How far will AAC plus go?
Reply #200 – 2005-10-09 16:45:00
but with which both sides can agree that it has some relevance. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332981"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] I forgot the most important point. Yes, testing PS-HEAAC at 32/48 kbps against a basic MP3 encoding has some relevance. But it's a dangerous game. Take the atrac3plus test as example. The test was relevant (a basic MP3 coder vs the new Sony's format). Just go on some minidisc boards: people were convinced that atrac3plus at 64 kbps was as good as MP3 at 128 kbps. It's sci-en-ti-fic! To all people maintaining that MP3 could sound much better => "no, take another look on the scientific test. If you disagree, try to do yourself a better test"... organisation which was of course impossible to do (very expensive). That's how a flawed listening test setting became a reference and the source of confusion, FUD, etc... exactly the opposite purpose of a listening test (and science in general). As a consequence: your test has just few relevance? Maybe... But don't cry if several people are going to interpret the result in a distorted manner. I don't want to fight on french forum against people claiming that PS-HEAAC at 32 kbps is as good as LAME at 128 kbps and basing their opinion on a listening tests posted here, on HA.org. I spent several years to fight against the MP3Pro/ATRAC3/VQF/Vorbis... = same quality as MP3@128 bullshit. And I know that other people did the same in various local forums. A flawed test (with handicapped MP3, limited persons...) is VERY DANGEROUS for the community (but maybe very helpful for some big companies marketing campaign). It looks scientific and is just parodic.