Vorbis dev - Sep 1999 - Sound & Vision codec comparison article

I just found this link on slashdot:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/SoundAndVision/FrameSet/0,1670,_sl_SoundAndVision_sl_Article_sl_0_cm_1653_cm_130_2020_1_cm_00,00.html

It is a Sept 1999 article describing some very detailed, double blind
listening tests comparing PAC(Lucent), MP3(FhG) and MS audio at
128kbs.  In typical microsoft fashon, MS audio is the clear looser
despite all their hype.  There are types of music where MP3 does
better than PAC and vice versa, but overall MP3 comes out ahead.  In
only one sample did MP3 perform poorly.

MP3 and PAC are both MDCT/scalefactor type codecs.  Anyone know
what the technology is in the microsoft codec?

Mark

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/

On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Mark Taylor wrote:
> MP3 and PAC are both MDCT/scalefactor type codecs.  Anyone know
> what the technology is in the microsoft codec?
>From what I've read the MS coder is just a poor rehash of the ISO
refrence
MP3 encoder with the format munged and 'protection' added.. I'll see
if I
can find documentation on that..

As for these tests, I'd take them with a grain or two of salt: Many of
their subjects had a hard time telling most pieces at 128Kb/s mp3 from the
orignal CD. This doesn't make any sence, as anyone with a somewhat decent
audio system should be able to hear thew 16K low pass, much less the other
distorition.

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/