Slashdot Mirror

Here's another side to the problem: WMA, Vorbis and AAC do not offer the same quality at 64k that mp3 can already acheive at 128k (this is a lie long-perpetuated by the makers of newer codecs). This task is made harder because mp3 has improved so much via LAME, to the point that 128k VBR is almost transparent.

So yeah, mp3 sucks at 64k, but do does every other codec. You might be able to get the same quality as mp3 at 96k, or as low as 80k, but you won't get any amazing storage leaps over 128k mp3. Add in the fact that Vorbis uses more power to decode than mp3 (even using the pure integer decoder), and it's not all that enticing.

HydrogenAudio has done all kinds of listening tests over the years with various different codecs, including multiple encoders and rates for all of the major lossy formats. Their public tests are well designed blind tests-they give you the various samples but don't tell you which is from which encoder, and you're asked to use ABC/HR which is a program designed specifically for blind testing of audio.This one just happens to be 128 kbps MP3.

This is particularly of interest to a lot of people because

• MP3 is still the most popular and most compatible lossy format out there
• with the best encoders, 128kbps should be very close to perceptual transparency for most listeners on most samples while still being very usable for portable devices
• MP3 encoder comparisons based on valid scientific and statistical principles (blind tests, ANOVA, etc) aren't too common; as the title says, it's been 4 1/2 years since Roberto Amorin's test.

Here's some double-blind listening tests comparing the perceived quality of various MP3 encoders. At 128kbps, LAME 3.95 beat the encoders from Adobe Audition 1.0, iTunes 4.2, Gogo-no-coda 3.12, Audioactive 2.04 and Xing 1.5. Sure, the test is more than four years old, but unless there's something more recent, that'll stand.

You quantify it with double-blind ABX testing across large groups of people. Drop by Hydrogenaudio's Listening tests wiki list for a start.

WMA, AAC, OGG, etc are all next-generation codes, it should come as no surprise that they perform better than MP3 for most material to most listeners under most circumstances.

They do not. Here: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

I know you mentioned LAME in your last sentence, but I'm not sure how that doesn't invalidate your last sentence. If it doesn't, then the listening test above does.

I'll sum up the double-blind test results above: LAME-encoded mp3's sound as good as AAC files and better than WMA files at the same bit rate. (The bit rates varied by insignificant amounts.)

several years ago, 20 and 40 GB iPods were common, but now the largest most people have is only 8 or 16 GB

Several years ago, the largest iPod you could get was 40GB, and it cost $399. Nowadays, an 80GB iPod is $249.

If you buy one that's smaller, that's your choice. Presumably, people with large music collections would not buy a smaller device. You're somehow equating buying trends with the available choices on the market, and there is no correlation. In other words, the fact that 8GB or 16GB iPods are so common now doesn't mean that's all you can get.

Not to mention you're ignoring all the 4GB and 6GB iPods that used to be around. Remember, the iPod mini was the most popular iPod on the market in the timeframe you're talking about. So iPods have still only increased in average capacity, as has every other player out there.

btw, whenever somebody tells me that any codec (usually AAC or WMA) is significantly better than mp3, I always trot out this set of double-blind test results: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

Yes, Vorbis scored slightly higher. But given the convenience and ubiquity of mp3, I'll take mp3. I also took part in that test and honestly, I really couldn't tell the difference in almost any of the files I listened to (using a set of professional studio headphones). There's nothing there in those test results that a slightly higher quality setting wouldn't take care of, and as I said, hard drive space is cheap.

mp3 got a bad rep because of encoders like Blade and iTunes (which intentionally uses an old, crappy encoder to encourage use of AAC). But LAME has really closed the gap.

As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.

Roberto Amorim and Sebastian (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."

• Sebastian's Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps (December 2005) shows LAME 3.97 Beta 2 being roughly equal to iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3.
• Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps test (February 2004) shows iTunes 4.2 MP3 performing much worse than LAME 3.95.
• Amorim's AAC at 128kbps test v2 (February 2004) shows iTunes AAC performing much better than other AAC encoders at the time. At least we know that the vast majority of home-created AAC files (created with iTunes) are pretty good quality.

As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.

Roberto Amorim and Sebastian (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."

