<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On audio compression</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:08:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-103787</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-103787</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://xkcd.com/841/&quot; title=&quot;xkcd: Audiophiles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XKCD on audiophiles&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://xkcd.com/841/" title="xkcd: Audiophiles" rel="nofollow">XKCD on audiophiles</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R.K.</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-82836</link>
		<dc:creator>R.K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-82836</guid>
		<description>That is rather surprising.

I though perhaps the comparison was done based on the sound hardware people had at home, but it was apparently with &quot;a pair of £500 reference-grade headphones and a high-end audio processor.&quot;

The sample size was quite small, however. Just 16 people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is rather surprising.</p>
<p>I though perhaps the comparison was done based on the sound hardware people had at home, but it was apparently with &#8220;a pair of £500 reference-grade headphones and a high-end audio processor.&#8221;</p>
<p>The sample size was quite small, however. Just 16 people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-82835</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-82835</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/19/176209/13-of-People-Cant-Tell-48Kbps-Audio-From-160Kbps?from=rss&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1/3 of People Can&#039;t Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps&lt;/a&gt;

&quot;Results of a blind listening test show that a third of people can&#039;t tell the difference between music encoded at 48Kbps and the same music encoded at 160Kbps. The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs. Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression. Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/19/176209/13-of-People-Cant-Tell-48Kbps-Audio-From-160Kbps?from=rss" rel="nofollow">1/3 of People Can&#8217;t Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Results of a blind listening test show that a third of people can&#8217;t tell the difference between music encoded at 48Kbps and the same music encoded at 160Kbps. The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs. Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression. Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-16548</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:44:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-16548</guid>
		<description>To our subjects’ ears, there wasn’t a tremendous distinction between the tracks encoded at 128Kb/s and those encoded at 256Kb/s. None of them were absolutely sure about their choices with either set of earphones, even after an average of five back-to-back A/B listening tests. That tells us the value in the Apple’s and EMI’s more expensive tracks lies solely in the fact that they’re free of DRM restrictions.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit?page=0%2C1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To our subjects’ ears, there wasn’t a tremendous distinction between the tracks encoded at 128Kb/s and those encoded at 256Kb/s. None of them were absolutely sure about their choices with either set of earphones, even after an average of five back-to-back A/B listening tests. That tells us the value in the Apple’s and EMI’s more expensive tracks lies solely in the fact that they’re free of DRM restrictions.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit?page=0%2C1" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3212</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:17:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3212</guid>
		<description>Mark,

If you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sindark.com/wp/wp-register.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;register for an account&lt;/a&gt; on this blog, you can edit your own comments. For the moment, if you post a corrected version, I will backdate it and delete the incorrect one.

Anonymous,

Variable Bit Rate (VBR) AAC at 128-bit is also the solution I have decided upon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>If you <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wp/wp-register.php" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">register for an account</a> on this blog, you can edit your own comments. For the moment, if you post a corrected version, I will backdate it and delete the incorrect one.</p>
<p>Anonymous,</p>
<p>Variable Bit Rate (VBR) AAC at 128-bit is also the solution I have decided upon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3211</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3211</guid>
		<description>Seriously, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp;jsessionid=FPFODHFDKLKC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; Variable Bit Rate (VBR) AAC at 128-bit is imperceptible from the original. Ken Rockwell agrees and I trust him.

Debate closed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seriously, according to <a href="http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp;jsessionid=FPFODHFDKLKC" rel="nofollow">this page</a> Variable Bit Rate (VBR) AAC at 128-bit is imperceptible from the original. Ken Rockwell agrees and I trust him.</p>
<p>Debate closed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3210</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3210</guid>
		<description>Thank God I still keep all my music as MIDI files!

Oh, the glory of MIDI audio!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank God I still keep all my music as MIDI files!</p>
<p>Oh, the glory of MIDI audio!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3209</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3209</guid>
		<description>Gyarr. I have messed up my tags. And my spelling. Sigh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gyarr. I have messed up my tags. And my spelling. Sigh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3208</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3208</guid>
		<description>The most extesnive blind testing of audio codecs I&#039;ve seen is &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.soundexpert.info/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;,  though if it&#039;s pretty presentation you prefer, this &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://ff123.net/64test/results.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;low-bitrate shootout&lt;/A&gt; looks nice.

