|
|
Posted by fred-bloggs on 10/10/80 11:36
southend.unitedfc.5.lukebosman@spamgourmet.com (Luke Bosman) wrote in
news:1h8n71s.gj7j7pncxbx5N%
southend.unitedfc.5.lukebosman@spamgourmet.com:
> fred-bloggs <fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Verne Arase <VerneA@pobox.com> wrote in
>> news:0001HW.BFE07C1D0012DDF6F0335550@news.giganews.com:
>>
>> > Actually, in order to get the quality of a 128 kpbs AAC, you need to
>> > code your mp3s at about 192 kbps.
> [...]
>> In a set of public double-blind listening tests in 2004, the Lame 3.96
>> mp3 encoder was rated *equal* to Itunes AAC 4.2 at 128 kbps CBR.
>> http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html
>
> Lame looks to be slightly inferior (4.18 vs. 4.26), although sample
> sizes of 20 or so are hardly statistically valid.
>
You are quoting the mean.
Quoting the test
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html
One codec can be said to rated better than another codec with 95%
confidence if the bottom of its line segment is at or above the top of
the competing codec's line segment
endquote
So, AAC cannot be said to be superior as the confidence limits overlap.
The author's conclusion is Lame MP3 is tied to iTunes AAC.
--
fred
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|