archie
Well-known member
This is a typical surur tactic: find something that is obviously heavily biased and slanted against what "archie" says in an effort to prove him wrong.Archie, for some-one who is constantly wrong, I would not presume on other people's knowledge. Let me repeat - you are wrong. Again. As usual.
In blind listening tests 192 kb/sec WMA scores higher than 128 kb/sec AAC from itunes. Get over to it.
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp
Surur
People, please don't believe what susrur says. If you want to rely on these links, PLEASE read them and understand them, don't take his word as he presents it.
There are so many things wrong with this, I do not know where to start. I guess the first thing I would mention is that at the top of these pages that susur links to is one explanation as to why Apple's AAC encoder did so poorly: It is because they used the encoder in iTunes 6.0 which has a bug that is revealed when they use their selected content - that content being a glockenspiel. This particular sound serves to reveal a technique used in AAC that utilizes Temporal Noise Shaping in addition to Prediction. These very techniques will introduce a clicking/popping sound that is heard in unnatural highpitched sounds such as those of a glockenspiel. Who listens to a glockenspiel? Nobody! They sound awful. That is why this technique was chosen and the fact that they used this in their test speaks greatly.
Ridiculous!
So to continue with this issue, I would also like to mention that the iTunes encoder found in 7.1 has been upgraded.
In addition, I do not believe that this encoder is the one used for iTunes encoding on the desktop. I will check.
I would also like to mention that content encoded for Apple's iTunes Store does away with wow and flutter as well as jitter because it is professionally done utilizing digital sources (no transfers or by-way-of's that presumably would keep the signal digital but possibly via an exchange of format, thereby introducing wow and flutter or of course jitter); whereas content from every other digital store has varied encoding techniques. There is no slanting or biasing in this fact, it just simply brings an uneasy (feeling) and unreliable aspect to other's encoding methods.
I really don't want to continue this discussion; BUT I will and will return with more evidence.