IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Closed TopicStart new topic
[OFFENSIVE] brucewillis anti real rant + responses, split from 'Choice of AAC for test' Poll
brucewillis
post Feb 9 2004, 15:18
Post #1


Troll


Group: Banned
Posts: 2
Joined: 9-February 04
Member No.: 11889



i would like to see the compaact codec tested because its audio quality is superior to most of the other aac encoders suggested here, anyway (and "real" in particular). besides it offers some important audio preprocessing features.

oh, i forgot something... "real" r e a l l y sucks! crying.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brucewillis
post Feb 9 2004, 15:34
Post #2


Troll


Group: Banned
Posts: 2
Joined: 9-February 04
Member No.: 11889



still got one comment left: this one goes out to mdmuir:

just because one particular codec ("real" in this case) is supported by an enormous amount of advertisement and commercials doesn't mean it's worth dealing with it. so in that case... forget about "real". it absofuckinglutely sucks!!! mad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Feb 9 2004, 15:47
Post #3


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (brucewillis @ Feb 9 2004, 12:34 PM)
it absofuckinglutely sucks!!!  mad.gif

This is absolutely no reason to leave a potentially good codec out of a listening test.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
karl_lillevold
post Feb 9 2004, 16:17
Post #4


RealNetworks Sr. Codec Engineer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 89
Joined: 12-June 03
From: Seattle
Member No.: 7151



QUOTE (brucewillis @ Feb 9 2004, 06:34 AM)
rant deleted

brucewillis: and you base your determination of the FhG / Coding Technologies AAC encoder quality on exactly what? FhG is perhaps the most reputable name in audio encoding, Coding Technologies invented aacPlus / HE-AAC.

This thread is not about how much you dislike previous RealPlayers, but if you are concerned about ads... you can encode with the Real AAC encoder using a pure command line interface with Helix Producer. Or the latest RealPlayer 10 can easily be setup to never ever display the "Message Center", it takes two clicks, as well as never take over your filetypes (that's nicer than most media players). Both solutions completely free, which is more than can be said about other encoder choices included in this test. So what exactly are you then complaining about?

This post has been edited by karl_lillevold: Feb 9 2004, 16:31


--------------------
Sr. Codec Engineer (video) | RealNetworks Codec Group | helixcommunity.org
This information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, grants no rights, and reflects my personal opinion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 03:24