If your feeling in need of a little catharsis, there is a remarkable application of lossy compression &lt;A&gt;.
It has a very progressive &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20010608050725/lzip.sourceforge.net/license.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;licence agreement&lt;/A&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most extesnive blind testing of audio codecs I&#8217;ve seen is <a HREF="http://www.soundexpert.info/index.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>,  though if it&#8217;s pretty presentation you prefer, this <a HREF="http://ff123.net/64test/results.html" rel="nofollow">low-bitrate shootout</a> looks nice.</p>
<p>If your feeling in need of a little catharsis, there is a remarkable application of lossy compression <a>.<br />
It has a very progressive </a><a HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20010608050725/lzip.sourceforge.net/license.html" rel="nofollow">licence agreement</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DBT</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3207</link>
		<dc:creator>DBT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 11:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3207</guid>
		<description>&quot;Note how people who review compression schemes tend to have unusually ugly websites.&quot;

Snobbery comes in many forms. Those who do not agonize over CSS are obviously inferior.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Note how people who review compression schemes tend to have unusually ugly websites.&#8221;</p>
<p>Snobbery comes in many forms. Those who do not agonize over CSS are obviously inferior.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3204</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 11:07:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3204</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&amp;node=&amp;contentId=A55501-2001Jul12&amp;notFound=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More experts discuss compression&lt;/a&gt;

---

&lt;a href=&quot;http://ekei.com/audio/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a study&lt;/a&gt; based on blind tests, though it is somewhat dated.

Note how people who review compression schemes tend to have unusually ugly websites.

---

&lt;a href=&quot;http://ff123.net/dogies/dogies_comments.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Another blind study&lt;/a&gt;, with even uglier formatting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&#038;node=&#038;contentId=A55501-2001Jul12&#038;notFound=true" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">More experts discuss compression</a></p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><a href="http://ekei.com/audio/" rel="nofollow">Here is a study</a> based on blind tests, though it is somewhat dated.</p>
<p>Note how people who review compression schemes tend to have unusually ugly websites.</p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><a href="http://ff123.net/dogies/dogies_comments.html" rel="nofollow">Another blind study</a>, with even uglier formatting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3203</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/08/06/on-audio-compression/#comment-3203</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://members.chello.nl/~m.heijligers/ipod/Compression/compression.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exhibit B&lt;/a&gt;

&quot;The 128 kbit/sec VBR (file size 760KB for 42 seconds) is a bit better, though still very fuzzy. Although the artifacts are still very very big, the transients of the harpsicord don&#039;t interfere with the voice that heavily anymore. For less demanding music, this encoding is on the edge of usable...&quot;

&quot;For me it resulted in selecting AAC 224kbit/sec as my default format, as this is the encoding which provides good sound quality, and still results in acceptable file sizes (at least for my iPod 30GB). Although the AAC 224bit/sec still shows some minor artifact, you have to compare it with the original and critical source material in order to recognize those artifacts, though for the Tori Amos track I can recognize them immediately. The AAC 320 kbit/sec encoding results in much larger files, for just a little bit more quality, which was my reason not to select it. For less critical material, I use the 160kbit/sec AAC encoding, just to gain some space on my iPod. For critical material (piano, lots of cymabals, music close to hard rock with continiously distorted guitars) this results in obvious flanging or tremolo.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://members.chello.nl/~m.heijligers/ipod/Compression/compression.html" rel="nofollow">Exhibit B</a></p>
<p>&#8220;The 128 kbit/sec VBR (file size 760KB for 42 seconds) is a bit better, though still very fuzzy. Although the artifacts are still very very big, the transients of the harpsicord don&#8217;t interfere with the voice that heavily anymore. For less demanding music, this encoding is on the edge of usable&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;For me it resulted in selecting AAC 224kbit/sec as my default format, as this is the encoding which provides good sound quality, and still results in acceptable file sizes (at least for my iPod 30GB). Although the AAC 224bit/sec still shows some minor artifact, you have to compare it with the original and critical source material in order to recognize those artifacts, though for the Tori Amos track I can recognize them immediately. The AAC 320 kbit/sec encoding results in much larger files, for just a little bit more quality, which was my reason not to select it. For less critical material, I use the 160kbit/sec AAC encoding, just to gain some space on my iPod. For critical material (piano, lots of cymabals, music close to hard rock with continiously distorted guitars) this results in obvious flanging or tremolo.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

