Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Polls => Topic started by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 04:09:53

Poll
Question: What anchor would you choose for the AAC test?
Option 1: l3enc 1.0 votes: 38
Option 2: Lame 3.95.1 votes: 33
Option 3: Old FAAC version (1.15, 1.17) votes: 10
Option 4: NCTU AAC votes: 7
Option 5: Psytel AACenc votes: 9
Option 6: Xing votes: 4
Option 7: iTunes MP3 votes: 5
Option 8: Other? (explain) votes: 1
Option 9: No anchor please - use a 6th competitor votes: 20
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 04:09:53
Hello.

Let's see if this time noone attempts to mess the poll >_<

OK, let's choose an anchor - or a 6th competitor.

When choosing, keep in mind the test will be already quite fatiguing as it is - several codecs that probably come close to transparency at this bitrate. So, I would probably recommend a bad quality anchor, I believe such would considerably reduce fatigue.

Of course, keep that even more in mind if you are planning to vote on a 6th competitor :B

Quoting the master
Quote
the anchor

1) should be significantly worse than any of the other codecs.

2) should sound bad enough to be readily identifiable. Yes, that will compress the ratings, but it will take a lot of the burden off the listener, who now need concentrate on one less codec. Also, it may encourage more people to participate, who might otherwise be scared off. I think lame and audioactive are too good, but the other mp3 codecs might work.


Also, keep in mind Lame has already been tested a lot: first multiformat test, 64kbps test, MP3 test...  and it will also be tested at the next multiformat test, since it won the MP3 test.

Thanks for your help.

Regards;

Me.

***EDIT***: I don't guarantee the winner will be featured in the test. I will also depend on discussions and opinions.

Also, I do guarantee that if anyone messes with this poll, I'll bring everything down, force my choice of codecs down everybody's throat and God help us all! Don't start me, punks
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: guest0101 on 2004-02-10 04:14:05
My vote is for the 6th competitor (WinAmp) which got the most votes in the previous poll and beat out the "two winners" of the poll. This is likely the only Dolby based one and should be relatively un-tweaked for performance giving less than stellar performance and serve to be a good "anchor".
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2004-02-10 04:15:01
I think it would be funny to have the very first mp3 encoder in a test with all the latest and greatest AAC encoders.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 04:16:16
Quote
This is likely the only Dolby based one

QuickTime is based on Dolby (with further tunning done inside Apple)

Quote
should be relatively un-tweaked for performance


 

Dude, Dolby knows quite a lot about audio coding. I would guess they tuned their encoder very well.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: guest0101 on 2004-02-10 04:17:32
Are you just going to throw the WinAmp encoder out then, even though it "won" the poll? It had more votes than any others (before the vote tampering) if I recall correctly.

It would be nice to see the most popular programs included in the test:

1. iTunes (AAC)
2. Nero
3. WinAmp
4. Compaact!
5. RealPlayer
6. FAAC

But I know very little about your testing procedures, so if you must, then pick another one for an "anchor".
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 04:20:31
Quote
Are you just going to throw the WinAmp encoder out then, even though it "won" the poll?

Nope. I was considering throwing it out because it's broken, but nobody is completely sure about it yet, it seems.

That poll was tainted, so I won't base my choice of codecs on it at all.

And no, there has been no decision yet to throw Winamp out. First I need to know about the brokenness, and then I need to know about people's opinion.

Also, have you read the point about fatigue?
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: guest0101 on 2004-02-10 04:22:09
I thought Menno addressed that in the other thread. He said the WinAmp decoder was broken and not the encoder...

Anyway I trust your judgment, so do as you deem is the best for the test.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 04:25:51
Quote
I thought Menno addressed that in the other thread. He said the WinAmp decoder was broken and not the encoder...

This is a huge mess. Menno also said "don't take my word for it" earlier. (he deleted this post later)

Also, few people cared to take my quick test and compare FAAD2 decodes vs. Winamp decodes of Winamp streams.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=182595 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18523&view=findpost&p=182595)

Also, the few results submitted make my head spin. Alexander and John33 claim encodes _2 sound better. Well, let me tell you, _2 was decoded with the Winamp decoder (that is supposedly broken)
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ScorLibran on 2004-02-10 04:36:48
I voted for an older FAAC version as an anchor, and at a low enough bitrate to be effective in this capacity, of course.


