|
|
Posted by Luke Bosman on 10/01/66 11:36
fred-bloggs <fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
> >> 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.
Indeed.
> AAC cannot be said to be superior as the confidence limits overlap.
>
> The author's conclusion is Lame MP3 is tied to iTunes AAC.
I am aware of the author's conclusion. However, as I have said sample
sizes of 20 are hardly statistically valid. Interestingly, for many
tracks iTunes AAC is considered to be superior.
Cheers,
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|