AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3

asv108 writes "Yesterday, Apple unveiled their new music service claiming that the AAC format "combines sound quality that rivals CD." Here is a little comparison of lossy music codecs, comparing an Apple ripped AAC file with the commonly used MP3 codec and the increasingly popular OGG codec. Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform." Wish they had WMAs in there too. And for the spoilage, it looks like OGG comes out on top.

Comments

Hard To Tell Difference

[Ffynon]

I've got a nice pair of Bose headphones, and I listened to an Apple Store AAC file and an OGG version of the same song. I don't consider myself a real audiophile, but it's damn near impossible to tell the difference between the two; though I can definitely hear the improvement from MP3 to AAC or OGG.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

how are you encoding your mp3s?
try lame with --alt-preset extreme
can you tell the difference then?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[glesga_kiss]

To do a true test, you need to encode the files, decode them to PCM wav format, then burn to an audio CD.

Then, you have to do a blind test with all of them. You also need to use a variety of source material, because different genres of music compress better under some encoders.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference listening with Bose cans!

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[afidel]

Well your first problem is your headphones, they are distorting the crap out of any music source, go get some Sennheisers, they start around $60 for a good pair of open cans. Also if you are using anything but Fraunhoffer or better LAME for mp3 its just not fair. Btw, I've found high range problems with OGG that were not present in my Lame mp3's (I did A,B,C blind tests on a variety of samples and found a couple of problems with OGG which I reported with samples). AAC at 128kbit sounds like trash just like every other codec at 128, get around 200kbps VBR or 256 CBR and thats where the differences start to really show up (ok they show up at the very low end like 90kbps too but I don't even want to think about that)

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

no highs
no lows
must be Bose!

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[blixel]

To do a true test, you need to encode the files, decode them to PCM wav format, then burn to an audio CD. Then, you have to do a blind test with all of them. You also need to use a variety of source material, because different genres of music compress better under some encoders.

If you have to do all that to tell the difference, doesn't that kinda tell you something?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Vann_v2]

That's there value in ruling out variables when trying to objectively compare things?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[solidox]

Sennheisers are great headphones, i got a pair for producing music with. far better quality than any other headphones i've used, even my damn good technics don't compare. for high frequencies they are much better than speakers. plus they do subbass... sort of.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[FooBarWidget]

Yes, it only tells you that most consumer PC sound hardware sucks.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[BrokenHalo]

You would probably notice the difference if you try the test with certain kinds of classical music...

Even then you would probably have to be selective. Rich orchestral works (say, Janacek, Mahler, Sibelius) won't show an obvious difference, but something more spare (e.g. Debussy string quartet or a good recording of baroque strings) will show a big difference that should be evident even on poorer quality equipment.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[afidel]

You are so incredibly wrong. For proof go to headphone.com and check out the graphs for different headphones, the cheapest unit they carry are like $35 and you can see huge differences between them and even the low end Sennheisers. If you have good hearing and had ever tried a pair you would know what I'm talking about. In fact I prefer my headphones to my home theater with speakers many times more expensive because they more accuratly recreate sound =) Btw my heaphones are aureal or open so they allow sound through and out, I can hold conversations with the music at a medium volume. Btw if the simple membrane thing were true all cone speakers would be identical in performance, they aren't.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[slothdog]

To do a true test, you need to encode the files, decode them to PCM wav format, then burn to an audio CD.

Then, you have to do a blind test with all of them. You also need to use a variety of source material, because different genres of music compress better under some encoders.

Or you could just use ABX. That's actually the de facto standard for comparing audio compression. (See HydrogenAudio.)

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[afidel]

How about using a media player that supports all formats and just playing them that way, no need for a cd. That's how I did my A,B,C testing with Lame mp3, OGG Vorbis, and PCM wav.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it only tells you that most consumer PC sound hardware sucks.

So we should all go out and buy a $250 Creative Labs Audigy 2 sound card and a set of $500 Klipch speakers just so we can listen to songs on our computers?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Ryan Amos]

Just a note.. Low end Sennheisers blow ass. You're better off with just some Koss headphones than a pair of $50 Sennheisers. Their $200 headphones are phenomenal, but their cheaper cans leave something to be desired. In that price range, the Grado SR60s rule all anyway, so screw the cheap Sennheisers. :)

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[PhilHibbs]

No, it should tell you if you have to go through that much work to perceive the difference that you shouldn't bother. Just enjoy the music.

First of all, different people have different hearing acuity, so if I notice a slight difference on a hifi deck, it might be noticeable to someone else on PC speakers. Secondly, the difference might not be enough to notice on a conscious level. Thirdly, the music that I do the test on might only show a slight difference that only shows up on hifi, but other music might show a greater difference.

When you're doing comparisons, you have to eliminate as many variables. That's why there's an ISO standard process for making a cup of tea.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Alan Partridge]

what a fucking moronic statement.

Headphones / earphones differ ENORMOUSLY in the way that they can reproduce sound, and the best are EASILY the best sound transducers available, HUGELY more accurate than any louydspeaker. I myself have several different pairs, Sony MDR-V77s for when I want a high quality closed pair outside, Stax Lambda Signatures for when I want to hear EVERYTHING at home and some expensive, open Sony fontopias from about 8 years ago that - under the right conditions - give quite the most amazing sound I've ever heard. Extremely light/rigid diaphragms, powerful magnets and well matched transmission line produes the best results - not surprising when you look at microphones and ears...

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[afidel]

actually check out the graphs for the HD 495 and the SR60, the Sennheisers are better, and I like open cans so for me they are infinitly better =) Trust me I did my homework, both on the technical end and on the listening test end.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Newer heard of STAX have you?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[bluepinstripe]

Please note: the post said, "To do a true test [. . .]" It did not say, to tell the difference.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Lt Razak]

Actually, that's *still* crap to them.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[reaperbean]

Turtle Beach Santa Cruz ($60) + Grado SR60 Headphones ($70) will probably sound better... And at $130 would be very reasonable.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wakko Warner]

speaking of "sound quality" a 5$ headphone is on par with a $100 headphone.

Your $5 crack clearly isn't on par with $100 crack.

I can't believe how wrong people on slashdot can be sometimes.

- A.P.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[blixel]

Please note: the post said, "To do a true test [. . .]" It did not say, to tell the difference.

True enough, but note the subject "Hard To Tell Difference".

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Aliencow]

For cheap headphones, Grados Sr-80 are awesome. Paid them 140$cdn and I prefer them to any other kind of headphones under 300$cdn. Except Grados sr-125...hmm..

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, different people have different hearing acuity,

Agreed.

so if I notice a slight difference on a hifi deck, it might be noticeable to someone else on PC speakers.

Highly doubtful.

Secondly, the difference might not be enough to notice on a conscious level.

Who wants to spend an hour meditating before listening to music so they can absorb the subconcious aspects of a 3 minute song?

Thirdly, the music that I do the test on might only show a slight difference that only shows up on hifi, but other music might show a greater difference.

If you care that much about music, then why not just listen to CD's or pure WAV form? Why mess with lossy compression at all?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[squiggleslash]

That may be good for you and I, but a true audiophile can tell the difference between a pressed CD and a CD-R... ;-)

Well, I'm off, I have to get some gold cables.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[glesga_kiss]

so if I notice a slight difference on a hifi deck, it might be noticeable to someone else on PC speakers.

Highly doubtful.

I think there was a typo there. I reckon he meant to say that you might not be able to hear the same difference on PC speakers. As the fidelity is less, that makes perfect sense.

My original post way up the chain was mainly because I've heard so many people compare an mp3 on their PC speakers/headphones through an on-board soundcard to a CD played on their HiFi. That's just bad science.

If you care that much about music, then why not just listen to CD's or pure WAV form? Why mess with lossy compression at all?