I'd also like to see Winamp as a competitor, IF it can be fixed by next Tuesday's deadline, of course.    Considering the size of it's userbase, including it could expand the interest in the results of this test.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: bidz on 2004-02-10 04:39:28
LAME 3.95.1 - simply because i want to see how it does against the AAC encoders, not just the winning codec of the AAC test (in the multiformat test). Featuring the best MP3 encoder also makes sense, since the AAC format is kind of the successor to the MP3 format. This would be a way of comparing old versus new.

I Would also like to se Winamp 5.02 featured in this test. This makes very good sense, considering it's userbase. I bet there are alot more users already encoding with Winamp 5.xx AAC than with Compaact, FAAC and NCTU-AAC (or what it's called) already, thus it deserves to be featured in the test (wether or not it's broken, that's a codec bug, and Nullsoft's problem in the end).

Not every codec is perfect, thus i don't see the reason as to why Winamp should be thrown out just because there MAY be a flaw with it. If there is a flaw with it, then let the test show that result. Maybe that would get Nullsoft to speed things up a bit
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 04:43:27
Quote
and at a low enough bitrate to be effective in this capacity, of course.

Erm... rule nr. two, no mixed bitrates, pal

Unless you have some really good reason, like in the 64kbps test.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: Bonzi on 2004-02-10 05:04:52
I voted for NCTU AAC I just really want to see this in a test.  Anyway, Pystel would be interesting as well as we might be able to begin to get an idea how much better the Nero encoder is and also it would be interesting to see if the gap between Pystel and FAAC has closed at all from the last test that is.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: QuantumKnot on 2004-02-10 05:05:25
I'll vote for Xing as an anchor, for the reasons I stated in the other thread.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: GodHead on 2004-02-10 05:48:19
I voted for L3Enc because I used it a LOT in the past. I was in one of the original audio groups back in '96 that released some how-to's for L3Enc and WinPlay 3. I remember waiting ~hour for one MP3 encode and being amazed at the quality. I'd love to see what this old wonder can do in comparison to the new codecs.

@roberto: While browsing for possible anchors other than L3Enc, I came across the following, http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/km/audiocomp1.htm (http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/km/audiocomp1.htm). I never did mess around with the K+K stuff, what happened with it? I did a Google and noticed this page, http://www.cadaudio.dk/kk_research/ (http://www.cadaudio.dk/kk_research/). Never knew they had an AAC codec.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ScorLibran on 2004-02-10 05:51:17
Quote
Quote
and at a low enough bitrate to be effective in this capacity, of course.

Erm... rule nr. two, no mixed bitrates, pal

Unless you have some really good reason, like in the 64kbps test.

  Oh, my bad.  I didn't know that applied to the anchor, too.


(....Guess I'm having bad memories of rating the anchor higher than some of the competitors in the 64k test.    )
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 05:55:08
Quote
@roberto: While browsing for possible anchors other than L3Enc, I came across the following, http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/km/audiocomp1.htm (http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/km/audiocomp1.htm). I never did mess around with the K+K stuff, what happened with it?

O_o

You found the mirrored page but didn't find the page linking to it?
http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/tac.html (http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/tac.html)

K+K history is available there.

BTW, I know that page. Check the domain, or the copyright notice at the bottom of the page I linked

Quote
I did a Google and noticed this page, http://www.cadaudio.dk/kk_research/ (http://www.cadaudio.dk/kk_research/). Never knew they had an AAC codec.


They hadn't

Read that page I linked.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ff123 on 2004-02-10 05:57:13
Is it possible to make some samples available to compare so that we can tell if the anchor will be bad enough?

ff123
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 05:59:37
Quote
  Oh, my bad.  I didn't know that applied to the anchor, too.

It's all a matter of purpose. If your purpose is trying to actually compare the anchor to the competitors, bitrates should be the same.

If it's only there to avoid codecs dipping too low, any bitrate will do.

In the 64kbps test, it was there specifically to check the validity of the "same quality as MP3 at half bitrates" touted by some codecs (WMA, MP3pro, Nero)
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 06:01:54
Quote
Is it possible to make some samples available to compare so that we can tell if the anchor will be bad enough?

Sure.

