Linked by Brooss on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
Benchmarks A comment on the recent article about the Bali release of Googles WebM tools (libvpx) claimed that one of the biggest problems facing the adoption of WebM video was the slow speed of the encoder as compared to x264. This article sets out to benchmark the encoder against x264 to see if this is indeed true and if so, how significant the speed difference really is.
Thread beginning with comment 466413
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by Neolander on Wed 16th Mar 2011 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

This obviously shows your lack of knowledge of the audio field. Yet another example of awful journalism on your personal blog. You totally should be fired.

Real audiophiles can hear the sound of one dropped bit in several hours of 24bit/128kHz sound. And get a refund on their whole Hi-Fi setup when doing so. All true audiophiles also have a special contract with their electricity network, to ensure that their power supply never goes more than -256 dB away from the 230V/50Hz sinusoid.

What's more, you showcase your blatant lack of knowledge and research by suggesting that audiophiles may listen to digital audio from time to time. True audiophiles only listen to records and magnetic tapes, as they can't stand the cold sound of digital hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[8]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by Nicram on Wed 16th Mar 2011 16:42 in reply to "RE[7]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
Nicram Member since:
2006-01-31

We call this voodoo-audio in Poland. People believe in some things, and can kill if You tell them they are wrong haha ;) Then we take them, show them blind tests where they usually fail crying ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

roger_ramjet Member since:
2007-04-30

That was hilarious. I'm going back to my highly optimizes bi-wired listening experience :-P

Reply Parent Score: 1