched from the MP3 format to AAC, largely based on assurances from Apple Computer, which uses the format on its iTunes music store and claims that, bit for bit, AAC outperforms the older standard.


Well - AAC does, in fact, outperform MP3 in "bit to bit" - on the same bit-rate AAC is almost always better than MP3. 

Now, the fact that someone wants to compare 128 kbps CBR AAC with MP3 of much higher average bit-rate is a completely different story - I don't think anyone claimed that AAC at 128 kbps CBR could be better than, say MP3 @180 kbps VBR for a typical sample set. This is just wrong comparison, and I am quite sure the person who was quoted knows that very well. It is just the journalist who translated that into a misleading paragraph.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348640"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are correct.  I did bit for bit comparisons of mp3 and AAC.  After 160kbps VBR, I could only hear the difference, when doing my blind ABX testing, when turning the amps on in my car.  Only then did the mpeg-4 AAC format get slightly better scores than -V 4 --vbr-new Lame mp3.  I then tried -V 2 --vbr-new (at the time it was --alt-preset standard) and 192kbps mpeg-4 AAC.  I could not readily hear the differences between the mpeg-4 AAC files and the Lame mp3 files.  Keep in mind that I am comparing the ABX results (when comparing the lossy file to the original wav) of each format.  I am not doing a ABX test where A is the mp3 and B is the mpeg-4 AAC.  After doing my testing, I then found that 192kbps mpeg-4 AAC and --alt-preset standard Lame mp3 offered transparency for me for all samples that I tested (I tested about 10 tracks).  It was then that I realized that I might as well use --alt-preset standard as the file sizes were either slightly larger or slightly smaller than a 192kbps CBR mpeg-4 AAC.  Additionally, I found the universal hardware media playback support that mp3 has to be astounding when compared to the hardware playback support of mpeg-4 AAC, at the time.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #34 –
Quote
Funny thing is that unless one fills in the blanks, some of the above claims by nero even contradict each other - if one takes them as generalized as they imply to be.


I think we are missing the timeline - different profiles of AAC were used for different claims, so I see no contradiction unless we forget that important fact while "filling the blanks"

Also... I think we already over-discussed Nero website claims:

Quote
- "Transparent quality at 128 kb/s. MPEG-4 AAC provides transparent audio quality at 128 kb/s according to all professional and formal listening tests conducted so far. At 96 kb/s MPEG-4, AAC offers quality of 128 kb/s MP3."


Actually transparent might not be the perfect word, but "indistinguishable from original" according to the ITU terms, and proved by MPEG listening tests.

So the wording might be a mistake according to somebody - but for sure there is not a word mentioning statistical transparency which is something quite harder for a codec to achieve (what MP3 cannot achieve even at 320 kbps, for instance)

96 kbs AAC vs. 128 kbps MP3 was also a fact proved by other formal listening test - I have seen no big listening tests disputing this claim anyway - if you wish to set up some tests, it would be very nice

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #35 –
Quote
I think we are missing the timeline - different profiles of AAC were used for different claims, so I see no contradiction unless we forget that important fact while "filling the blanks"


Quote
So the wording might be a mistake according to somebody - but for sure there is not a word mentioning statistical transparency which is something quite harder for a codec to achieve (what MP3 cannot achieve even at 320 kbps, for instance)


Right, and thats exactly what i tried to point out: You complain about the wired article being misleading because important info is missing. Nero on its website is doing exactly the same - certain info was intentionally left out, so that the reader gets a wrong and misleading impression of the codecs performance. If you want to be treated fairly, tread others fairly.

Another point which can be derived from the above is something which i mentioned earlier, and which kornchild explained in more details again: Why does Nero feel the need to paint an exaggerated picture of their encoder's performance? Would they need to do that if their encoder would indeed be so much significantly better that it makes up for the far lower software/hardware support/compatibility? Well, thats exactly the problem of all those "modern" lossy codecs: Besides of narrowband, their advantages are just not significant enough for most people to make up for the worse support.