• Sebastian's Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps (December 2005) shows LAME 3.97 Beta 2 being roughly equal to iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3.
• Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps test (February 2004) shows iTunes 4.2 MP3 performing much worse than LAME 3.95.
• Amorim's AAC at 128kbps test v2 (February 2004) shows iTunes AAC performing much better than other AAC encoders at the time. At least we know that the vast majority of home-created AAC files (created with iTunes) are pretty good quality.

As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.

Roberto Amorim and Sebastian (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."

• Sebastian's Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps (December 2005) shows LAME 3.97 Beta 2 being roughly equal to iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3.
• Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps test (February 2004) shows iTunes 4.2 MP3 performing much worse than LAME 3.95.
• Amorim's AAC at 128kbps test v2 (February 2004) shows iTunes AAC performing much better than other AAC encoders at the time. At least we know that the vast majority of home-created AAC files (created with iTunes) are pretty good quality.

Also, Ogg is superior to WMA and Mp3, and slightly better than AAC. http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/result s.html

But it doesn't, not unless you're under 128kbps.

See the 128k listening test here. Itunes is TIED with Lame -V5 at 128k.

In fact, another test performed in December 2005 shows marked improvement for both AAC and LAME mp3. Even with VBR enabled for Itunes, it remains tied with LAME. Quality was so good all-around, the author declared that this would be the last test at 128k.

Now, I don't know where you're going to get music that's less than 128k out of the Itunes Music Store, and you can bet your ass that 128k LAME mp3s will sound just as good as those 128k AAC tracks.

My personal beef with the 256k file size is that is is TOO BIG. My entire CD collection is encoded using LAME --alt-preset standard, and the average bitrate is under 200k. "Upgrading" to Apple's 256k AAC files would mean more space used up on my portable player. Mp3 doesn't need more than 192k average bitrate to make a 99.99% transparent copy of the original track, and neither does AAC.

Hmm... it didn't seem to have any issues last year:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.ht ml

The first (obvious) conclusion is: No codec delivers the marketing plot of same quality as MP3 at half the bitrates.
Lame MP3 at 128kbps wins, followed by Ahead/Nero HE AAC on 2nd place, CodingTechnologies' MP3pro on 3rd place, Ogg Vorbis on 4th place, Real Audio, QuickTime AAC and WMA9 tied near the middle of the graph, and FhG MP3 definitely at the bottom.

I have 80GB of music, all Mp3. Apple's mp3 encoder works really well, too.

I think it's wise to rip to the more compatible MP3 format rather than AAC. However, unless Apple has changed iTunes's MP3 encoder recently, the MP3 encoder that Apple uses in iTunes is well-known as one of the crappiest-sounding MP3 encoders available.

If you care about quality, use the LAME encoder to create MP3s.

I assume you mean "wma". WMA provides a higher quality sound at a lower file size/bit rate.

Bullshit.

Both Apple *and* MS would love for you to believe that their codecs can sound twice as good as mp3 at half the bit rate, but unfortunately for them it just isn't true and that double-blind listening test proved it some time ago. Statistically, the difference is not all that great, but in absolute terms, mp3 actually sounds *better* than wma even at the *same* bit rate. You can forget about trying to get wma to sound anywhere near as good as mp3 at a lower bit rate. (Apple's AAC fares a bit better, but not a whole lot.)

There is simply no compelling reason to use anything other than either Vorbis (if you want the absolute best lossy compression at the expense of compatibility) or mp3 (if you want the best lossy compression with the most compatibility). You're a fool to lock yourself into one company's products by using an inferior compression algorithm.

See here for the results of a multiformat 128kbit/s test, and here for the results of a 64kbit/s test.

AAC also works with the iPod (featuring gapless) and on Winamp, foobar2000, etc. I think it also works on the Zune, according to some reviews that I have seen.

See here for the results of a multiformat 128kbit/s test, and here for the results of a 64kbit/s test.

AAC also works with the iPod (featuring gapless) and on Winamp, foobar2000, etc. I think it also works on the Zune, according to some reviews that I have seen.

Actually, Apple's AAC encoder is right up there with all the other modern audio codecs, above Vorbis, though statistically tied: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results. html

And yes at, the same bit rate AAC sounds better than MP3.

That's just not true anymore. See the latest Multiformat 128k Listening Tests, Itunes AAC at 128k is tied with Lame V5 (VBR with a target of 128k).

