Slashdot Mirror

The answer of course is probably obvious; technically superior technology doesn't guarantee success. VHS vs. Betamax. QWERTY vs. Dvorak. Windows vs. Macintosh. By the time VQF came on the scene, MP3 was firmly entrenched in internet culture. VQF never had a chance.

Here's an interesting, naive snippet from the VQF FAQ: While you can find thousands and thousands of MP3s out there, the number of VQFs is comparatively tiny. But this is only a matter of time. Once people begin to realize how incredible these are, their popularity will skyrocket. VQF.com says "Copyright 2000" at the bottom. They've had a year or two to skyrocket. Raise your hands; how many of you have even one VQF on your hard drive?

Now, listen to how familiar this sounds: Though not as popular as an MP3 file yet, Ogg Vorbis will eventually replace the MP3 format by popular demand, and like cassettes and 8 tracks, MP3's will be a thing of the past. This will happen because the Ogg Vorbis file format is a smaller file size, has a higher quality of sound clarity, and is FREE.

I'd like to believe in Ogg, but I've been burned one too many times.

I mean, as long as you're free to use MP3 instead of this format, I don't see any problem. Except when the quality/compression-ratio is much better ofcourse, then it might become a problem.

But cycling keys will probably (I'm just guessing here) enlarge overhead, reducing the overall compression-ratio.

Anybody remember VQF? It creates smaller files than MP3 with better quality, yet nobody uses it (except for private music collections, maybe).

Why? It is not the standard, it's encumbered by nasty patents, and, let's face it: it does not have a decent player.

About the same goes for that stupid encumbered sound-format Microsoft tried to pull down our throath. I never heard anyone talking about it (except here on Slashdot), not even hard-core windows users.

So, I don't see why we should bother with it...

• VQF.com
• MPEG home site
• MPEG source
• Additional audio s/w
• Sharp VN-EZ1 camera
• MPEG-4 (audio) development tools

Video, I'm not sure. Again, MPEG-4's video layer is said to be very good, but I'd have to see some videos in that format to be convinced. QT4 is OK, but there are no (en|de)coders for it for Linux, which limits it a bit.

• Some people say that Yamaha's VQF has better quality than MP3 given the same bitrate: http://www.yamaha-xg.com/english/xg/So undVQ/, http://www.vqf.com/
• AAC had some popularity for a while but I haven't heard much about it lately: http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/aac.html
• Many people use shorten for lossless compression: http://www.softsound.com/Shorten.html
• Some proprietary formats:
• Windows media: http://www.mi crosoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en/download/defau lt.asp
• Liquid audio: http://www.liquidaudio.com/
• Realplayer G2: http://www.real.com

This format sounds a lot crappier than the commecial yet free vqf format.

Their beef is with Layer-3 and variants because it allows for the easy piracy of music.

Yes, sir, a wavelet based compression scheme... AFAIK. This is about wavelets.

VQF is related to MP3, and both are related to Jpeg2k (wavelet compression) :-) (the relation to plain Jpeg is just because of the lossy nature of the compression)

Further along my train of thought: VQF allows 18:1 over MP3's 12:1. Who says it'll stop there? I wouldn't mind some of the thinking that went into Jpeg2k to go into MPEG layer 4 audio :-)
---

I totally agree, I listen to MP3s rarely, because the quality is so apparent. Especially on my very pricy audiophile system. On a cheap bookshelf system it's not a big deal, but on high-quality components its VERY noticable. Before you all start telling this guy that he's a loser and no one can possibly hear it, try it yourself. Here is a simple test that shouldn't take too long. Take any CD with a song that has lots of detail, preferablly something you know well. Just about anything thats not thrash metal or should work well. Take a song of the CD, MP3 it (try a couple different bitrates, the standard 128 is a lot worse then 256), and record it to a blank CDR. Now go to a stereo store that sells nice stuff. The nicer the equipment, the more revealing of the source limitations it is. Play both the original CD, and the MP3 on CD. Tell me which one sounds better.

There are other formats out there that are MUCH better vqf is one of my favorites, too bad there is no linux player :-( I think the reason why is mostly due to the licensing agreements (Yamaha owns the tech, but its free). Maybe someone can look into that more. Hopefully MP4, which uses a conglomeration of AAC (another better format) and VQF will improve the quality of MP3s.

Spyky

Actually, you can go over to VQF.com and download a client binary for free (encoders as well). Good quality, smaller file sizes, good for modem-rate streaming too. The problem with its widespread adoption seems to be Yamaha's lack of haste in finishing and promoting it (they seem to be blissfully ignorant of the concept of "internet time"). And, of course, they still have the ever-popular "What's a Linux?" attitude, when last I checked.

--

I completely agree that MP3 audio is very poor quality for direct listening. I will never replace my CD collection with MP3s, and I will forgo the convenience of an MP3 jukebox (of my legal rippings) on my computer in favor of my high-quality single CD player. I also eagerly await DVD-audio formats which promise higher bit rates (than CDs) and more audio tracks. SACD looks especially promising with backward compatability with standard CDs (you just don't get the high res and multi tracks). However, given my dislike of formats like MP3 (there are better formats, like VQF) I think that it is a wonderful format for the masses, who are largly listening with poor quality boomboxes or computer speakers. The fact of the matter is, the internet cannot handle higher quality audio at this stage, perhaps when we all have direct digital on-demand video feeds and bandwidth to spare, we can transmit 50 megabyte 5 minute songs with lossless compression, but until that day, MP3 is here to stay. MP3 is the masses answer to change the recording industry, an alternative $15+ CDs with one good song! Even I will come down from my lofty audiophile heights to download a single popular song in MP3 format, when I don't want the whole CD.
Thinking about that makes me wonder if this won't have an effect on the artists jobs either, you can't have one hit and fill a whole CD with crap and make money.
So hooray for MP3 (and others) and down with RIAA

Spyky - anonymous due to lazyness

First of all, all this death-of-MP3 stuff is written to shock people. I believe that is why this article was written, and why Mark Cuban of Broadcast.Com has said something similar recently.

However, that said, Twin-VQ (vector quantization) technology, aka VQF may cut audio file sizes in half while maintaining a similar audio quality.

On audio quality, MP3 only approaches CD quality at 128kbps. However lots of MP3 is encoded at lower bitrates, but it is just fine for many applications (such as listening in the office on crappy headphones).

it will be most likely to VQF format. But, since VQF is proprietary (Yamaha) it will remain unsupported on many platforms. And another thing, VQF will not be popular unless piraters decide to use it (that is why MP3 became so popular.. piraters everywhere were distributing MP3s and now main stream is pirating them without knowing they are pirating.. you didn't really think people used mp3 for WACKY19.WAV or some 20 second wave file, did you?). But, who really gives a damn what ZDNet says? Do people using free OSes play by the rules of one of Bill Gate's magazines? Do people using Windows even play to ZDNet's tune? I know Winamp isn't even playing to Window's standards (just look at its GUI). (www.vqf.com)