Because when it's done properly, the "lossy" issue is not a problem, as you will have already decided what your minimum requirements are. I use the r3mix mp3 encoder preset (site seems to be down, very odd), and I get great results through my AWE64 soundcard hooked up to a separates system.

The open-source cd -> mp3 ripper/encoder CDex has an encoder option to use this quality preset. Ideal.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[glesga_kiss]

Nope. An old second hand Soundblaster AWE64 gold hooked up to a reasonable amp & speakers would rip just about any soundcard on-board system apart. PC audio is really really bad. It's intended to make "dink" and "boing" sounds now and then, but that's about it.

Plus, having two soundcards is a great way to set up a media system. Set the system up to use the cheap one, and tell Winamp (or whatever you use) to use the dedicated one. Then webpages and system events don't screw up the enjoyment of your well-encoded media. ;-)

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[glesga_kiss]

A lot of "audiophiles" really show their ignorance when it comes to digital media. It seems they miss the point.

Though, saying that (grimance), theoretically a CD-R might contain more errors than a pressed disk, so the ECC decoder might have to "make up" (interpolate) some of the data.

Gold cables are good as well. Gold is a very good conductor.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Pieroxy]

The problem in your test is that if you know which file you're listening at, you're just not fair in your comparison and by listening several times, your brain just makes you hear stuff that is just not there.

A test was made where people would listen to two WAV file, one supposedely was an MP3 (that was expanded to a WAV). 25% of the people could hear a difference between the two WAV files where they were actually the same...

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Pieroxy]

Another difference is that if I can just barely perceive a difference with my current stereo, I don't want to throw all my music to the trash can when I'm going to get rich and buy a nice stereo.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[swagr]

>go get some Sennheisers

Unless you plan to spend more than a couple hundred, do yourself a favour and get some Grados.
http://www.gradolabs.com/

I found that in the $100-$300 range, Grados are the clear choice. They're ugly as hell, but sound is amazing.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Dylan Zimmerman]

It tells me that he's trying to eliminate all of the possible variables and test the three formats objectively. To get a truly objective test, he should burn the CD and give it to someone else without either of them knowing which track is which.

It's called the scientific method.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[*LuckySmurf*]

Measurements ("graphs") have almost no connection to sound quality. No audiophile would say otherwise. I have a pair of Sennheiser HD540s and Grado SR80s, and I prefer the Grados almost all the time, and at HALF the price!

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

would rip just about any soundcard on-board system apart. PC audio is really really bad.

First - That simply isn't true any more. Motherboard manufacturers such as ASUS are gearing up their boards with quality onboard audio these days.

Second - if you are really that concerned about high quality audio, you're not going to be listening to it via a computer sound card no matter how much money you spend on your equipment.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

It tells me that he's trying to eliminate all of the possible variables and test the three formats objectively.

It tells me that he, and apparently you too, are dumbasses. If he's that concerned about high quality audio, why is he listening to a lossy format to begin with? Why not just stick with a CD - or if you must have it in file format - listen to the raw WAV form.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

Then, you have to do a blind test with all of them. You also need to use a variety of source material, because different genres of music compress better under some encoders.

I don't disagree with you, but I just wanted to throw in my own 2 cents worth of informal experimentation:

I recently discovered the sourceforge cdex ripping software, so I finally had a chance to rip all my music to the superior sounding ogg format instead of mp3. Before doing so, my wife and I ran a couple double blind tests with one another to see where the best encoding was.

The only pair of speakers I had to test this was a pair of old Yamaha YST-M7's. These are Yamaha branded $20 single driver computer speakers that came with some computer I bought a while ago. They are pretty bad speakers. For the test, I selected a reasonable genre swath of music:

Dixie Chicks "There's your Trouble"
Oingo Boingo "On the Outside"
Samuel Barber "Adagio for Strings"
W. A. Mozart "Queen of the Night's Vengeance Aria"
REM "Nightswimming"

Each piece was selected because of particular aspects of song such as use of strings, use of horns, or use of voice. Each song was tried in a variety of encodings in both ogg and mp3, constant and variable bit rate, with the original CD wav file thrown in amongst the samples. The mp3 encoder was Lame v 1.27 engine 3.92 Alpha 1 MMX, the ogg encoder was Ogg Vorbis DLL Encoder v 1.09 enging 1.05.

The results strongly disagreed with conventional wisdom. In every case, across genres, on these low end speakers, 320Kbps mp3's were the only ones that fooled our ears. Low bit rate ogg and mp3 recordings were different, but we didn't take time to notice which was better... they were both unquestionably inferior to the source material. Ogg's 350Kbps encoding was good, but inferior to the smaller 320Kbps mp3 files of the same work.

Reading some of the posts on this article, I am rather shocked how many people find sound reproduction to be anywhere between "very good" and "excellent" on mid end equipment listening to 192Kbps encoded audio.

After running this experiment, I ripped about 30 of my CDs to 320Kbps mp3's and noticed another benefit to CD quality rips: I could listen to the music longer without my ears feeling fatigued. I had always thought that it was pumping sound directly into my head from my headphones that caused my ears to become tired of the music. For whatever reason, it takes much longer now. Perhaps 3 or 4 hours compared to 1 to 1 1/2 before.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing objective about how a person likes
the sound of his or her music. Measured specs will
not tell you if you're going to like what the music
sounds like. Only listening will do that.

Some examples of how tastes may differ include those
who like the crisp glassy sound you get from the
distortion some CD players have, other who like the
warm distant sound you get from the distortion some
record players have, and so on.

Please consider the following:

``I like blue.''

``Well, you're wrong.''

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Fuzzle]

Because you have to make a trade off between the size and the quality. He probably doesn't want a 50mb file, but rather somewhere between 2-10mb file. Therefore, he's testing those formats that provide that size, to determine the one with the best size to quality ratio.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[PenguiN42]

Also, tiny variations in the (ideally uniform) spacing of the digital data on the disk -- called "jitter" -- can cause tiny amounts of distortion when sent through a lower-quality DAC. Some claim they can hear distortions caused by jitter. Also, supposedly CDR's are more susceptible to jitter than pressed CDs (and higher burning speeds more susceptible than lower speeds -- audiophiles always prefer burning at 1x to minimize it).

Minor jitter doesn't affect digital to digital transfers, of course, unless the jitter is so bad that the transfer is no longer synchronized. Then you get the wonderful clicks and pops.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[alienw]

Second - if you are really that concerned about high quality audio, you're not going to be listening to it via a computer sound card no matter how much money you spend on your equipment.

What makes you think so? I think that a decent soundcard hooked up to a quality external DAC would beat most sub-$2000 CD players (if you listen to well-ripped lossless audio, of course.) With a computer, you don't get the transport errors and jitter that a CD player produces -- a computer generally plays stuff from a memory buffer, not a spinning disc.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[jcr]

Are you trolling, or do you actually believe the tripe you wrote above?

-jcr

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[evilviper]

Wow! This complete crap got modded up? Way to fool those moderators...

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[nathanh]

Also, tiny variations in the (ideally uniform) spacing of the digital data on the disk -- called "jitter" -- can cause tiny amounts of distortion when sent through a lower-quality DAC.

That is not "jitter". You are speaking crap.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you have to make a trade off between the size and the quality. He probably doesn't want a 50mb file, but rather somewhere between 2-10mb file. Therefore, he's testing those formats that provide that size, to determine the one with the best size to quality ratio.

That just doesn't jive. For someone who is that radical about audio quality, I really don't think they're going to bawk over spending $69 on a 120GB Western Digital hard-drive which is enough to store 1,500 to 2,000 songs worth of music at full quality audio.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

So what exactly is your argument? That I didn't do the informal experiment? That those weren't really the results? Those weren't the codecs I was using? That the higher bitrate music wasn't less fatiguing?