You see, most AAC and Vorbis proponents fail to notice that MANY of the same aural modeling optimizations that are integrated into modern codecs are just as easily integrated into mp3 codecs. Lame is a standing tribute to this fact, and is a clear reminder to the industry that mp3 is nowhere near dead.

It is true that by default Itunes rips to aac and Windows Media Player rips to wma, and this does make inroads for those formats. In the long run, however, this will do nothing to take down mp3.

The reason is, people who don't know much about ripping and sharing (and thus don't rip in mp3) typically don't care enough to share their music. These are the kind of people who are either too uninformed or too stupid to understand the process of ripping and sharing...all they know is if they put the CD in the system, Itunes puts it in their library. In fact, taking that "next step" to actively sharing your music is made even harder now that Apple holds your hand, because if you want to break free of the limitations imposed on you by Itunes, you have to hack the hell out of things.

In the long run, the ability to share music with reasonable quality and bitrates is what wins the format war. Since mp3 is supported by every device out there, and is recognized as the "most sharable" format by most of those who bother to share their music, it has already won.

''To get something that sounds as good as an 160 AAC you need to have MP3 encode at 192 or higher.''

I think, respectfully, that your opinion is somehow skewed. I've seen a couple published blind abx tests * of various formats at 128 Kbps. iTunes AAC was rated equal to LAME MP3 (and Ogg Vorbis too). At higher bitrates, it's even more clear that AAC has no advantage because almost nobody can distinguish 160 or 192 Kbps files created by a decent encoder against the original CD. Especially on a device like an iPod.

* http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/result s.html
* http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/re sults.htm

If you want to refute my opinion, please, show me a published test that has some real statistical significance. Not just unprovable claims.

For the truths about audio encoding, see www.Hydrogenaudio.org

Consumers don't want vorbis or mp3, they want music.

I'm pretty sure they want mp3. Depending on which server you hit at that link, you'll get anywhere from 785,000,000 to 1,085,000,000 results.

Vorbis, on the other hand, has only around 12,000,000 results.

I think in this case, it's wrong to assume that customers don't know or care what format they're using. In order to even *have* mp3's, most people would have had to make a conscious decision to either rip or acquire them that way - because none of the major label-supported download services offer that format (I know, Emusic does), and the two biggest library/ripping apps (iTunes and WMP) rip to other formats by default.

In fact, the "industry" has been actively trying to kill off mp3 for years now, because of the DRM issue. Windows Media 8 or 9 didn't even include mp3 ripping as an option at all until people complained, and then the initial "fix" only let you rip at up to 64kbps. Apple and MS have both been hyping their own formats as sounding better than mp3 (which is, on average, bullshit). And the record industry won't put any of their music on the market in the format.

Device manufacturers, though, have learned the hard way that not supporting mp3 is a death knell. Sony was forced to support it after their non-mp3 DAPs failed to even make a dent in the market. And this was back when it still wasn't clear who was going to win the DAP war; Apple was the early leader but it still seemed like anyone's game. Sony threw their chance away by not supporting mp3 from the start; they've never recovered from that blunder. The lead Apple built while Sony's early players languished on the market is now pretty much insurmountable.

Meanwhile, MS is about to dump their unsuccessful Windows Media format with the Zune; or at least, they haven't committed to it one way or another. They will be supporting mp3, however, because you don't beat the iPod by refusing to support the biggest format out there.

All of this shows that consumers sure do know what format they want their music in and that format is mp3. In fact, most people still buy CD's and rip their own music to mp3 themselves.

Device manufacturers will start to support vorbis I'd imagine when the public decides that's what it wants to use... which means never.

I know some people have some sort of philosophical/political attachment to ogg vorbis as a non-proprietary codec. But you should take your victories where you can, and you should look at the popularity of mp3 in that light. It may be a proprietary format but for users, it is also an unencumbered, universally-supported format. Users are choosing it over the even more tightly controlled formats favored by Microsoft, Apple and the RIAA. And they're bucking predictions of mp3's demise that have been made by analysts for years and continue to be made today. It's just never going to happen.

1. All software violates patents

There are so many software patents nowadays, I'm sure it's impossible to write all but the simplest software without treading on somebody's patent. But to suggest that distro owners should knowingly violate patents is kind of negligent.

The patents are only valid in the US and Japan

I know they're slightly biased, but on the MP3 Licensing web site, there's an extensive list of patents which have been granted in an equally extensive list of countries.

