Hi, i did a lot of soundtests with winamp 2.80 and highquality headphones.
Codecs were lame 3.92, lame 3.93.1 and lame 3.94 beta 11 (vbr 1 and vbr 0). mpc (insane and better), ogg (vbr 224 and higher), aac (psytel aac enc. presets extreme and archive) and mp4 (nero with cracked mp4 plugin in extreme and audiophile quality.
In my opinion aac (preset extreme is enough) is the best soundquality i#ve ever heard. very naturaly,clear, unbelievable stereopanorama und hammersound. Unbeatable by any other hyped lossy codec. Nothing comes closer to the original cd (except lossless codecs like ape ore shorten)
A funny thing is that the new nero mp4/aac plugin based on the psytel aac encoder and developed by the same man (Ivan Dimkovic) has no chance to aac.
The aac files were created by using eac and psytel 2.15 (april 2002) encoder or sometimes encoding wave to aac with ivan+menno aac frontend.
Try the aac and i swear you never will waste a thought to mpc or ogg.
It is also possible to pack the aac files in an mp4 container by using ivan+menno frontend with mp4 creator.
the sound is the same and the mp4 files are a litte bit smaller as aac file.
i actually spend a lot of time substituting my highclass mp3 files of my huge collection with aac.

all you need for aac you can get at rarewares.

shine on

ps. whats your opinion???

my opinion is that without abx results, your tests are unsubstantiated and thus not much help in determining lossy codec quality.

No offense intended

ABX???

My opinion is that your IP address should be forwarded to the authorities.

No misunderstandings,
i only speak for myself and my experiences. and as a musician i only trust to what my ears are reaching.
nothing to add.

shine on

PS. (To Admin) Sorry coz my thread is appearing here for three times. No idea why, pleaze delete the two others. Didn't intent that. Thanx

What should I do with you? You happily break the HydrogenAudio Terms of Service rule #8, and then blatantly tell that you are using cracked Nero MP4 plugin.

What's you opinion???

Maybe your test setup was flawed. Listening tests via Winamp, with all those different input plugin, output plugin and EQ settings, are provoking irregularities.

Hi John,
my only intention was to tell about my aac experiences and how much i enjoy the aac encoded stuff.
you tell me that i offenced against term 8, sorry for that but i don't know where the offence is.
Think i have to read the terms once again. But i'm really surprised about the replies to my thread, very uncool. To neroplugin. I think I#m old enough to decide to use or not to use the c...k, ok. On the other hand as i remember Ivan had a lot of problems with his psytelcodec caused by the owners of aac copyright.
Where is the frontier????
This will be the first and last thread i ever did here at this place.
Only will read the posts to get some new informations in audiocoding.
If you want you can delete my thread and throw me out of the board. Very uncool here, seems to be very upperclass for me.

Where is the love to music, can't explore it.

Shine on and all the best

Sorry, but you can't expect to come here, talking this hi-fi salesman lingo, with a flawed test setup and making totally unfounded claims, to be treated like Moses. We see no test samples, no ABX results, no equipment description besides "highquality headphones". That's not the way we do it around here.

The problem is if enough other users don't illustrate it enough how you have no proof about your claims, then other users may see the thread & start to say AAC beats MPC, spread the information & create untrue myths.

And it's not the coolest thing to advertize on a public board in front of the developer that you are using his work illegally. I'm sure you didn't mean that, but your post wasn't so cool either..

Peace brothers.
For the last time. I only want to tell a little bit about my aac experiences and how much i enjoy. nothing else more. i only trust my ears, abx and all other is for the experts like you. i'm not a member of this species. i don't need that, coz i hear the music not reading it. its like tuning a guitar by needing a tuner or by ear as i do.
and not to forget anything is the point of view.
finally to short up, have to hurry up to get the last train to clarksville.

shine on and all the best

The first times you tune a guitar by ear, there's a good chance that a quick check with the guitar tuner will tell you how wrong you were. If you don't take care about your test setup, your results are bound to be flawed, no matter how good or bad your hearing may be. Turn on the Winamp EQ, use different ReplayGain options, use some DSP plug-in, and you can force any conclusion that suits you best. Not having a proper test environment makes way for psychological phenomena, bias and prejudice. Not listing any samples is just the icing on the cake. Many software companies regularly do it that way. It does not mean that we condone such a proceeding.

