Quote from: kornchild2002 on 2007-04-05 02:52:55

I would like to see the experts perform a 256kbps test here on hydrogenaudio.  Maybe comparing WMA, iTunes AAC, Lame mp3, WinAmp AAC, and a fifth format like OGG all at 256kbps.  Then again, that is asking a lot as I am sure 256kbps is hard to distinguish and having 5 formats to test at that high of a bitrate would make a lot of work.

I asked about this early on in this thread, and the only reply I got was that it would be to heard to do a 256K listening test. The poster thought that there wouldn't be enough difference to notice I believe.

Quote from: Gabe69 on 2007-04-04 09:03:01

The only reason they created Apple Lossless and did not use an existing lossless format is because they needed  a format with fast encoding in addition to decoding for their AirTunes technology where sound is encoded to Apple Lossless on-the-fly before it is transmitted wirelessly to the AirPort Express.

they should have at least talked to me first then... it's proven quite easy to speed up the flac encoder, much easier than to invent a whole new codec.

Quote from: jcoalson on 2007-04-04 18:23:34

Quote from: Gabe69 on 2007-04-04 09:03:01

The only reason they created Apple Lossless and did not use an existing lossless format is because they needed  a format with fast encoding in addition to decoding for their AirTunes technology where sound is encoded to Apple Lossless on-the-fly before it is transmitted wirelessly to the AirPort Express.

they should have at least talked to me first then... it's proven quite easy to speed up the flac encoder, much easier than to invent a whole new codec.

Well Josh, like I posted, I think it's kinda like the situation WinAmp developers faced, i.e. the licensing issue?

libFLAC switched to BSD 4 years ago, more than a year before ALAC came out.  with winamp, the plugin part was GPL and only recently I changed it to LGPL.

I really can't figure out why the same company that was OK with betting the farm on AAC for lossy decided to build an inferior lossless codec from scratch.

Josh

Yeah, I gathered that.  Still, it would be nice to see a test like that.  I am sure the differences between the encoders would be very small but, if you are encoding your music at the 256kbps bitrate range, then you would care about those slight margins of quality.  A test like this wouldn't be needed but it would be nice for curiosity sake.  Then again, it really isn't worth running a test just for curiosity.

Why a listening test at high bitrates (192+kbps) wouldn't work:

1) Most samples would have already reached transparency at that bitrate. 
And choosing only problem samples would make the test less significant 
since you wouldn't be testing a broad range of musical styles.

2) Only a handful of golden ears would be able to reliably ABX the 
samples, and even after ABXing they would hardly give scores lower 
than 4.5

3) Since all scores would be around 4.5, the error margins would be big 
enough to make all codecs tied. To avoid that, you would need to have 
hundreds of participants, in an attempt to bring the error margins down.

4) You would have a hard time finding hundreds of golden ears, and even 
more, hundreds of golden ears willing to participate, because the test 
would be very fatiguing and frustrating, due to the difficulty of ABXing.

5) At the end, even if you managed to bring the error margins down, the 
codecs would be ranked so close that you wouldn't be able to produce a 
decent conclusion. All codecs would seem (or be) tied to each other.

I think I have the answer for you Josh
...
Perhaps they just couldn't reach you back then...

I thought the reason for the choice of 256 kbps was obvious from a marketing standpoint.  256 is double 128, so to the lay-person it sounds "twice as good" and is thus a bargain given that it only costs 30% more.

A REPORT on Computerworld said that Microsoft will drop DRM (digital rights management ) on its Zune machines too.

But rather than accept that Apple trumped it in a PR move by saying it had decided to drop digital rights management, instead Microsoft claimed it had been talking to the music companies for ages.

A rep told the magazine that it's obvious that people want unprotected music.

Looks like Microsoft wants in on the action too:
link

Quote

A REPORT on Computerworld said that Microsoft will drop DRM (digital rights management ) on its Zune machines too.

But rather than accept that Apple trumped it in a PR move by saying it had decided to drop digital rights management, instead Microsoft claimed it had been talking to the music companies for ages.

A rep told the magazine that it's obvious that people want unprotected music.

I think we are all missing a point here. 128 ripped by iTunes in AAC IS TRANSPARENT.

listening tests are old come on guys...

I think selling songs at the 256 level is somehow related to avoid piracy....donno how but think so...

Quote from: superpoincare on 2007-04-11 20:05:42

I think we are all missing a point here. 128 ripped by iTunes in AAC IS TRANSPARENT.

listening tests are old come on guys...

I think selling songs at the 256 level is somehow related to avoid piracy....donno how but think so...

Thanks for your valuable input. And you get a free TOS #8 warning.

Well, seeing how most listeners (in this test) perceive 128kbps iTunes AAC to be transparent, their post borders on violating TOS #8.

128 ripped by iTunes in AAC IS TRANSPARENT.

listening tests are old come on guys...