You mean l3enc only, or all suggested anchors?
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ViPER1313 on 2004-02-10 06:04:50
I like the idea of Lame v3.95.1 as an anchor, not because it is low quality, but because that would give a direct comparsion of the best of MP3 vs. all of AAC.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-10 07:38:58
i voted for leaving the anchor out, cause only this way we can test winamp, compaact and real!
otherwise we would have to leave one out...
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: knik on 2004-02-10 07:52:46
Definitely Lame here. It has many advantages:
It can act as a inter-test anchor.
It's very popular so the comparison to many AAC encoders would be very interesting.
Finally, all those AAC encoders have very high quality @128kbps. In the first AAC test even faac1.17 got 3.52 without any anchor.
Latest AAC encoders are supposed to be even better so a low quality anchor could boost all results well above 4.0 which is not the right thing.
LAME really looks like a perfect anchor to me. It wouldn't flatten results too much.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: menno on 2004-02-10 09:30:59
Quote
This is a huge mess. Menno also said "don't take my word for it" earlier. (he deleted this post later)

That was before I was exactly sure what the problem was. The Winamp encoder is just as safe to use as any other encoder, I already said it before. The Winamp decoder has a problem.

Menno
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: Alexander Lerch on 2004-02-10 09:43:08
Although I know this will the test make much more difficult, I also voted for leaving the anchor out. I think Winamp should be tested.

Alexander
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: JohnV on 2004-02-10 12:05:49
I also voted: no anchor, take WinAmp.

But, another thing is also, that with 6 AAC codecs, the tested samples must be hard enough in order to achieve any kind of statistical difference between the codecs..
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: dev0 on 2004-02-10 12:20:57
The modified sample set (with fatboy included) seems hard enough to me.
Maybe there should be another call for (problematic) samples.
But I wouldn't want to change much about the set of samples, since keeping it as unchanged as possible adds the possibility of inter-test comparisons.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: guruboolez on 2004-02-10 12:26:04
Including Winamp encoding (and highly popular) solution looks necessary for me.

As difficult sample, the "mandolin.wav" I've uploaded last week should be difficult enough and easy to ABX:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=18360& (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18360&)

If some other people could confirm the possible artifacts...
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 14:13:40
Quote
That was before I was exactly sure what the problem was. The Winamp encoder is just as safe to use as any other encoder, I already said it before. The Winamp decoder has a problem.

Well, OK, but I still don't understand why the (few) responses I got for that quick test said the FAAD decoded files sound worse. (Well, Tigre said that one of his tests sounded worse with the WA decoder, but in the other test both were tied!)

Quote
Including Winamp encoding (and highly popular) solution looks necessary for me.


I'm pretty sure it would be easy for you to test 6, 7, 8... competitors
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-10 14:15:40
BTW, there seems to be a misunderstanding here: I didn't say the 6th competitor would be Winamp, or Real, or Compaact...

The competitor list hasn't been decided yet. And I don't know when it will be. I will maybe create another poll, but I don't feel much like it, for obvious reasons.

So, don't vote at 6th because you feel Winamp must be present - Winamp might get featured neverthless. Only vote if you believe the anchor is unnecessary.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-10 14:57:57
well as you said the number of the used codecs is limited to 6, in fact using an anchor would mean that winamp or compaact or real would have to be dropped


so if you want to have compaact and winamp and real in the test you have to vote for not using an anchor 
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: guruboolez on 2004-02-10 15:20:09
A nice feature for ABC/HR would be an automatic anchor generation (lowpassing with SSRC, or bad encoding with Blade for exemple). And why not, this anchor should be include not as a challenger (lost or hidden among many blind competitors) but as a negative reference. This implies that listener could call anchor as well as the Reference.

For being more clear:


Present ABC/HR software have this look:
Code: [Select]
  R    R    R
A B  A B  A B



R = Reference
A & B : hidden files



I suggest something like that:
Code: [Select]
  R    R    R
A B  A B  A B
 a    a    a



R = Reference
A & B : hidden files
a = anchor


R will be listened for reference
a will be listened for tempering the notation of each file. Just as a negative reference.

I don't know if I'm clear, or if what I'm saying is stupid.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ErikS on 2004-02-10 16:00:59
I voted other. Blade or a simple lowpass at 7 kHz. Reason: blade was used before and can then serve the purpose of comparing the results of the two tests. They are connected by this common denominator. Same goes for the lowpass at 7kHz, but then you compare to other tests which are conducted under other conditions.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2004-02-10 16:38:10
Quote
I voted other. Blade or a simple lowpass at 7 kHz. Reason: blade was used before and can then serve the purpose of comparing the results of the two tests. They are connected by this common denominator. Same goes for the lowpass at 7kHz, but then you compare to other tests which are conducted under other conditions.

