 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
90.206.189.35
In Reply to: RE: His choice, not ours posted by Ted Smith on December 16, 2007 at 10:47:00
What kind of public retraction was required? Bart Locanthi was the head of an ad-hoc AES commitee charged with studying compression algos and perform listening tests on the selfsame algos. So what did he say? The official report reads very differently from JA accounts, importantly it states that
the impairments are to be regarded as small, Nevertheless, SR came to the conclusion that none of the codecs could be generally accepted for use as distribution codecs by the broadcasters
in direct contrast to JA's account.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Follow Ups:
HowdyFeel free to state whatever facts you feel are relevant and discus the issue politely.
truthseekerprime could have made his case to the Bored and backed up his accusations with evidence or he could have stated publicly that he was mistaken, but you see the path he chose instead.
-Ted
Sigh...should have seen that one coming.
Have a nice day!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Howdy
There's a big difference between friendly jabbing back and forth (or even, at times, heated discussions) and outright defamation.
When things escalate we have to take it off line, let the parties state their cases and sometimes we get caught in the middle. But you know what? Almost all of the time when we ask people to present the facts to us rather than argue them online one party or the other does what truthseekerprime did and saves us the trouble of being the judge. (My favorite is the people that threaten to sue me personally for leaving what they said up. It's happened to me twice.)
-Ted
The paper covered two tests, on conducted in 1990, the other in 1991. The quote he produced was from the conclusion section pertaining to the 1990 test. From the conclusion section pertaining to the 1991 test we find:
Both codecs have now reached a level of performance where they fulfill the EBU requirements for a distribution codec.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
bjh,
What say you? I am asking for page reference for your citation and I am not getting response?
What's happening?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Could you post a link to the abstract and preferably a pg ref of your quote.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I have the full report (pdf) courtesy of a member here (see link)
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Thank you, seen it.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
I hope you appreciate that the reported article that artefacts can be heard, and it grades the quality of each code according to the audibility of artifacts. Therefore good enough for broadcast does not translate to "no artefacts are audible" as implied by JA column.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