The point is moot in 3 years anyway when the patent expires. So, there's no time to popularize ogg if that's what they're attempting.

Again, I'd refer you to the MP3 Licensing web page. If you assume a patent duration of 20 years from filing, the first patents may have begun to expire but there's still quite a number of years to go until all the ones necessary to implement a full-featured decoder will have expired.

I'm all for keeping things 100% FLOSS, but as long as a piece of software has source code and is freely licenced then personally I don't care if it violates patents. Its one thing being forced by law not to use MP3 playback, but voluntarily removing it preemptively...isn't that a little like jumping off a cliff to avoid getting pushed off?

Apparently quite a number of the big free distros have legal teams who would disagree with you. From what I've used, neither Fedora nor Ubuntu include MP3 playback support and it's precisely for this reason. It's OK you advocating violating patents but these distros are made by non-profit organisations who have a lot to lose if they come on the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. At least they make the effort to make MP3 support available. If you want MP3 support, either pay for a commercial distro or quit whining and take the 2 minutes to install support for your distro. As you say, one day all these patents will have expired and even the free distros will be able to ship with MP3 support out of the box.

Of course, most Linux distros ship with support for 2 excellent audio formats out of the box: Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, both of which are better than MP3. Ogg Vorbis is a lossy CODEC which provides better quality than MP3 at a lower bitrate. FLAC is the lossless CODEC and provides CD quality with 30-60% compression. Neither contain any patents that we know of (that in itself is important) and both work great on Windows too.

Oh, and about your listening test comment, here is some infos:

a blind test is a test where one will be presented with three pieces of music (the same piece usually the original, ATRAC ad MP3 in our example) and will be asked to rate them in order of quality. But the listeners does not know which is which - except for the original which they are asked to rate the others against.

That way, there is no bias either conscious or inconscious. A huge number of people couldn't believe what a 'placebo' effect is. It is the fact that your brain can very well tell you there are differences between two files when there are none.

Here is a public listening test comparing MP3 to ATRAC at 128kbps.

ATRAC is lossy, and it compares relatively poorly in a lot of listening tests. For example, in this double blind open participation test, it got the lowest score (the other codecs were AAC, MP3, MPC, OGG Vorbis, and WMA Pro).

Mp3, as it turns out, is a lot easier to decode than wma and other later-generation formats. The fact that you have to use mpeg4 or wma with your DRMed purchase is just an unwanted side-effect.

That said, it is one reason I only play mp3s on my portable player. LAME has brought a level of quality to the mp3 format that none thought possible, and it keeps up suprisingly well with "more advanced" codecs. I see no reason to use anything else...it plays everywhere, and uses less battery life.

iTunes's default MP3 encoder is awful at VBR and makes its good AAC encoder sound better in comparison. I suggest changing iTunes's MP3 encoder to LAME, then comparing the results with AAC.

If you compare LAME VBR MP3 and iTunes AAC, you won't hear a difference (especially on an iPod) and MP3 is the accepted de facto standard. Of course, you might think AAC sounds better if you've drunk the Kool-aid and have been exposed to the Reality Distortion Field.

I'm hoping all devices play AAC eventually, but if you are encoding now, wouldn't it be better to encode in the format that plays in all devices and software?

iTunes's default MP3 encoder is awful at VBR and makes its good AAC encoder sound better in comparison. I suggest changing iTunes's MP3 encoder to LAME, then comparing the results with AAC.

If you compare LAME VBR MP3 and iTunes AAC, you won't hear a difference (especially on an iPod) and MP3 is the accepted de facto standard. Of course, you might think AAC sounds better if you've drunk the Kool-aid and have been exposed to the Reality Distortion Field.

I'm hoping all devices play AAC eventually, but if you are encoding now, wouldn't it be better to encode in the format that plays in all devices and software?

AAC is not a bad format, in fact it is significantly better than MP3 from a quality at bitrate perspective.

Not according to this test. There is a slight difference, but not enough to be noticeable in most cases, and nothing just a few more kbps wouldn't cure.

