Nonsensical statement on website

[BenHQ]

On your Codec Central page I read:

"Compromise on Space - best lossy would be Musepack above 128 Kbps it cannot be beaten"

This is a complete and utter lie. Ogg Vorbis beats Musepack by tens of percentages. Even MP3 wins from musepack in many circumstances, above 128 kbit/s. Musepack is a very old and buggy codec, shows many artifacts and pre-demands for its source-files to give decent results. MPC loses in all tests (from Ogg Vorbis and AAC) that we've done here at the Dutch national broadcast facilities (NOB) in 2007.

In addition it states:

"Portable Player - for iPod go for the newest m4a, others Windows Media Audio,"

which is also nonsense. Even YouTube is going with LAME 3.97 code for its flash videos. Trust me, they've tested that against others. For portable go with lame MP3 or Ogg Vorbis, or if the firmware requires it with m4a/aac, but even at ~96 kbit/s LAME still wins from AAC in overall testing, and definitely always wins from wma. This is also widely known on several tests to be found online.

[Spoon]

Re: Nonsensical statement on website

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

In that test Ogg never beat it once...and remember these tests were at the bottom end of mpcs useful scale, above 200Kbps it really shines (but no listening test is going to show that as the average user struggles to do a listening test at 128Kbps).

>Musepack is a very old and buggy codec

It might be old, but is not buggy any more than wma, aac or mp3 is buggy, why is it buggy? can you get dbpoweramp to crash encoding to or from mpc?

mpc would be my first choice (for lossy), over m4a or mp3, you seem to dislike it with real distain.

I agree about the wma statement, so will revise (the original statement is 3-4 years old).