Or are you just trolling?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. Your 'listening test' with crap speakers is highly insightful.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

If crap speakers can discriminate between a mid bit rate Ogg and a high fidelity CD recording, what does this tell you about high quality speakers? Maybe that the differences would be more pronounced? Maybe that is why it's insightful. I mentioned the speakers because I've read a lot of posts that argue the reason you cannot tell the difference between a 128Kbps encoded audio stream and a CD is because of low quality speakers. My results dispute that. Inability to discern an mp3/ogg from a CD, except for very high bitrates, probably has to do with the listener not the equipment.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[ghostgum]

It's not which sound "better" that is important, but which ones can be distinguished from the original.

You will also need speakers capable of representing the original well. Poor speakers may distort the original, so that the compressed version with different distortion actually sounds better.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

bah.. who listens to that crap anyways?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[drunk_as_in_beer]

To do a true test, you need to encode the files, decode them to PCM wav format, then burn to an audio CD. Then, you have to do a blind test with all of them.

Or better yet, write a script that creates the PCM wav files in a random order and saves the order to a file. Then listen to the WAV's for the blind test.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[evilviper]

So what exactly is your argument?

First of all, this claim is refuted by every test ever done:

In every case, across genres, on these low end speakers, 320Kbps mp3's were the only ones that fooled our ears. Low bit rate ogg and mp3 recordings were different, but we didn't take time to notice which was better... they were both unquestionably inferior to the source material. Ogg's 350Kbps encoding was good, but inferior to the smaller 320Kbps mp3 files of the same work.

If you honestly believe it, it's either because you simply like the sound of MP3 distortion, or you really wanted to like MP3, so you've conviced yourself that you do. Personally, I just assumed you were trolling because of your following comments:

I ripped about 30 of my CDs to 320Kbps mp3's and noticed another benefit to CD quality rips: I could listen to the music longer without my ears feeling fatigued.

That is just plain bullshit. No audio codec is going to relieve fatigue. Even if you do believe it.

Working with people, I have discovered that people convince themselves of many things. When something happens to their computer that they don't understand, they grasp onto the last thing that they did understand. This is very clear when you see cases of people claiming a change they made to the BIOS make their computer stop booting, when it was actually just a computer virus infection. People who are convinced that moving their computer to another room made it run much slower, but they moved it around the same time that they upgraded from Windows 95 to 98. Etc. If really feel less fatigue, I can only assure you it has nothing to do with the lossy codec you are using.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[patchmaster]

The point is that $20 crap speakers aren't going to do a reasonable job of reproducing the original, let alone the encoded versions. It's like drawing conclusions about the best gasoline for a Ferrari by testing the gas in a Yugo. The equipment you had isn't adequate to draw any meaningful conclusion pertaining to equipment other than $20 speakers.

I'm not knocking your speakers, BTW. I've got a fine pair of $10 speakers sitting right here. They're okay for playing games. But if I wanted to do some encoder comparisons, at the very least I'd break out the Sennheisers if not connect the computer to my home theater system. These speakers would be worthless for testing high quality audio.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[drunk_as_in_beer]

Secondly, the difference might not be enough to notice on a conscious level.

Very true... You really have to smoke a joint or two before doing a listening test. It helps hear all the things your mind normally filters out. But then you have to do the comparison in the same block of time, otherwise you introduce a variable because the effects vary over time. But that applies to sober listening as well, since, for example, your ears respond differently after an hour of listening.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

i do.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[PorkCharSui]

Question: Who the fuck encodes their MP3 collection at 320kbps? It starts defeating the purpose of the small filesize of downloaded music...

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, you stupid American.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[jefeweiss]

Maybe he didn't mean that he actually became fatigued. Maybe he meant that he got tired of listening to music. I get tired of listening to AM radio pretty damn quick. It sounds like crap. CDs I can listen to all day long.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Doomdark]

Yes and no. For individual people, what matters is what they like the most. Not what's physically closest to original, but what's most enjoyable (regarding perceived quality). Usually there is reasonable correlation between the two, but there are exceptions.

For objective testing, sure, about the only method is to try to quantify difference to known reference point, original recording (which, in case of CD, has small distortion already in compared to ideal recording due to quantization).

What that means is that actually there are 2 basic ways to approach the problem; one based on physical properties only, and the other to try to measure psychoacoustic quality (ie. perceived quality). Not suprisingly, most development in compression methods does basic validation with measuring physical qualities, and later on optimize based on psychoacoustic preferences (ie. where is the loss of accuracy least significant for average listener etc).

Anyway, back to the original point; the problem really is just defining what is actually "closer to original", as no compressed sounds is ever identical. And to answer that, physics are not enough; human hearing and sound processing brains do is what defines it eventually, and (unfortunately) there is variation in there.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

So you are saying that high end speakers will increase the fidelity of lower quality audio by a substantial margin but will *not* increase the quality of high quality audio as much to the point that high end speakers can make low fidelity and high fidelity audio sound the same?

My point of using low end speakers was that the argument is usually that low end speakers decrease the quality of both to the point that they sound the same. The low end speakers have poorer response and dynamic range so the missing audio components in the compressed version are unnoticeable because the speakers are unable to reproduce them in the non-compressed version anyway.

In this case, that wasn't true. Only the 320kbps mp3's were indiscernable from the CD audio.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculus. The pits on the disc are not used to synchronize the DAC. Data on CDs is not stored sequentially from one end of the spiral to the other-- the bits are intermixed over long stretches of the track. So pit locations have nothing to do with the sample rate.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

First of all, this claim is refuted by every test ever done:

If you honestly believe it, it's either because you simply like the sound of MP3 distortion, or you really wanted to like MP3, so you've conviced yourself that you do.

I said the tests were double blind. Unless you can provide some evidence of bias inherent in a double blind test, I think you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Can you provide a link to a couple of tests (blind golden ears at a minimum, preferably double blind) that refute the statement, specifically on high bit rate encodings exceeding 200kbps?

Personally, I just assumed you were trolling because of your following comments:

That is just plain bullshit. No audio codec is going to relieve fatigue. Even if you do believe it.

Here's a little piece of research text I picked up off the net:

Hearing fatigue is not a good indicator of whether damage has occurred. Fatigue is usually caused
by excessive intermodulation distortion. While sometimes such distortion is caused by audio systems driven
to extremes, it is not the only source. Damaging levels can be obtained by clean undistorted power, and it can
be very painless.

That reads to me an awful lot like listening to low bit rate compressed audio will increase fatigue. Can you provide anything indicating that none of the distortion that occurs due to compression causes hearing fatigue? Again, I don't think you know what you are talking about. I never said a codec relieved fatigue, I said higher bit rates did.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[mkldev]

Actually, poor quality speakers can make a codec seem worse than it really is.

Take MP3 artifacting for example. Most of the more noticeable artifacts are "swirling" in the high frequency data and some low-frequency distortion, I think, as well. A cheap pair of speakers with poor bass-to-midrange response will dramatically increase how obnoxious this distortion sounds.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

It starts defeating the purpose of the small filesize of downloaded music...

I know it seems kind of odd... but... I buy music on CDs and don't share the high bit rate ripped audio. I'm sorry I'm a /. infidel. The DMCA still sucks.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[shellbeach]

That is just plain bullshit. No audio codec is going to relieve fatigue. Even if you do believe it.

Heh, you obviously never read this article on slashdot, then :)

Seriously, if the poster encoded mp3's with Lame's default options then I wouldn't be surprised if he noticed a difference: lame's default model chops out high frequencies, but the higher the bandwidth the higher the cut-off is placed. Thus a 320kbps mp3 has much more information in the 16kHz -> 22kHz range than a 128kbps mp3 (which has bugger all). And there's a school of thought that claims that those high frequencies (which you supposedly can't hear) still effect your perception of sound.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Dylan Zimmerman]

Well, that 120 GB hard drive can't fit into my iPod.