hi, some words i have to agree. but i#ve tried to make the same supposition for any files in soundtesting.
my equipment was an p3 600, 256 mb ram, winxp prof, aureal vortex 8820 sound, winamp 2.80 without any soundequalizers or others switched on. my technicsamplifier once was reference at german hifimagazine stereo (spitzenklasse II) as well at stereoplay. headphones are by akg. testfiles were pat metheny group (minuano six eight from stereoplay audiophile cd of the month still life - talking), flim and the bb's (new america from cd big notes), grand funk railroad ( got this thing on the move from cd grand funk red album, japan remastered release) ,uriah heep (sunrise from live january 1973 digitally remastered) and porcupine tree (blackest eyes from newest release in absentia)-

as i told it doesn't bother me what the experts need to decide soundquality. for me after spending days to compare mp3,mp4,mpc,ogg,aac in highest qualitys as well the original wave and the cda my ears decided that nothing comes closer in lossy than aac. my point of view, nothing else. i love it.

i think i can trust my ears coz i'm the guitarist and songwriter of two bands and i play a lot in open tunings.


my last words here at this thread, wasted time for nothing.

shine on and all the best to all those experts here in this upperclasssoundheaven.

I'm kind of surprised how dangerous a mans words can be in a place like this. Saying "I listened to some encodes and prefered these ones" is fight talk... I never knew that!

I suppose if he preferred the MPC encodes he couldn't be accused of "spreading untrue myths" eh?

My only comment (which nobody else raised) was that you should of used Vorbis at q8 or something instead of at VBR 224, the q's are equivalent to the -extreme settings in aac, so it's a fairer test.

No one said anything insulting


MPC has proven time & time again to be the best performing lossy audio codec in ABX tests

This has nothing to do with MPC vs AAC war it has to do with posts that turn the forum into a place of hearsay instead of a place of facts. If you think AAC sounds transparent that's fine, then you should prove it in a scientific manner like this or keep it to yourself not post;

Wow, major newbie unfriendliness!

Come on, all Porcuhead needed was a link to a discussion of why blind testing is necessary for reliable codec comparisons. All of this bashing and insulting is unnecessary, and to see it coming from some of the forum regulars is disgraceful.

JohnV, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind reading through that entire TOS legal contract word-by-word before posting on HA. And besides, it doesn't even define "ABX", so it's probably meaningless jargon to a newcomer.

In addition, Pio2001's FAQ only links to ABX programs; it has no link to a good discussion of the merits of blind testing. Here's a "what and how" for ABX testing, and here's a rambling discussion of the validity of ABX testing, but after 15 minutes of purposeful searching I still can't find a thread or site that clearly and convincingly says "this is why you need double-blind testing".

I came to this site thinking Roel at r3mix was a genius for using spectral analysis to evaluate MP3's. Of course I know better now, but people here need to realize that the necessity of blind testing is not immediately evident, and it's rediculous to blast someone just because they weren't born with a knowledge of ABX testing.

@SometimesWarrior: I don't think Porcuhead is completely newbie and completely unaware about the proper procedures at HA. Look at his joining date.
Maybe some people were rightfully annoyed that he started a new thread after posting almost the exact same message here, and advertizing the use of cracked Nero plugin.

What comes to these claims about sound quality, I really don't bother to care so much anymore. We have seen these million times from what ever "audiophiles", sound engineers and musicians saying that codec X is the best, without anykind of proofs. Only thing what can be said is that these audiophiles,sound engineers and musicians who "trust only on their ears" (and not on blind testing) seem to come always to different conclusions... Most people know what's the real value of these claims... I don't believe there exists a person who is totally immune to placebo, whatever Mozart one believes to be. A human is a human, not a machine. That's why blind testing is needed, especially when testing near transparent quality lossy audio.

@ Porcuhead: Please, give us ABX results. Otherwise your words are void.
As for me, I still prefer MPC, as it's at least much faster, than AAC (and on my Cel333 encoding time does matter).

porcuhead:



Musicians in general actually have worse hearing than the rest of the population for obvious reasons. So being able to tune your guitar by ear doesn't necessarily mean you have good hearing.



What people are trying to make you understand is that your statement is kind of like walking into a grocery store, nicking a six-pack of beer and then, after finish drinking it, go back to the store telling the owner how good it tasted and expecting him to appreciate your honesty and suggest another brand for the next occasion. (kinda...)

We've all seen it a million times, posts such as these. Of course we are tired of them, but SometimesWarrior has a good point - I also sensed some unfriendliness. It seems we need a standard method of dealing with this sort of post, because we all know they will keep happening - and the people posting usually have good intentions; they are just too unfamiliar with our standards. So I suggest we close threads such as these and send a standard message to the author of the necessity of ABX results, test methodology, etc. It would save everyone a lot of time - and typing.

It would help our cause to have the reputation of a friendly and helpful board that is a solid resource on audio compression, and try to steer clear of the reputation of an elitist group of audio nerds (no offense to anyone of course).

huhu mp4 nero cracked... why crack software when you could at this for free and do the same things...
cracking software is prouve that you use a micro*** OS... beurk !!

use linux and use faac/faad for aac files !!

note that faac current cvs was modified and give better sound quality now let's test it !