If you liked Blade as an anchor, you'll love l3enc 1.0, its the first software mp3 encoder ever!  Maxximum L33T Anchorage!!
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: MGuti on 2004-02-10 19:08:00
all i can say is that if i hope to be able to partake in this test it better have an easy anchor. no way i can sit through LAME 3.95.1 AND 5 other top-notch AAC encoders which (we already know) are better than LAME. why prove it again? if you really feel the need to see how FAAC does against LAME, do a 2 encode test. thats EASY to do, and takes the stress off of the people doing the tedious test (why test any other independantly against LAME? all the rest cost money and if you feel like spending money, buy the best).

just my opinion i want l3enc 1.0

forget lame, it has had the glory enough and will be in the multiformat test anyway (we know it won't win here besides).
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: music_man_mpc on 2004-02-10 20:03:18
Quote
all i can say is that if i hope to be able to partake in this test it better have an easy anchor. no way i can sit through LAME 3.95.1 AND 5 other top-notch AAC encoders which (we already know) are better than LAME. why prove it again?

I'm totally with you on the need of a real anchor!  However I'm not so sure that ALL of the 5 "top-notch AAC encoders" are better than LAME 9.95.1.  In fact I seriously doubt that,
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-11 04:10:35
Quote
Is it possible to make some samples available to compare so that we can tell if the anchor will be bad enough?

I made l3enc and Lame encoded samples available, since it seems one of these will win.

Keep in mind this is the exact same sample set as the one used in the MP3 test. I didn't replace samples yet (I'm waiting for comments  )

Files encoded with FhG l3enc 1.0 CBR 128kbps
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/samples_l3enc.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/samples_l3enc.zip)  (4.5Mb)
I'm positively amazed these files are 100% compliant :B

BTW, there's a small clip at the beginning of each sample. It might be related to the fact that my waves are WAVEFORMATEX, which was not yet developed back then :B
I will cut the offending part with mp3directcut before uploading the sample packages if l3enc is chosen.

Files encoded with Lame 3.95 with --preset 128
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/samples_lame.zip (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/samples_lame.zip)  (4.5Mb)

The original samples, in case you want to check them out:
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/samples.rar (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/samples/samples.rar) (36Mb)

Please post your comments about the encoded samples.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ff123 on 2004-02-11 05:00:51
Under noisy conditions (kids, tv), I didn't find l3enc too annoying except on mybloodrusts and waiting.  But when I compared lame on waiting, I think I preferred l3enc.  It's probably a lot better than Blade.

But others may have different opinions.

ff123
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ff123 on 2004-02-11 07:08:38
Ok, quieter now.  Also encoded to xing(old) and faac 1.17.  abchr results:

Code: [Select]
sample        faac     xingold   lame    l3enc
bigyellow     3.1      1.0       4.3     3.6
dafunk        2.1      3.0       5.0     4.2
enolagay      4.7      2.1       4.7     4.2
experiencia   3.2      4.7       4.7     4.0
gone          4.2      1.8       5.0     3.0
illinois      4.0      3.4       4.3     4.8
mybloodrusts  5.0      1.0       3.7     2.8
newyorkcity   4.5      2.5       4.8     4.0
polonaise     4.7      1.0       4.4     3.9
riteofspring  4.4      1.0       3.7     5.0
scars         5.0      2.1       4.0     4.2
waiting       3.7      2.5       4.0     4.4


Means:

lame     faac     l3enc    xingold  
 4.38     4.05     4.01     2.17  

---------------------------- p-value Matrix ---------------------------

        faac     l3enc    xingold  
lame     0.347    0.291    0.000*  
faac              0.906    0.000*  
l3enc                      0.000*  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

lame is better than xingold
faac is better than xingold
l3enc is better than xingold


So I'd say that xingold would be too sucky, and based on faac 1.17's performance on the previous aac test and lame's performance on the mutli-format test, any of the three other choices:  lame, faac 1.17, or l3enc would be adequate choices as anchor.  but since faac and l3enc seem to be marginally worse than lame (for me), I would personally choose either of those two.

ff123

Edit:  l3enc appears to narrow the stereo, which is why I downrated it on some samples.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: knik on 2004-02-11 09:38:55
@ff123
Thanks, you did a great job.
l3enc is indeed good enough to be an anchor in this test but I still think lame is better because of other advantages (popularity, inter-test anchorage)
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-11 09:53:02
now that it seems that the decision has to be made between lame and l3enc rjamorim should maybe start a new poll only featuring those two, as 48 people voted for none of those (which is the majority btw  )
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-11 14:21:36
Quote
now that it seems that the decision has to be made between lame and l3enc rjamorim should maybe start a new poll only featuring those two, as 48 people voted for none of those (which is the majority btw  )

Hrm, OK... We're running out of time, but I guess there is still time to create another poll.