Currently, I encode 192 kbps VBR MP3s. I can fit quite a few onto my portable devices and no one that I've spoken with can tell the difference between them and CDs. However, if there is a smaller format that has comparable quality, then I would switch to it in a heartbeat.

Also, the word is spelled "balk". That is probably the second time that I've seen anyone other than myself use it.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[HuguesT]

This is very interesting, what is the nature of the difference that you hear? Can you hear distorsion, masking, missing frequencies, other form of artifacts? Can you describe them in words?

I can never hear any difference between an mp3 above 128kbit and the unencoded stream. I thought I had good ears, I used to work as a sound engineer. With audiophile equipment (not mine) I can hear a difference between different audio cables quality. But mp3 encoding artifacts, never for sure.

Can you detect an mp3 encoding (> 128kbits) without reference to the original? Have you tried to do a double blind experiment like so:

- find a recording that you think would be suitable but don't know already.
- Encode it as an Ogg and mp3.
- generate random names for them and play them in random order, several times.
- write for yourself which one do you think are raw and which are encoded (same equipment, etc)
- compare with truth.

A German magazine did the equivalent of that some years ago and concluded that a small but significant proportion of audiophiles *could* detect encoding at 128kbit on absolute top notch equipment, but that none of them could detect the encoding at 256kbit, compared with CD quality (i.e. their answer were indistinguishable from random).

To me this is conclusive proof that above 128kbit mp3 are perfectly fine.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is wrong with you?

This needs to be modded down big-time.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Commutative Monoid]

Try some of these and see what you think.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[patchmaster]

I'm saying if the quality of the speakers is sufficiently poor, it is not valid to draw generic conclusions about audio compression and sound quality from those speakers. Any conclusion would apply ONLY to those speakers.

I have a pocket radio that has a 1" speaker built in. I would not expect a comparison of two FM stations on that radio to be of any value when trying to determine which of the two stations is going to sound the best on my 125W/channel home system with the dual 300W, 15-inch subwoofers.

I'm not an expert at this, but here's my take. The psychoacoustic aspect of audio compression takes masking into account. That is, psychoacoustics says sound A will mask sound B so you can leave sound B out and no one will know the difference. The problem with this theory, at least in regards to low quality speakers, is that it assumes you can actually hear sound A. If the reproduction equipment is sufficiently inadequate you may well never hear sound A.

Now you might be thinking that if sound B is masked by sound A, and the poor equipment keeps you from hearing sound A, you wouldn't hear sound B either, even if it were there. This is where my lack of being an expert at this begins to tell, but I strongly suspect such is not necessarily the case. For this type of compression to accomplish anything significant, A and B would need to be at different frequencies.

So, if the low quality speakers do a poor job of reproducing sound A but a decent job of reproducing sound B, when you listen to the CD you'll hear B (even though you wouldn't if the speakers were perfect). When you listen to the more highly compressed audio that has eliminated B because it should be masked by A, it sounds different from the CD because B isn't there. When you listen to the 320kbps version it sounds more like the CD because the only thing eliminated were the really high frequencies you couldn't hear (and the poor quality speakers couldn't reproduce) anyway.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Commutative Monoid]

Your $5 crack clearly isn't on par with $100 crack.

If that's the result of him on $5 crack, I'd rather hate to imagine the results from $100 crack.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely incorrect.

There must be something wrong with your software or configuration or something.

I remember when MP3 was new and so many people thought MP3 sucked because WinAmp had a bug that caused crappy playback.
This is kinda like one of those things.

And another thing, there is no such thing as lame v1.27 nor Ogg 1.05 or DLL Encoder v1.09.

You can start looking for your problem with your software.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Wavicle]

The only problem with that theory is that it assumes the quality of all playbacks was exceedingly poor and we could differentiate one from the other because the CD was used as a reference (as in "does this sound different from the CD?"). That wasn't the case. The way it started was having all three play on a once through random shuffle, then asking which one sounded "best". It immediately became uninteresting because it was so easy to spot which of the three was the CD. The sound quality of the CD was remarkably higher than either a 128kbps mp3 or ogg. The brightness and subtlety of the instruments was much more obvious on the CD recording. It wasn't until the 320kbps mp3 that, with the playback equipment we had, we guessed "which was the CD?" wrong.

For what it's worth, we both spent years in Junior and Senior High School band and orchestra and are still performing in ensembles today. We know well what a violin, french horn, guitar, banjo, piano, oboe, flute or clarinet should sound like.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Russellkhan]

But....

That ignorance is reinforced by blind tests with processes similar to the ones you describe above. (Check out Stereophile magazine for examples)

Then again, there are also factions within the audiophile community who believe that blind tests are bunk. (I don't remember if it was The Sensible Sound or The Absolute Sound that was a big proponent of this point of view - it might even have been both).

I am not an audiophile, at least not a true or dedicated one. I of course like to get the best sound I can when listening to music, but the main reason that I've read these magazines is that I used to sell fairly high end home audio equipment.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[fenix down]

This post from that article is interesting. I never really thought about the TV whine thing before. For me, that's pretty clearly a sound, not a wierd extra-sensory thing. Is there anybody who really doesn't hear that? I need to start asking people.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

While good heaphones like Grado, Sennh, Stax(own the old Lambda-Basic meself) are the bees knees, there are many (mostly $10,000-$100,000) speakers thatl give even the Staxes a run for their money.

Like, say, Wilsons, Quads, Martin-Logans, Revels, Magnepans, Kharmas, Rockports, Pipedreams etc etc.

And dont forget the tens of thousands for the amps to drive em either.

Actually, i kind of refuted my own point there, didnt i?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Alan Partridge]

well, kind of...

obviously, headphones have a real weakness in that they are dependent on a good headphone amplifier to drive them, and these are rarer than hens' teeth. They also, of course, can suffer from poor 'staging' when compared with good loudspeakers, though Stax and - to a lesser extent - Sony have long tried to alleviate this problem a little by presenting their drivers 'forward' of the ear rather that 'straight at' the ear. Headphones have these massive advantages over 'speakers a) transient response - due to their very low mass and ultra low energy storage, not even electrostatic 'speakers compete b) phase coherence - again, electrostatics are the next best c) freqency response - not often flat, but 'phones can go places tweeters and woofers can't, and they don't rattle the furniture dooing it! d) cost - apart from our beloved Stax, and things like the Orpheus and Sony's mad wooden devices, good 'phones are cheap. i use a pair on Sony V500s at work (closed is a neccesity) and they give more information than my Genelecs by a factor of about 2:1.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

>Here's a little piece of research text I picked
>up off the net:

>Hearing fatigue is not a good indicator of
>whether damage has occurred

Damage? Who's talking about damage?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no "crisp-glassy" distortion that CD players add.

What you are hearing, is the adsense of distortion. It's how it actually sounded, without any addtional white noise.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[BigFootApe]

PCABX IS NOT intended to be a general replacement for properly-designed listening tests involving audio equipment that is already in your listening room. There are many situations where PCABX is beneficial, even when the equipment is directly available to you for listening.

-- From the PCABX website

The moral of the story: be critical of your methodology. Don't say "it's the standard" and leave it at that.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[patchmaster]

The only problem with that theory is that it assumes the quality of all playbacks was exceedingly poor and we could differentiate one from the other because the CD was used as a reference

It assumes nothing of the sort. I'll say it one more time. It is not valid to make generic claims about encoders and bit rates based on listening tests performed on speakers that do a poor job of reproducing ANY music. You aren't hearing a true reproduction of any of the tracks so any comparison is going to be faulty. Do the same test using some good speakers or a top quality headphone and then get back to us.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[squiggleslash]

I would say that if the ECC decoder kicks in on a regular enough basis to noticably affect sound quality on CD-Rs and CD-RWs, then these two forms of media would be unusable for computer data... Hell, if the things need to kick in, on average, once per CD-R and CD-RW, they'd be unusuable for computer data.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

...sounds pretty snobish to me.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[glesga_kiss]

Nah, data is stored on the disc in a different way, with a lot more redundancy. That's why you can store 750 meg of wave audio files, but only 650 meg of data. The interleaving of the data means that a chunk could go missing and there would be enough data around it to reconstuct it perfectly. If the disk gets too damaged, you get CRC errors.

