<?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: Public, Multiformat Listening Test</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7221/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7221</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:42:39 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7221/comment-page-1#comment-25830</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25830</guid>
		<description>This is nice to see. I&#039;ve been waiting for this test to take off for a while now, ever since I heard it was under consideration a few months ago. It&#039;s of particular interest to me because of prevalence of AACplus these days (recently added to Winamp and Nero 7) which I think is a very good codec for extremely low bitrate needs (internet radio for example).

If I had to guess I would say Vorbis will likely come out on top in this test as it has in the past. Will be interesting to see. Anyways, glad to see this covered here on p2pnet as there is truly a lot of ignorance out there regarding audio compression. Thanks primarily to marketing mumbo jumbo, most people tend to think that codecs like WMA, MP3, and AAC are CD quality at low bitrates like 64k-128k when nothing could be farther from the truth. There is also no shortage of folks out there giving bad info to people which more often than not tends to be based on very poor testing techniques, or even more often their opinion (self proclaimed &#039;audiophiles&#039; are the worst). The undeniable fact is that only ABX testing is a truly accurate and objective means for figuring out where different codecs stand against each other in terms of true quality versus the original lossless sample (most often compact disc). Think about it; would you buy a video card based solely on someones opinion of a manufacturer, or would you prefer to read the results of objective scientific testing and benchmarking instead?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is nice to see. I&#8217;ve been waiting for this test to take off for a while now, ever since I heard it was under consideration a few months ago. It&#8217;s of particular interest to me because of prevalence of AACplus these days (recently added to Winamp and Nero 7) which I think is a very good codec for extremely low bitrate needs (internet radio for example).</p>
<p>If I had to guess I would say Vorbis will likely come out on top in this test as it has in the past. Will be interesting to see. Anyways, glad to see this covered here on p2pnet as there is truly a lot of ignorance out there regarding audio compression. Thanks primarily to marketing mumbo jumbo, most people tend to think that codecs like WMA, MP3, and AAC are CD quality at low bitrates like 64k-128k when nothing could be farther from the truth. There is also no shortage of folks out there giving bad info to people which more often than not tends to be based on very poor testing techniques, or even more often their opinion (self proclaimed &#8216;audiophiles&#8217; are the worst). The undeniable fact is that only ABX testing is a truly accurate and objective means for figuring out where different codecs stand against each other in terms of true quality versus the original lossless sample (most often compact disc). Think about it; would you buy a video card based solely on someones opinion of a manufacturer, or would you prefer to read the results of objective scientific testing and benchmarking instead?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