Would a normal user give up the "play-everywhere"-support of mp3, for 10% lower filesize? No. 20%? No. 30%? Maybe. 40%? Probably, but it just isn't so.
MP3 is "good enough" for most people and the newer codecs advantages simply cannot deliver a significant enough gain to justify switching to them - so the company's behind them resort to exaggerations instead to "justify" their use.

But when a user or magazine then take's those exaggerated suggestions as "true" and judges them by those criteria - then they complain about "unfair comparisions". And here, we come full-circle...

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #36 –
Quote
But when a user or magazine then take's those exaggerated suggestions as "true" and judges them by those criteria - then they complain about "unfair comparisions". And here, we come full-circle...


Perhaps because of a small difference - the purpose of the journal/newspaper/magazine is to inform the public about all products/technologies while the purpose of the company PR, regardless of the company, is to promote company-specific products/technologies.

For me, it is a very huge difference, huge enough to justify complaining about obvious flaws in the magazine article.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #37 –
Quote
Perhaps because of a small difference - the purpose of the journal/newspaper/magazine is to inform the public about all products/technologies while the purpose of the company PR, regardless of the company, is to promote company-specific products/technologies.

For me, it is a very huge difference, huge enough to justify complaining about obvious flaws in the magazine article.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348666"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the fair and honest reply.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #38 –
Quote
- "In fact, CD quality stereo at 48 kb/s"
- "Transparent quality at 128 kb/s. MPEG-4 AAC provides transparent audio quality at 128 kb/s according to all professional and formal listening tests conducted so far. At 96 kb/s MPEG-4, AAC offers quality of 128 kb/s MP3."
- "MP3 quality with 50% of the space. With High Efficiency AAC in MPEG audio, you will get same quality from an MP3 with 50% of the space"


Wow...CD quality used to be 64kbps with wma, but aac can deliver that in 48kbps, cannot wait for next year when CD quality will be 32 kbps... [sarcasm off] seriously it is propaganda to represent something that is just 3% the size of the original and call it CD quality, standards in the audio industry are slipping.

Quote
96 kbps AAC vs. 128 kbps MP3 was also a fact proved by other formal listening test


Ok, not disputing that one but "MP3 quality with 50% of the space", so for your above mentioned test a 96Kbps AAC would have to equal a 190Kbps mp3 file, is there such a test? I know the answer (32 kbps aac probably equaled a 64kbps mp3 test) but 64kbps is not what mp3 is about and that claim is slimy, it is like claiming a tank as fast as a Ferrari, perhaps it is if you put them both in pool of custard but it not an absolute truth.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #39 –
Quote
Irrelevant i know, but does anyone know offhand what endianness is CDDA? I think .aiff is big endian.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348634"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're going to love this, but it depends on the CD Drive you are using. Some drives return little endian data, some return big endian data. The ripper has to account for that by asking the drive what byte order it uses. Most CD drives return little endian nowadays, I think.

You are correct that AIFF is always big endian.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #40 –
>Some drives return little endian data, some return big endian data.

Only drives that were 1xspeed from 10 years ago (when there were proprietry raw read commands), all other drives unaffectted.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #41 –
Quote
If you guys think this article is that off base then you should write Wired and ask for a correction.  I still think that the essential points are basically correct, particularly from the point of view of the typical Wired reader.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348624"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree. Other than the obvious pro-MP3 propaganda that was bound to displease some people around here (and which was greatly my fault, as I went to great lenghts to convince him that MP3 is the way to go for anyone but people in specific situations - E.G, iPod owners), I think his article is mostly correct.

Also, I talked to him on Skype yesterday night, and told him to correct a little part. "The .wav file format, found on CDs issued by record labels" was replaced with "The PCM format, found on CDs issued by record labels". That was the only real error, IMO.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #42 –
Quote
Perhaps because of a small difference - the purpose of the journal/newspaper/magazine is to inform the public about all products/technologies while the purpose of the company PR, regardless of the company, is to promote company-specific products/technologies.

For me, it is a very huge difference, huge enough to justify complaining about obvious flaws in the magazine article.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348666"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A small, yet big difference.
From what I read here, it seems that when you go promoting something, it justifies almost everything.