As you say, with even one error per disk on average, CDs would be useless for data.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[macmurph]

If the most of the world is going to agree on using an audio compression technology, we may as well make sure its the best one...

>If you have to do all that to tell the difference, doesn't that kinda tell you something?

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[patchmaster]

It's not snobbish. It's about establishing reasonable conditions for a valid test.

My father spent 40 years working in a machine shop, long before the days of OSHA and any concerns about protecting worker's hearing. He can't hear higher frequencies at all and his hearing is seriously degraded over much of the rest of the normal range, especially in the range typical of human speech.

Now, would you want my father to be making generalized judgments about the quality of various encoders and bit rates? His hearing is so far from what is considered normal that any judgment he made on sound quality would be applicable only to him. There's no way you could legitimately generalize his conclusion to the population as a whole.

Similarly, a sound system that does not reproduce recorded audio with something reasonably close to a flat frequency response can not be used to make generalized judgments about encoders and bit rates. Conclusions reached on that equipment can only reasonably be applied to that equipment.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[BrokenHalo]

OK, given reasonable, but not state-of-the-art equipment:

With most popular music, I notice very little difference between raw CD output, mp3 at a 128kb sampling rate and ogg.

If, however, I take a CD recording, say, of Sigiswald Kuijken and Gustav Leonhardt playing Bach's sonatas for violin and harpsichord (using period instruments, published by Harmonia Mundi - a fantastic recording) a lot of the "edginess", i.e. the almost subliminal higher frequencies are conspicuously absent in the encoded versions. Also, some of the "presence" and colour in the lower frequencies is lost.

It's hard to pin down exact differences between ogg and mp3, however. My subjective feeling is that ogg is slightly closer to the original, but I am willing to accept that my soundcard (ESS Solo-1) may not be optimal for strict evaluation.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[HuguesT]

OK, many thanks for that reply. I really would like to convince myself that mp3 compression artifacts can be heard.

By rights they should be but I've never experienced it myself. I love Bach so I'll try your reference recording, thanks again!

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[HuguesT]

Thanks for that, I wish I could mod you up. Cheers.

Re:Hard To Tell Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried this a different way. I took 160kb/s MP3s and put them into 128kb/s AAC's and played them through some Sony headphones. I found no difference.

The songs:
"Action"- Saint Etienne
"Get a move on"- Mr. Scruff
"Yesterday" - The Beatles
"Frijolero"- Molotov
"Moment of Truth"- Gang Starr
"The Sound of Violence"- Cassius

If that isn't a wide range of music I don't know what is.

To be fair...

[Gropo]

Don't forget that Apple's AAC's aren't ripped from 48.8 16-bit AIFF's, but re-mastered directly to AAC.

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

remastered from WHAT? A DAT with 48KHz 16-bit PCM data on it? A ADAT with said PCM data? I don't get why this is different from an AIFF????

Re:To be fair...

[Gropo]

How do you know it's ADAT rather than analog 1"? Probably is ADAT in alot of cases, but nevertheless, I recall Jobs' statement (for whatever it's worth) in which he claimed: (paraphrased) "Sometimes they sound better than CD's themselves"

Re:To be fair...

[verloren]

Ripping from the source isn't necessarily an advantage. Much (if not all) of the work on such codecs is done to optimize them for ripping from CD or movie soundtrack sources. Something with more information than that (which presumably is the good thing about doing it direct from sources) is supplying a load of information that, at best, the encoder would discard anyway, and at worst might actually confuse it.

Cheers, Paul

Re:To be fair...

[Gropo]

That's just my point... I would be lead to believe that AAC has better algorithms for encoding analog audio (among others) as compared to .mp3 and vorbis. It's been a while since I researched MP4 standards, so this may or may not be the case...

Considering that they would likely have included optimization for THX/Dolby Theater Surround (as AAC is Dolby's puppy) it's not hard to imagine that AAC is better at compressing a wider dynamic source spectrum? At least compared to AIFF/ADAT?

Re:To be fair...

[Jeremy Erwin]

CD-DA isn't AIFF. CD-DA contains either 2 or four channels of 16 bit audio, sampled at 44.1 kHz, organized into blocks of 2352 bytes. It's big endian (unlike *.wav).
AIFF is a rather more involved format. One of those formats is 16 bit, 44.1 KHz audio.
The only benefit I could see to encoding directly from masters is that it is possible that the "master" could be less prone to jitter. It is concievable that higher resloution masters would be available (96Khz/24 bit) and the encoding process could take advantage of this extra data somehow.

Re:To be fair...

[rco3]

AAC is better at compressing a wider dynamic source spectrum? At least compared to AIFF/ADAT?

Wider than ADAT? Last time I checked, ADAT was an uncompressed format. A 16-bit ADAT recording is thus capable of >90dB s/n, and frequency response from below 20Hz to just a bit past 20kHz. In what way do you imagine that a compressed format, even one compressed by the masters of signal distortion at Dolby, is going to surpass that?

Algorithms for encoding means, in this application, "ways to throw away parts of the signal unobtrusively". The ADAT isn't compressed, and so doesn't throw anything away (saving the 24/96 vs 16/44.1 argument for a more informed opponent).

Now, not being a Mac geek, I'm not up on AIFF files. But I thought they were uncompressed as well.

NO compression format is going to sound better than the uncompressed unless there's a significant problem with the original recording that the compressor covers up. But that's a recording problem, not a format feature.

Thus, the answer is that it's not any harder to imagine than imagining me getting busy with Milla Jovovich. However, it's less likely to actually happen.

Re:To be fair...

[no_opinion]

Not true. All modern codecs are "perceptual codecs" which discard information that the human ear/brain ignores. This does not mean that everything over a certain sample frequency or bit depth gets discarded. Starting from a higher quality source IS an advatage.

That said, Apple did not actually go back to the masters to get the audio. They got 99% of their audio from CDs, just like everyone else. You've got to factor in the "Steve Jobs reality distortion field". Not everything he says is true.

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably something like 96KHz 32-bit PCM. That was the baseline the last time I was in a decent (all-digital) studio.

I don't get why this is different from an AIFF????

Well, you know, you're right -- AIFF can handle 96KHz 32-bit. What you probably thought (wrongly, I might add), is that CDs are mastered from CD-quality source, which is wrong. Idiot.

Re:To be fair...

[jcr]

That said, Apple did not actually go back to the masters to get the audio. They got 99% of their audio from CDs, just like everyone else. ..and you came by this information how, exactly?

-jcr

Re:To be fair...

[klui]

Have read elsewhere (sorry, no references) that professionals have been using sampling rates greater than 44.1, perhaps 97Khz at 24-bit for a "while"--I interpret it as 2-5 years--for their masters and downsample to 44.1/16.

Re:To be fair...

[tenton]

"Now, not being a Mac geek, I'm not up on AIFF files. But I thought they were uncompressed as well."

AFAIK, AIFF is just a container format, it could contain compressed signals (lossy or lossless). The ones I normally run into are uncompressed (LPCM), however.

That's all very well but

[Sad Loser]

Some decent quality properly blinded listening tests would be more interesting than a graph though.
When VHS established dominance of the video market, there were high barriers to change - your player and media were committed to that format.
There are far less barriers to change in the ripped audio format, although there will still be some inertia, but there is nothing* to stop ogg vorbis becoming the dominant format.