That test (which I took part in) pretty much convinced me to just stick with mp3 using the latest LAME. All this junk about mp3 being "obsolete" is just marketing hooey - it sounds better than WMA at the same bit rate, it sounds about the same as AAC at the same bit rate, and the only codecs that are significantly better are MPC and Vorbis, and good luck finding a portable player that supports either of those. Again though, nothing a few extra kbps in an mp3 encode couldn't overcome. (It should also be noted that both MPC and Vorbis sound better than AAC too.)

mp3 is still the best codec to use because while technically proprietary, it's basically universal. Even Sony, which was the lone real holdout, is now on board with mp3. Given that it's really no worse than AAC and is actually better than WMA, I really don't see why you'd want to use either alternative given that they both only work with a subset of portable players. If I decide to sell my iPod and buy a Sony player one day (not likely, but you never know), all my music will still work fine and I will not have to re-rip (or re-purchase!) any of it.

btw, I actually gave up about halfway through that listening test because on many of the songs I couldn't tell the difference between *any* of the codecs. (Results were accepted on a per-song basis, so you didn't need to submit results for everything to be counted.) I felt like I probably was usually able to pick out the ATRAC track because there was always one that was noticeably worse than the others, but otherwise all of the tracks of a given song sounded pretty much the same to me. And I'm a pretty critical listener.

That test convinced me that there are just a whole lot of myths about audio codecs floating around out there.

Ogg is a cintainer format, it is most comonly used to store Vorbis audio. Ogm is the extension used for video in an ogg file. Ogg is currently the best audio codec in doubleblind tests http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/result s.html Vorbis audio is used in a lot of the video files on p2p networks etc.

Im surprised no one has mentioned the obvious yet: that iPods support several lossless codecs (WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless) as well as AAC. A good website that shows how AAC holds up is the following: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/. I thought that it also had an Ogg test but it appears that it does not.

In all honesty, I have never used more than 6 hours of battery life in any of my portable music playing purchases. The only time I can think of even getting close to that was a cross country flight to hawaii a longgg time ago with my minidisc player. I haven't used my iPod more than a few hours at a time. 13-16 hours? I guess that could be good for camping. I couldn't stand having earphones on (or in) for that long anyways.

The patent was filed in 1996. RTFPF.

Okay, fine. WinPlay3 was released in 1995. Not to mention MOD4Win which was released in 1993.

The greater portability of MP3, combined with the range of tools available for it (encoders, decoders, splitter/joiners, repair tools, wrappers, level adjusters &c) mean that many folks might consider the negligible quality loss worthwhile.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Here's some evidence to the contrary - a public listening test that put Nero HE-AAC at the top of the pile at such low bitrates, followed by MP3Pro.

I always thought iTunes was overrated by Mac users because they've never had good alternatives like PC users have had. When Apple released the first version of iTunes ("Rip, mix, burn. Do it on a Mac"), Mac users finally discovered something that PC users had been doing for over a year with apps like MusicMatch Jukebox (before it sucked), and Windows Media Player 7. And while iTunes initially sucked donkey balls (it's much nicer now), many Mac users thought it was the greatest app ever.

That said, I think the current version of iTunes is a nice music player/manager. However, it's not so nice at ripping and encoding mp3s. The default mp3 encoder is awful. If you want to use iTunes to encode mp3s, change its encoder to LAME.

Roberto's listening tests are just what you're looking for.

Hmm. mp3pro and AAC beat vorbis at 64k

Vorbis behind AAC, mp3pro, real, WMA, qdesign in 32k

MPC and AAC a little ahead of Vorbis at 128k

Hmm. mp3pro and AAC beat vorbis at 64k

Vorbis behind AAC, mp3pro, real, WMA, qdesign in 32k

MPC and AAC a little ahead of Vorbis at 128k

Hmm. mp3pro and AAC beat vorbis at 64k

Vorbis behind AAC, mp3pro, real, WMA, qdesign in 32k

MPC and AAC a little ahead of Vorbis at 128k

No, no it's not. In fact ATRAC is a horrible format. Just check out the listening tests here and here , they along with countless other listening tests show that ATRAC3 (and it's newest variants) are crap compared to the Free and Open LAME MP3 and Ogg Vorbis codec's. There's simple zero reason to use ATRAC as it always underperforms just about every other codec except WMA.

I too am curious what the Next Big Thing(tm) in digital audio formats will be, but how much smaller/better quality is any new/evolved format going to be -- and with storage getting so much larger and cheaper, will it even matter?

This is why I say the digital format war was settled 5 years ago. There's a reason why we still call all these devices "mp3 players" after all.