I agree. AAC wins hands down. I've made some tests too (mpc, ogg vorbis -q 10, mp3 freeformat 640kbps, aac archive) and aac is by far the best, the sound is so clear, sharp and full of details. To make the test more worthwile I went to a soccer match to test the codecs in a noisy enviroment. And the difference between aac and other codecs is so huge it's not even funny, in some cases aac was better then the orignal! I've been working with pneumatic hammer for several years now so I think I can trust my hearing.

The way I saw it, the posts sounded demeaning. "You cannot post your opinion unless it is valid".. That can sound insulting if it isn't said in a friendly manner explaining why you shouldn't (keeping the board away from heresay) and what you should do.. (saying ABX??? is a stupid comment if it's not explained)

The TOS is long and droning, as any set of rules tends to be. I would shorten each point to a sentence with a link explaining any terms.. eg 8. If you want to make a claim based on quality, you must prove it... prove it linking to a definitive yet simple guide to ABX and it's merits.

Again, I feel this just alienates people from your world rather than invites them in.

Heh, my point exactly. Q! you have the knowledge but not the intelligence. Keep typifying the audiophile as an self-congratulating nerd

@Porcuhead:

Please read this: Don't worry too much that you got some harsh responses before - it's just because when testing audio codecs, you can use your ear in much more objective ways. Okay, here's my contribution. When dealing with codecs such as MPC,AAC,Vorbis at high quality settings, they come quite close to the original and - unfortunately - several other factors are likely to disrupt your tests.

If you want to trust your hearing - and ONLY your hearing, I suggest you try this:

- encode original file to MPC, AAC, Vorbis
- decode the three files to WAV. Now you have 4 files, including the original.
- ensure the 4 files are the exact same loudness (important !)
- (optional but very good: burn the 4 WAV's to CD. I'd recommend: original-ogg-original-aac-original-mpc-original-original; for example.)
- ask a friend (or a program) to (randomly) play one of the 3 WAV's against the original
- try several times to guess (blindly) when you can distinguish the original and when you can't. This is ABX/ABA/etc.

If you don't do it like this, then several factors (outside of your ears) can kick in, and you'll probably get different results.

Several reasons for this:
- placebo effects will skew most non-blind comparisons (everyone is affected !)
- several codecs can behave strangely when you compare them against each other (instead of against the original). For example, MP3 can sound "warmer" - thus often "better" than other codecs. But when you compare it against the original, you can hear the difference (if any).
- it's often very difficult - even for the best listeners - to compare codecs without switching between them quickly.

Of course, these might not be necessary at all, when comparing obvious stuff like 64kbps WMA against MP3... but in higher bitrates, these methods become the only reliable ones. In other words, rigor and scientific test methods become necessary for your results to be credible. That doesn't mean you can't trust your ear ! Actually it's the opposite: you want to trust your ear, and nothing else. Especially not winamp.

Just imagine, how the leading codecs were tuned ! Do you really think the listeners just played the files in winamp a few times, each day, to fine-tune the parameters ? Come on... they used their ears, yes, but not like this.

Cheers

Knowledge? Anyone can get the knowledge I have, after reading this forum for two weeks. And this guy has has been around for almost a year. Look at what he's saying:

'is the best soundquality i#ve ever heard. very naturaly,clear, unbelievable stereopanorama und hammersound' (yeah, right)

This one is good too:
'new nero mp4/aac plugin based on the psytel aac encoder and developed by the same man (Ivan Dimkovic) has no chance to aac.' (so, Ivan spent all this time working on the nero encoder only to LOWER the quality?)

This guy is full of crap. He refuses to use abx? Fine, but he should keep his opinion to himself then.

So, Porcuhead:
ff123's abchr page is good for newbies, it briefly explains how to do an abx test and how it works (that's the all info you need really).

Oooh, speaking of scientific reasons, please state some to support your assertion, since they're so obvious.

Wildboar:

Um, cause of all the self-generated noise they are subject to? This of course only really applies for persons playing loud music (drums or at concerts) and DJs I suppose.

I thought it was obvious as well.

Yeah, I haven't meant many pianists, flutists, violinists etc that have self-generated their own ears to death

Yep, that's my master plan - like every evil corporate guy does

Hay guys I just used Xing and at 64kbps it sounds much better then lossless. The quality is absolutely amazing. Why would anyone waste their time with anything but Xing? I'm expert with good ears and stuff so don't bother questing my results.

Also I steal stuff from Walmart.

"Hay guys I just used Xing and at 64kbps it sounds much better then lossless"

> lol

I would sayMplifier at 32kbps is far better than DVD Audio...

Ever notice these threads usually follow the same timeline?

uninformed post > some rude, some not rude replies > backlash against newbie unfriendliness > degeneration into OT replies.

> closing of the topic..