Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Codec proposals for testing at SoundExpert

Sep 14, 2005 10:33PM PDT

SoundExpert testing service (www.soundexpert.info) is now ready for audio quality evaluation of high bit rate codecs. I am going to start with 256 kbps ones. As the testing needs a lot of visitors to participate a choice of the codec candidates is essential. Your proposals of the first ones would be helpful.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Sans Java?
Sep 14, 2005 11:05PM PDT

Does this require I install Java Runtime?

Bob

- Collapse -
No.
Sep 15, 2005 12:31AM PDT

No, you don't have to. Actually I didn?t fully understand the question.

- Collapse -
The site seems to have a Java bent to it.
Sep 15, 2005 12:49AM PDT

While that's nice, I disable Java on all the work machines for security reasons.

After a second look, I can't grasp why these codecs are needed. I can set high enough rates already.

Bob

- Collapse -
The reason why.
Sep 15, 2005 6:23AM PDT

Well, this codecs are needed when creating personal audio collection, for example, or choosing a format (mp3, aac, wma, ogg, ?) for portable player. You know, there is a trade off between audio quality and space your music occupied in memory. The choice is not trivial. People always want to get most from their memory capacity or internet bandwidth (web-radio, music downloads). SoundExpert helps to get a picture of various audio formats quality. Very soon portable players and Hi-Fi components will be added to the system as well.

- Collapse -
I'm not sure why I can't use LAME and try it out.
Sep 15, 2005 6:46AM PDT

It all begs why one can't just try a few settings and move on.

I've seen a few overanalyze compression, fidelity and more. Maybe this is one of those sites?

Bob

- Collapse -
You can, for sure.
Sep 15, 2005 10:48AM PDT

I think the choice is difficult only for people who do care about audio quality. Before purchasing their Hi-Fi components they read ?What Hi-Fi?, ?Stereo? ?.. Codec could be considered as such component. So it?s not surprising that there are some web sites which play the same role as the magazines above ? to help make a choice.

- Collapse -
Let's get down to brass tacks.
Sep 15, 2005 11:00AM PDT

MP3 is a lossy compression. In no uncertain terms can it be called hi-fi. You can see the results at ANY bitrate on a spectrum analyzer. MP3 tosses out stuff it guesses you might not hear or miss.

I'm surprised when some write about fidelity and MP3. We have other choices to play with such as OGG, others.

But here's the rub. For on the go music, the background noise in the car, train, bus, etc. makes MP3 even and low bitrates very usable.

Bob

- Collapse -
Ogg is lossy as well.
Sep 15, 2005 9:13PM PDT

It depends on bitrate. Higher ones are almost transparent to human hearing. They show some difference on spectrum analyzers, THD meters, S/N meters etc., but today we all are clever enough not to measure perceived audio quality by any objective parameters or even a set of them. Human auditory system is too complicated and differs from person to person. That?s why the only reliable method of judging audio quality is listening tests.

I am sure that very soon all consumer audio will be lossy compressed as it already happened with video. DVD, DivX, VCD use the same methods to reduce file size ? discarding all information that are not perceived by human visual system. In short ? lossy compression of audio do belongs to Hi-Fi area. Now more and more manufacturers of Hi-Fi components support lossy formats and soon we?ll hear song of praise from all those Hi-Fi magazines? Happy