There's no great need for better compression at lower bit rates as hard drives get bigger and cheaper. I mean the fact is there are two choices (well, three): you compress music into a lossy format, or you compress it into a lossless format (the third choice being you don't compress it at all). The lossy formats we have today are already so good even at low bit rates that they're nearly indistinguishable from the originals, and obviously if you want even better quality than that you just scale up the bit rate and quality settings a bit. With today's hard drives, storage isn't much of an issue with any compressed format at any bit rate - even very large music collections won't use more than a couple GB extra by using higher quality settings throughout the collection.

So assuming that you can get nearly indistinguishable quality from the original with properly encoded MP3, AAC, WMA or Ogg files, and already at fairly small file sizes on hard drives that are only getting bigger and cheaper, I don't much see the point in trying to reduce file size even further. I mean let's not forget that MP3 became popular because people were still using 500MB hard drives at the time... these days, I could spend $100 on a hard drive that could hold my entire music collection with no compression at all.

So it seems to me that the talk about which compressed format sounds best at low bit rates, which has been Apple's and MS's big marketing message for the past few years, is basically moot. It doesn't matter, because every format sounds good at low bit rates (well, except for ATRAC3), every format sounds great at high bit rates, and hard drives just keep getting cheaper.

My guess is this is one reason why MS is trying to change their focus a bit to video. They're not competing with the iPod, they're trying to create a new category of players where the format war has not already been decided in somebody else's favor. They've decided there's just no money for them to make from digital music, but obviously plenty of upside for them in digital video.

I guess what I'm saying is that there probably is not going to be any "Next Big Thing" in digital music, at least not until the day when we have everything, available everywhere, all the time, via a pervasive network that connects every person to every other person and every piece of content ever created, instantly, from anywhere on Earth. But even that is simple evolution of the net; it's not a stretch of the imagination, and it's not a new concept as storing small digital music files on a hard drive would have been to those listening to LP's 50 years ago. I do think traditional music radio's days are numbered, though; subscription services and satellite radio will be its death knell - eventually.

As for DRM, it's difficult to predict what effect it will have but I honestly think it's probably a little overblown... there's never been a DRM scheme that wasn't circumvented pretty much the instant it appeared, so those who want to will always be able to get around it (and obviously, mp3 doesn't even support it... which is one reason for mp3's continued dominance). That doesn't mean DRM'd files won't continue to sell at stores like iTunes, but I think the lack of a standard is just not really a big issue for consumers. It's a bigger issue for music publishers, though; it just strikes me as stupid that the RIAA would allow Apple to impose a DRM scheme that means nobody with a player other than an iPod could play their files (without breaking the DRM)... and vice versa on other sites. You're just cutting a lot of people out of your potential consumer base with that strategy.

Well, it's true that mp3pro didn't really catch on due to the heavy competition in the 64kbps arena where it goes up against Ogg Vorbis, AAC (HE) and WMA, and performs rather decently. But the "pro" portion (spectral bitrate replication) lives on as it can be plugged into just about any codec, and is now used in HE-AAC encoders such as Ahead Nero's.

The AAC files take about half the space as MP3s and sound better. I didn't do a scientific study but on several songs with quiet passages the MP3 version sucks compared to AAC, and the MP3 was encoded at the max bit rate.

In the Multiformat at 128kbps public Listening Test (May 2004), iTunes AAC (4.26/5) "tied" with Lame MP3 (4.18/5). If you look at individual songs, iTunes did better on some songs and Lame did better on others.

In the MP3 at 128kbps public listening test (January 2004), Lame was the best MP3 encoder. iTunes's MP3 encoder was the worst, even worse than the much-maligned Fraunhofer encoder.

Use AAC if you want, but for chrissakes change your awful iTunes MP3 encoder to Lame. If you use OS X, here's a link: iTunes-LAME Encoder

The AAC files take about half the space as MP3s and sound better. I didn't do a scientific study but on several songs with quiet passages the MP3 version sucks compared to AAC, and the MP3 was encoded at the max bit rate.

In the Multiformat at 128kbps public Listening Test (May 2004), iTunes AAC (4.26/5) "tied" with Lame MP3 (4.18/5). If you look at individual songs, iTunes did better on some songs and Lame did better on others.

In the MP3 at 128kbps public listening test (January 2004), Lame was the best MP3 encoder. iTunes's MP3 encoder was the worst, even worse than the much-maligned Fraunhofer encoder.