But, forgive me if I misunderstand something...

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #43 –
Quote
From what I read here, it seems that when you go promoting something, it justifies almost everything.


I don't really think I ever stated that - but if we speak in general case, the purpose of marketing is to promote the product/service - and bias is not something uncommon in that science.

It is absolutely not true that marketing implies "almost everything" - but usually marketing focues on communicating the features/advantages of the products compared to competition.

This is why people tend to trust journals and magazines for complete overviews and comparisons of the technologies/products/services - and this is exactly why mistakes in journalism are much more problematic than structure of some marketing campaign.

But this is just by 0.02$ ...

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #44 –
Quote
96 kbs AAC vs. 128 kbps MP3 was also a fact proved by other formal listening test - I have seen no big listening tests disputing this claim anyway - if you wish to set up some tests, it would be very nice
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348660"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've thought about it before. It would be very interesting to test all these claims of "CD quality" or "equal to 128 kbps mp3" or whatever is hot at the moment... Four codecs, which have all been marketed by bold claims, that I would include:
Nero HE-AAC v2 @48 kbps
WMA Standard @64 kbps
(iTunes) AAC-LC @96 kbps
Coding Tech MP3 Pro @64 kbps
vs the high anchor
(LAME or FhG) MP3 @128 kbps

All three have been marketed as "as good as" or better than MP3 @128, but I have my doubts... What happened with the test Garf was planning for? It died?

Edit: added mp3 pro

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #45 –
Quote
What happened with the test Garf was planning for? It died?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348786"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It faced credibility concerns (remember that PM swap we had?)

But now that I finally found someone to replace me, nothing keeps Sebastian to give such test a try. It would indeed be extremely interesting.

Edit: I would also add MP3pro at 64kbps to that list.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #46 –
Quote
Quote
What happened with the test Garf was planning for? It died?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348786"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It faced credibility concerns (remember that PM swap we had?)

But now that I finally found someone to replace me, nothing keeps Sebastian to give such test a try. It would indeed be extremely interesting.

Edit: I would also add MP3pro at 64kbps to that list.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Replace you????  Not possible 

Edit:  Congrats on being mentioned in my favorite mag!
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #47 –
Quote
It faced credibility concerns (remember that PM swap we had?)

But now that I finally found someone to replace me, nothing keeps Sebastian to give such test a try. It would indeed be extremely interesting.

Edit: I would also add MP3pro at 64kbps to that list.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I remember. But I thought he would have more perseverance than to give up for that reason...

Will he replace you as the sharp tongue also?

I forgot mp3 pro, yes... And I've thought about Vorbis and Real but can't remember any such bold claims from them. It says Vorbis is better than mp3 at a lower bitrate but not by how much. Real I simply haven't taken much notice of.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #48 –
Quote
Replace you????  Not possible  [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348794"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hehe, thanks

I meant that as "Replace me as listening test conductor"

Quote
Will he replace you as the sharp tongue also?


Doesn't seem to be the case. And ultimately, that's why the pre-test thread has gotten so awfully awry :B

I would just have told some blockheads to STFU and go conduct their own tests.

Quote
I forgot mp3 pro, yes... And I've thought about Vorbis and Real but can't remember any such bold claims from them. It says Vorbis is better than mp3 at a lower bitrate but not by how much. Real I simply haven't taken much notice of.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=348797"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In the RealJukebox days, Real claimed 96kbps RealAudio = 128kbps MP3. Dunno if they later dropped that claim. Then again, they used early Xing for MP3 encoding in RJB, so they might have been correct after all - if you considered their app alone.


Xiph indeed never made official claims of "same quality at x% smaller bitrate". Kudos to them for not having to drop to such misguiding marketing plots.

rjamorim gets mentioned in "Wired"

Reply #49 –
The fact that most of the times marketing claims suck is no excuse for a supposedly serious magazine to lead to inaccurate and totally wrong impressions, such as mp3 being better than AAC. A whole different thing would have been saying that that in practice mp3 can be good enough for most people. That would not have been very objectionable.