Where's my ogg pod then?

* apart from the silly name.

Re:That's all very well but

[akadruid]

It could be worse, at least the name is more memorable than mp3 for low tech users. IMHO people use too many TLAs.

I actually think this is valid point, but I want to add this:
Although there is nothing to stop ogg, there is also little to push it. It will be a marketing war, like VHS vs. betamax, as joe public will not see it as upgrade like VHS vs. DVD for example. Whether there is anyone with enough motivation + money to push through will wait to be seen. I'm not even going to venture an opinion on this one!

Is there an option for moderating a story -1 flamebait?
I predict this story will generate no useful discussion, just a string of 'ogg rocks/wma sucks' and 'anything bitrate less than 2048 sucks'

Re:That's all very well but

[jc42]

A few years back, Consumer Reports did an interesting set of listening tests. The usual blinds, of course. But the interesting part was that in addition to random staffers, they had two extra groups: sound engineers and musicians. They reported that these two groups differed radically in their rankings of sound quality. The difference was fairly straightforward: The sound engineers gave a high rank to equipment that produced the sound accurately. The musicians gave a high rank to equipment that made the music clear. These are not at all the same thing. In particular, musicians generally liked "distortions" that removed non-musical information, strengthened the fundamentals, and so on.

From a musician's viewpoint, one of the real frustrations with just about anything published about sound quality is that it's always written from the engineer's viewpoint. But what I want to know is which gadgets do a good job of reproducing the music. They never seem to tell you that.

Re:That's all very well but

[EpsCylonB]

When VHS established dominance of the video market, there were high barriers to change - your player and media were committed to that format.
There are far less barriers to change in the ripped audio format, although there will still be some inertia, but there is nothing* to stop ogg vorbis becoming the dominant format.

I think you underestimate the dominant position that mp3 currently has. Most people's digital music collections are in mp3, is it really worth rencoding from the source into ogg ? (especially when large collections are concerned). What if the original CD is scratched or lost (or maybe you never really had a copy). And of course goign straight from ogg to mp3 would lower the quality which kind of defeats the whole point.

If mp3 and ogg vorbis ever became mutually exclusive because the people who own the licensing rights to mp3 don't want mp3 players that can play vorbis as well, then you could well end up with a situation like VHS vs. Betamax. It doesn't seem all that likely right now I'll admit.

Re:That's all very well but

[The Original Yama]

A decent, but simplistic article. Unless you're a fussy audiophile, this analysis should be sufficient for you.

[rant] I wish the author would present his graphs in a more readable way. A screen dump of Photoshop in WinXP is not a professional way to show data. It's ironic that while reviewing lossy audio formats he opts to use a lossy image format (JPEG) for the graphs. I had to double their size on my screen just to make some sense out of them. [/rant]

It's not difficult to gain better-than-CD quality. CDs have been around since the early 1980s, and their main drawback is that they have a low sample rate, 44.1KHz. This is why many sound engineers prefer vinyl. because it's an analogue format, vinyl has a potentially infinite sample frequency range (although it's obviously limited by the recording and playback equipment, and by the physics of the media itself). Apple has used original masters (not CDs) to create much of its song library, so all they have to do is encode at a higher frequency than 44.1KHz. At a guess, they're probably using 48KHz, which is on par with DAT and MiniDisc.

I'm not surprised that Apple is using AAC. For one thing, it is clearly better than the decade-old MP3 format in all respects, and the licensing costs are probably the same or better. Technically, it may not be as good as Ogg, but most people don't even know what Ogg is so it doesn't matter. As long as Apple can say "our format is better than MP3 and CD audio" (the two prevailing formats), they will have the attention of consumers. AAC is a more mature format than Ogg (Ogg isn't bad, but AAC is more tried-and-proven), and is probably more compatible with existing DRM technologies. DRM is important to keep the recording companies happy and to ensure that the files will only play on devices that Apple specifies (like on Macs and iPods).

A major stumbling block for Ogg is that until fairly recently it was necessary to use a floating point processor to play the format. In the arena of portable devices, only PDAs have floating point capability, which is why you can play Ogg files on your Zaurus and not on your iPod. AAC is already supported by many devices, so Apple has a larger potential market (although at present only iPods can play the files).

Re:That's all very well but

[norton_I]

If the musicians like it that way, they should record it that way. Sound reproduction equipment should do just that -- reproduce as accurately as possible the sound on the CD (or other source)

If people deliberately want to alter the sound, that should be done by effect processing that can be turned off, but not built in by inherent limitations in the reproduction equipment.

Now, if you are interested in sound production, that is another matter entirely. The sound of a (say) guitar amplifier is as much a part of the musician's instrument as the guitar, though it would still be nice if a lot of that load could be taken off of unreliable power amplifiers and placed on reproducable, removable low level effects processing.

Re:That's all very well but

[antiMStroll]

The number one axiom of audio electronic design is: do not alter the input. Doing so will always favour one group of listeners over another, in this case musicians ove rthose who value accuracy, or classical vs. rap listeners (the old east-coast/west-coast dichotomy.) Musicians favouring a particular sound doesn't make it desirable, musicians are legendary for listening on poor equipment and filling in the rest of the music mentally.

Re:That's all very well but

[kcurrie]

A major stumbling block for Ogg is that until fairly recently it was necessary to use a floating point processor to play the format. In the arena of portable devices, only PDAs have floating point capability, which is why you can play Ogg files on your Zaurus and not on your iPod. AAC is already supported by many devices, so Apple has a larger potential market (although at present only iPods can play the files).

Actually the Zaurus DOESN'T have any floating point either, the ogg player is all integer. Details can be found in this ZDNet story.

Re:That's all very well but

[jc42]

musicians are legendary for listening on poor equipment and filling in the rest of the music mentally

Yes, of course, but there's a different interpretation of this. It's not unusual for musicians to intentionally use low-quality equipment in order to make the music clearer. They aren't overcoming the limitations of the poor equipment; they are using it as a tool.

As an extreme example, I've known a number of musicians who have recordings of harpsichord music, but don't like the instrument itself. The reason is simple: They have good high-frequency hearing, and a live harpsichord is just a loud high-pitched buzz with barely-audible music in the background. But with a recording, especially on low-quality playback equipment, you can wipe out the high frequencies. This makes the music audible.

There are a fair number of people who have a similar reaction to violins. Although it's not as bad as a harpsichord, a violin has strong high-frequency harmonics that are often badly out of tune. If you clip off everything above 15 kHz or so, you eliminate this distracting noise and the music comes through.

I've made a lot of "very live" recordings of dance bands with a room full of dancers. One of the tricks that I've learned is to use fairly cheap mikes that don't hear the low or high frequencies. Then I don't have to do as much processing to get a good sound.

An interesting thing about this: I've occasionally made two recordings, one with good mikes and one with poor mikes that fall off around 12 or 14 kHz. When I play them for listeners who were there, they inevitably say that the "poor" recording sounds more live than the "good" one. What seems to be going on is that the human brain is fairly good at compensating for the low- and high-frequency noise in such situations. Participants don't hear all the background noise. But in a quiet room with the noise coming from a speaker, people do hear it.

This is similar to the phenomenon that photographers will tell you about: The human eye/brain system is very good at correcting for color cast. Cameras record the true color (within the bounds of the film type and latitude), so the cast is visible in the photo when it wasn't in the original scene. But photographers learn to see the full color and can't ignore a color cast, just a musicians learn to hear all the sound and can't easily ignore background noise.

(Similarly, after playing around with a polarizing filter for a few months, I found that I could "see" polarization. And now I can't turn it off. ;-)

It's all very complicted.

Re:That's all very well but

[junkgoof]

I heard that Sony CD players were initially screwed up because they asked rock musicians for opinions, and tuned accordingly. The musicians were pretty deaf because they played high volume shows. The musicians could only hear high and squeaky, so they liked high and squeaky CD players.