Use AAC if you want, but for chrissakes change your awful iTunes MP3 encoder to Lame. If you use OS X, here's a link: iTunes-LAME Encoder

Of course, OGG Vorbis kicks ass over all the others at least at around 128 kbps (listening test results here).

WMP 9 only had MP3 encoding in the form of an addon. In WMP 10 it's there by default, and other than the lack of some bitrates, it's not crippled.

For years MS has been touting WMA's audio superiority over MP3 "at any bit rate" (see Demos: Audio Quality). However, Amorim's Multiformat at 128kbps public Listening Test showed LAME MP3 performing better than WMA 9 Standard. So I wouldn't be surprised if WMP 10 has a crappy MP3 encoder.

Maybe I'm just a cynical a-hole. I'm looking forward to Amorim's next MP3 listening test to see how WMP 10's MP3 encoder performs against LAME.

WMP 9 only had MP3 encoding in the form of an addon. In WMP 10 it's there by default, and other than the lack of some bitrates, it's not crippled.

For years MS has been touting WMA's audio superiority over MP3 "at any bit rate" (see Demos: Audio Quality). However, Amorim's Multiformat at 128kbps public Listening Test showed LAME MP3 performing better than WMA 9 Standard. So I wouldn't be surprised if WMP 10 has a crappy MP3 encoder.

Maybe I'm just a cynical a-hole. I'm looking forward to Amorim's next MP3 listening test to see how WMP 10's MP3 encoder performs against LAME.

You should also look at the follow up test here. The test you linked to shows WMA standard (not pro) as slightly lower quality than AAC. This one shows WMApro and AAC are within the margin of error from each other.

Keep in mind that these tests were comparing files at 128kbps. The MSN music files are encoded at 160kbps and probably used the WMApro encoder. This seems to support the belief that the MSN files are probably better quality than iTunes files.

Number one, that test you linked to is not a follow-up test. According to this page the test I linked was conducted between 2004-05-12 and 2004-05-23, whereas the test you linked was conducted between 2003-07-23 and 2003-08-03.

Second, there are few if any portable devices capable of playing WMA Pro. So I'd bet good money that the MSN music service is using regular WMA.

And just to preemptively dispel the misconception: No, you cannot play WMA Pro files with a WMA standard decoder. They're totally different and incompatible codecs.

You should also look at the follow up test here. The test you linked to shows WMA standard (not pro) as slightly lower quality than AAC. This one shows WMApro and AAC are within the margin of error from each other.

Keep in mind that these tests were comparing files at 128kbps. The MSN music files are encoded at 160kbps and probably used the WMApro encoder. This seems to support the belief that the MSN files are probably better quality than iTunes files.

No problem. This test was performed by Roberto Amorim of HydrogenAudio using an ITU standard test methodology.

HydrogenAudio has among the strictest standards for audio comparisons - merely posting "codec X is better than codec Y at N bitrate" without ABX test results to back it up is against the posting guidelines. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing critcism of their methods.

Vorbis fork AoTuV scored the highest and ranks as the winner together with open source contender Musepack closely followed by Apple's AAC implementation and LAME MP3, which improved markably since last year thanks to further tunings of its VBR model done by Gabriel Bouvigne. Sony's ATRAC3 format ranks last after WMA on the third place.

• Depending on the bitrate, the best codec isn't the same.
• Open-Source codecs (Ogg Vorbis and MP3 Lame) did improve a lot over time. for exemple, compare conclusion from oldest studies : "Vorbis isn't mature enough", with latest : "Ogg+AoTuV is the best"
• WMA plain sucks, it's only advantage is that it comes pre-installed with Windows on the largest part of all PCs.

Vorbis fork AoTuV scored the highest and ranks as the winner together with open source contender Musepack closely followed by Apple's AAC implementation and LAME MP3, which improved markably since last year thanks to further tunings of its VBR model done by Gabriel Bouvigne. Sony's ATRAC3 format ranks last after WMA on the third place.

• Depending on the bitrate, the best codec isn't the same.
• Open-Source codecs (Ogg Vorbis and MP3 Lame) did improve a lot over time. for exemple, compare conclusion from oldest studies : "Vorbis isn't mature enough", with latest : "Ogg+AoTuV is the best"
• WMA plain sucks, it's only advantage is that it comes pre-installed with Windows on the largest part of all PCs.