Posted by Luke Bosman on 11/16/12 11:36

fred-bloggs <fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> wrote:

> southend.unitedfc.5.lukebosman@spamgourmet.com (Luke Bosman) wrote in
> news:1h8nj3q.g7v8jv1cys0aN%southend.unitedfc.5.lukebosman@spamgourmet.com

> >> >> 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


> > I am aware of the author's conclusion. However, as I have said sample
> > sizes of 20 are hardly statistically valid.
>
> Who AM I to believe? Someone who has done the work and subjected it to
> public review or someone who says *I know* without any substantiation?

I don't say that I know. I say that a sample size of 20 is hardly
statistically valid.

> > Interestingly, for many
> > tracks iTunes AAC is considered to be superior.

> Again, the confidence intervals overalap, the difference is not
> significant.

For many tracks, the confidence intervals do not overlap.

Luke


--
No-one reads signatures these days.

[Back to original message]