But, still, people aren't discussing other very important issues: What samples should be replaced, what codec (Winamp, Real or Compaact) will be left out...

@ff123: Thanks a lot for all your help
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-11 14:28:14
Quote from: rjamorim,Feb 11 2004, 03:21 PM
Quote from: bond,Feb 11 2004, 07:53 AM
what codec (Winamp, Real or Compaact) will be left out...

hm i think the last poll clearly showed that people want winamp (as most voted for winamp and real or winamp and compaact), so you could start another poll only using real and compaact 

now thats what i call democracy
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: tigre on 2004-02-11 14:40:20
My 2 cent:

Does anyone/anything still use l3enc today? If the answer is 'No', using it as anchor would be just a waste. Either use some codec that has been tested in other recent tests (e.g. lame 3.95.1) too, so there's (rough) comparison between tests possible, or just don't use an anchor. Xing hasn't been a real anchor in 128kbps mp3 test - it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I voted for NTCU because I'd like to see their questionable claims being proven (hopefully) wrong, but if l3enc is the hottest competitor for the anchor job, I'd prefer not to have an anchor at all.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-11 14:40:23
Quote
hm i think the last poll clearly showed that people want winamp (as most voted for winamp and real or winamp and compaact), so you could start another poll only using real and compaact 

Sorry, I won't use that poll in any fashion. People abused it, and I believe later I'll be criticized for using it neverthless.

I could create another poll, but I doubt there will be enough time until the weekend (the point where I will start doing the bitrate deviation tests helped by Spoon) to do two polls. I don't want to run two polls at the same time, to avoid confusion.

Regards;

Roberto.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: JohnV on 2004-02-11 14:42:48
Quote
But, still, people aren't discussing other very important issues: What samples should be replaced, what codec (Winamp, Real or Compaact) will be left out...

I repeat what I said earlier. Imo at least Real and Compaact should be included, because their developers attend to the community discussions (ok, Karl is not audio developer, but anyway), and this kind of activity should be rewarded somehow.
WinAmp would be interesting also though. That's why my vote still is no anchor and include also WinAmp.
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: ff123 on 2004-02-11 15:31:57
Quote
But, still, people aren't discussing other very important issues: What samples should be replaced, what codec (Winamp, Real or Compaact) will be left out...

Looking at the results of the mp3 test, I think EnolaGay is a candidate to be replaced, since it didn't seem to separate the codecs apart from each other all that well.

People have complained about riteofspring, but it does seem to do the job of separating codecs.  That has to be traded off against the possibility that nobody will download the file to listen to it

Same story with Polonaise -- supposedly it's an "easy" file, but the codecs strengths and weaknesses were highlighted by this sample.  Again, not too many listeners.  Possibly more sensitive listeners are choosing Polonaise and riteofspring, causing this effect.  But that's just a guess.

I know I've recommended keeping waiting before, and it does play a number on the codecs (it's generally rated low), but it doesn't separate them very well.

ff123
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: bond on 2004-02-11 15:40:25
imho winamp should be used in any way cause it surely has the potential to get one of the most widely used aac encoders


Quote
Quote
hm i think the last poll clearly showed that people want winamp (as most voted for winamp and real or winamp and compaact), so you could start another poll only using real and compaact 

Sorry, I won't use that poll in any fashion. People abused it, and I believe later I'll be criticized for using it neverthless.

hm one guy abused it to cheat for compaact, that doesnt mean that the whole poll cant be used as a guideline

well whatever, i will simply let surprise myself which codecs will be used 
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: guest0101 on 2004-02-11 15:42:29
Definitely keep Real AND COmpaact please. Since their developers are active here we should give them a shot. WinAmp would be nice, but not at the expense of Real and Compaact!
Title: Choice of anchor/6th codec for AAC test
Post by: rjamorim on 2004-02-11 16:43:55
Quote
Since their developers are active here we should give them a shot.

I agree with that mentality.

(Karl, please get Ken to post here some time  )

OK, third and (hopefully) last poll created.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=3&t=18610 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=18610)

Winamp vs. l3enc vs. Compaact.

Please vote and continue discussion there.

Regards;

Me.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019