Re:That's all very well but

[maxpublic]

There are a fair number of people who have a similar reaction to violins. Although it's not as bad as a harpsichord, a violin has strong high-frequency harmonics that are often badly out of tune. If you clip off everything above 15 kHz or so, you eliminate this distracting noise and the music comes through.

And if you do that, those of us who have exceptional hearing will immediately notice that the violin seems 'flat'; much of the 'character' of the person playing it will be cut out completely, which is often expressed on the high end.

Not that most people will notice; they don't have the hearing for it.

Max

Re:That's all very well but

[CharlieO]

This is similar to the phenomenon that photographers will tell you about: The human eye/brain system is very good at correcting for color cast. Cameras record the true color (within the bounds of the film type and latitude), so the cast is visible in the photo when it wasn't in the original scene. But photographers learn to see the full color and can't ignore a color cast, just a musicians learn to hear all the sound and can't easily ignore background noise

Well this photographer will tell you differently.

If you use film stock then a very important part of the printing process is setting the filters to give the correct colour balance - either by hand or by bulk scanning the film and normalizing to 18% grey.

On a digital camera or video camera you have to set the white balance so the camera electronics know the reference to record the colour signal against.

Neither film nor CCDs/CMOS sensors have anywhere near the dynamic range of the human eye, so they record a substantially less accurate picture with either the highlights or shadows saturated out.

The only way of accurately scientifically measuring the scene is with a multispectral scanning radiometer - as used in remote sensing.

Speaking as a sound engineer I find it difficult to agree with your stance about this odd entity 'the music' - every stage of the process should be as flat as possible unless it is an artistic decision to change it. So if I'm recording a live event I should use the best mics, with the flatest response, use the recording device with the flatest response on most headroom, and then master the recording. Now at this stage I can play around with the EQ on the recording and make an artistic decision on the timbre and tone of the sound - because I have not predisposed myself one way or the other by colouring the sound I recorded. I don't disagree that a doctored sound might sound better, but it is not more accurate.

In the real world systems aren't perfect, and those that are close cost a lot of money. Now you have to make a decision of what makes the best sense with your budget. Now some mics and recording systems colour the sound in a pleasing and predicateble way - it sounds like the setup you settled on does. A lot of people forget that the post production of a recording or the setup of the PA at live gigs is a very important part of the music creation process, guitars drums and keyboards may be your instruments of choice, but for a sound engineer the instruments of choice are mics gates EQs compressors and sound desks - in producing a recorded work both the musicians and engineers are important - would the Beatles work have been the same if it hadn't been for the creativity of the Abbey Road engineers who broke from the tradition of 'perfect reproduction' and started working with the musicians to create new ways of presenting the sound - probably not.

In your example the rolloff at high frequency is a common effect with high volume PAs - at high SPLs your ears get tired and the high frequencies are affected first. Most people can relate to that slightly muted feeling to thier hearing after a particularly good gig - so the slightly muted nature of the mic that you use matches people recollection of live gigs. Interestingly popular mics for live work will not be the same as those for live work - even with the same instrument and musical style.

Re:That's all very well but

[fataugie]

musicians are legendary for listening on poor equipment and filling in the rest of the music mentally.

THank you, you just explained Bob Dylan to me. I knew there had to be something I was missing....

Re:That's all very well but

[smilinggoat]

Apple has used original masters (not CDs) to create much of its song library, so all they have to do is encode at a higher frequency than 44.1KHz. At a guess, they're probably using 48KHz...

Even if they are using 48kHz sample rate, they're still compressing the hell out of it, which destroys all those extra frequencies you're getting over 44.1kHz (22.05kHz - 24kHz). AAC does the same thing MP3 and vorbis does, which is chop off a significant amount of high frequencies to cut down on data.

And besides, the original masters could have been tracked at 44.1kHz, 16-bit in ProTools or what have you. Not necessarily any higher than that.

Re:That's all very well but

[PhoenixFlare]

There are far less barriers to change in the ripped audio format, although there will still be some inertia, but there is nothing* to stop ogg vorbis becoming the dominant format.

So you're saying that re-ripping/encoding my 25+ gigs of music would be less of a barrier than buying a new VHS copy of a Beta tape? Okaaaay...

This is why I will never use Ogg....The benefit is just not high enough to justify working over 400 hours of music that's already accesible and sounds fine on my speakers.

Sorry, but it's just too late. MP3 is everywhere, and it's not going away until something massively improved comes along, which Ogg is not an example of.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

[rant]...[/rant]
<rant>Where did you learn XML?</rant>

Re:That's all very well but

[firewood]

A major stumbling block for Ogg is that until fairly recently it was necessary to use a floating point processor to play the format. In the arena of portable devices, only PDAs have floating point capability, which is why you can play Ogg files on your Zaurus and not on your iPod.

Palm OS 5 PDAs (Zire 71, Tungsten T) only have integer ARM CPU's, and they play Ogg files just fine (running AeroPlayer or PocketTunes). And the Apple iPod uses a very similar ARM CPU core.

Re:That's all very well but

[Sycraft-fu]

Actually I find that most high end audio is NOT reviewed from an engineer's point of view. The reviewsers listen to it, and decide if they like it. They are usually not engineers and often rate things that are subjectively less accurate as being better.

Really, the only way is to just go listen for yourself. Decide what you like and buy it. Some people I've known are actually happier with cheap speakers than expensive ones because they produce the kind of sound they want.

Re:That's all very well but

[Alsee]

Similarly, after playing around with a polarizing filter for a few months, I found that I could "see" polarization. And now I can't turn it off. ;-)

Cool. So you can see polarized-type 3-D movies in 3-D without wearing the special glasses? :)

-

Re:That's all very well but

[pod]

Exactly. ogg/vorbis looks interesting, but there's just no way I'm switching to it any time soon, and I'm definitely NOT re-encoding. Not just because I have better things to do with my time (I probably don't). Simply put, I have too much time and money invested in the tools and system to (semi-)automatically rip, create, tag, index, file, manage, stream, etc, mp3 files, not .ogg files. To suddenly juggle two formats, or even completely switch, would be just way too much work. I'd rather keep on going, even if I need more bits to encode at the same quality.

This is a similar argument to the persistance to Windows; the installed base, and time, money and skills invested in your current platform and the tools that are available for it. Why bother changing everything for a dubious incremental benefit?

Re:That's all very well but

[pod]

I'm not surprised that Apple is using AAC. For one thing, it is clearly better than the decade-old MP3 format in all respects

Whoa, whoa! Just because mp3 has been around so long doesn't mean that it's '10 years old'. The encoders are being constantly improved. We now have VBR. Frauenhoffer and LAME use different psychoacoustic engines to generate the compressed stream, so you have at least 2 to choose from.

Windows is not necessarily better than unix just because unix is 'older'.

Re:That's all very well but

[jc42]

Cool. So you can see polarized-type 3-D movies in 3-D without wearing the special glasses? :)

Heh; no. It doesn't seem to work that way, at least for me. I seem to know without thinking about it whether light is polarized, but I can't actually tell what the polarization is. If I think about it, I can, but that's from experience.

Zoologists have reported that some animals can detect the direction of polarization. One of them is the common pigeon. The doves apparently have a polarizing filter inside their eyes.

This was reported by people studying pigeons' direction finding, which they are notoriously good at. One thing was discovered was that they weren't as good on overcast days as on sunny days. They got good evidence that the birds used the sun's position and the time of day as a compass. Then they found that if there were a couple of spots of blue sky visible, the birds apparently knew where the sun was, even if it was hidden behind clouds. The explanation is that blue sky is polarized, and the polarization points away from (or towards) the sun. It's strongest 90 degrees from the sun, and weaker near the sun or near the horizon. So one patch of blue will give a pigeon a line that the sun lies on; two blue patches tell them where the sun is.

