Talk:Choosing the best codec - Revision history

Speckmade: Talk:Choosing the best codec. moved to Talk:Choosing the best codec

2007-06-13T15:26:20Z

Talk:Choosing the best codec. moved to Talk:Choosing the best codec

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:26, 13 June 2007
(No difference)

HotshotGG: Talk:Audio format guide moved to Talk:Choosing the best codec.: making it a little more descriptive.

2006-06-10T20:13:27Z

Talk:Audio format guide moved to Talk:Choosing the best codec.: making it a little more descriptive.

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:13, 10 June 2006
(No difference)

Guruboolez at 10:57, 28 May 2006

2006-05-28T10:57:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 28 May 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	MPC was never considered superior to other formats at ~128 kbps. It got the best mark on the first [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html Multiformat listening test] but was still statistically tied to AAC, Vorbis and WMAPro. On the [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html Second multiformat listening test] MPC didn't got the best mark and was still tied to Vorbis and AAC.		MPC was never considered superior to other formats at ~128 kbps. To the great surprise of the community it got the best mark on the first [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html Multiformat listening test] but was still statistically tied to AAC, Vorbis and WMAPro. On the [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html Second multiformat listening test] MPC didn't got the best mark and was still tied to Vorbis and AAC.
	Musepack was considered by "audiophiles" as the best lossy format for high bitrates (from --standard or 175 kbps and more). It may be worth mentionning that '''no trace''' of any listening test proving this superiority could be found on the web. With recent developments of AAC (iTunes and Nero Digital) and Vorbis (aoTuV) the superiority of MPC at high bitrate is really unlikely.		Musepack was considered by "audiophiles" as the best lossy format for high bitrates (from --standard or 175 kbps and more). It may be worth mentionning that '''no trace''' of any listening test proving this superiority could be found on the web. With recent developments of AAC (iTunes and Nero Digital) and Vorbis (aoTuV) the superiority of MPC at high bitrate is really unlikely.

Guruboolez at 10:53, 28 May 2006

2006-05-28T10:53:26Z

New page

MPC was never considered superior to other formats at ~128 kbps. It got the best mark on the first [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html Multiformat listening test] but was still statistically tied to AAC, Vorbis and WMAPro. On the [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html Second multiformat listening test] MPC didn't got the best mark and was still tied to Vorbis and AAC.
Musepack was considered by "audiophiles" as the best lossy format for high bitrates (from --standard or 175 kbps and more). It may be worth mentionning that '''no trace''' of any listening test proving this superiority could be found on the web. With recent developments of AAC (iTunes and Nero Digital) and Vorbis (aoTuV) the superiority of MPC at high bitrate is really unlikely.