These birds also seem to be able to detect the planet's magnetic field, giving them a second compass (which has failure modes near some sorts of human artifacts). Lots of critters, including a lot of bacteria, have a magnetic sense based on tiny crystals of magnetite. We apparently don't have any magnetite in our heads. But I wouldn't be surprised to read about a weak magnetic sense in some humans. Who would have thought that the human eye could detect polarization?

Get yourself a polarizing filter and experiment with it. It's fun, and after a while, you'll find yourself knowing what it will do to a scene without thinking about it. You'll somehow know that some surfaces (and skies) are sending polarized light, and you'll know when you want to cancel or enhance the polarization with your filter.

I haven't read that the mechanism is known in humans. It's possible that the human eye really can't see the polarization. Rather, your brain might "just know" what surfaces produce polarization without any conscious thought.

Re:That's all very well but

[HBI]

100% agreed.

I did a lot of recording of local bands back in the '80's. I would strive with my limited budget to provide adequate miking and high quality recording in an era when digital was way beyond my wallet's capacity.

I noted that the recordings that sounded better to me weren't necessarily the most true to life. In fact, most people who recorded with me preferred audio run through a compressor (for lesser dynamic range). Apparently true live dynamic range is unsuitable for home listening.

Another thing we used was a slight digital delay (I had one of those). The delay effect we used wasn't very noticeable, it wasn't a clear echo, but it tended to fill out the sound. It also clipped significantly off the top and bottom end of the frequency response since the delay was incapable of handling low bass, and its sampling rate was incapable of producing anything above 8khz.

I would couple that with light ambient miking of the crash cymbals and a close up to the ride, with low volume levels. Mike up the bass drum. Mike in front of the bass amp. And one more about 20 feet from the band to catch the room sound. Guitar solos were tracked in later, if possible, otherwise I would mike the guitar's amp close up. Keyboards went direct into the mixer, much better results than miking them in these setups.

I had a nice collection of various microphones. Invariably people preferred the sound of omnis to the directional mikes I preferred for most applications. The omnis had less dynamic range and tended to have a less clear sound, but this made some happy. They wanted drone (even if you were recording thrash metal or hardcore, which I was often).

When I would mix the whole mess down, the ambient room sound got eliminated often due to transients from the drums. The bass was left muddy and even clipping/overmodulated even though I could have left it sounding clear and solid. Guitars often were given a slight 'unreal' sound, floating atop the rest of the performance. I had to admit this effect was nice. Drums were generally clear. Vocals got thrown through the digital delay & compressor. All of these were dictated by the will of the actual musicians, of course.

The ultimate product wasn't half bad, and I am not even discussing the various live performances I had recorded. Different scenario, different tools. Some of the bands did something useful with the demos I recorded for them. But I couldn't help shaking my head at the sacrifices in sound clarity that, even in the dinosaur age of analog, I was compelled to make.

I suppose engineer vs musician thought. Not that i'd call my amateur exploits engineering.

Re:That's all very well but

[nathanh]

This is why many sound engineers prefer vinyl. because it's an analogue format, vinyl has a potentially infinite sample frequency range

Oh for the love of god, please let this stupid meme die. Vinyl does *not* have an infinite sample frequency range. The needle cannot move that fast. The vinyl couldn't withstand the forces even if it could. The grooves have a width and their rate of attack and decay must be limited to avoid grooves overlapping. Sharp transients are worn away with regular use (the needle is a tiny chisel).

The practical frequency range of vinyl stops at about 16kHz. This was well proven with quadraphonic vinyl - a marketting gimmick if ever there was one - where the "goal" was to store a third and fourth channel of information and use frequency shifting (and other tricks) to extract the channels. It works perhaps twice before the vinyl degrades and the third and fourth channels go mute.

I notice nobody ever defends analogue tape as being "infinite in resolution" or "infinite in frequency". I wonder why? Tape sounds a hell of a lot better than vinyl.

(although it's obviously limited by the recording and playback equipment, and by the physics of the media itself)

Throwing that disclaimer in at the end doesn't excuse you. It's like saying "my car can go at light speed (limited by the physics of the car itself)". There is no value to the statement. Don't spread the nonsense.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

amen.

Re:That's all very well but

[Jucius Maximus]

"Where's my ogg pod then?"

Right here, of course! Ogg and Linux support are confirmed, and FLAC support is a possibility.

Re:That's all very well but

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the problem is that it is easy to make hard (objective) measurements to engineer to.

How does one design to "pleasing" distortions? Who decides what are pleasing distortions? It sounds too subjective, but then, what the heck, people rank movies, restaurants and so on with stars, so maybe the idea isn't too far off, but you'd have to put work into finding out which reviewers you agree with, etc. There lies a problem of pseudo-science in the audio hobby, and lots of stuff looks like they rely on the placebo effect, as such, reviewers don't bother to do double blind tests to prove their assertions.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

often people use sqare brackets to avoid website engines from mistaking the fake tags as real ones, and hence stripping them out.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed a word:

vinyl has a potentially infinite sample frequency range

(emphasis added)

There was no assertion that standard vinyl discs have an infinite sample range. Learn to read.

Re:That's all very well but

[nathanh]

You are potentially the stupidest person on Slashdot.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly have some kind of mental impairment, so let me help you. You do not need to encode 400 hours of music again... you simply need to start using OGG for new material from now on, and this simple act will get you the benefits of using a superior format. Amazing really... such a simple idea.

Re:That's all very well but

[macmurph]

> You are potentially the stupidest person on Slashdot.

Tard, Proper grammar would be, "You are potentially the most stupid person on Slashdot.".

Re:That's all very well but

[PhoenixFlare]

No, "friend", you're the one with the mental impairment...

What use is ripping new stuff as OGG if 95% of my collection is still MP3? Aside from being able to go "damn, i'm so l33t, a few hundred of my 10,000 files are superior OGG", there's no point. I don't need to start splitting up my files into different formats just to impress an anonymous dumbass like you.

Also, I don't know about you, but I can't afford to buy tons of new CDs right now, and i've already ripped everything I own. As well, anything new I may download from P2P services or an FTP is almost certainly likely to be an MP3 as well.

Even if OGG would get me "the benefits of using a superior format", I, again, don't give a damn, really. My MP3s sound perfectly fine to my heathen ears, and that's all that matters.

Oh, and the fact that you offer no specific data at all to support the "superior format" claim really helps your case, Mr. AC

Re:That's all very well but

[nathanh]

Grammar police shouldn't capitalise words following a comma. Nor should they include a redundant period at the end of a sentence.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

What use is ripping new stuff as OGG if 95% of my collection is still MP3?

Eh? You are a fucking retard. What use is ripping in a new format... because it is better, dipshit. Your media player will still work fine... you old stuff will still play... your new stuff will play. You still don't seem to be able to grasp this essentially simple idea.

Whatever you say about MP3 sounding fine, it doesn't change the fact that you replied to the original poster with the mistaken idea that the MP3 police will arrive and arrest you if stop using MP3.

Case in point:

As well, anything new I may download from P2P services or an FTP is almost certainly likely to be an MP3 as well.

So what? See above... no-one is saying you (or anyone else) should dump all your MP3s and not download any more. It not a fucking hard idea to understand, even for a dickhead like you.

Re:That's all very well but

[Dinopeptic Germ]

I find your comment quite interesting in that it has made me think further about a related topic. I am a musician and I completely follow what you're saying about distracting sound coming from higher frequencies.

In my profession, I type on a keyboard all day long. I also hear many others around me doing the same. It never bothers me. However, ever time I hear someone typing at a keyboard on TV or in a movie, it's like nails on a chalkboard to me! I've never really figured out why, but I think I now have some insight. Perhaps I am subconciously filtering out those frequencies in my work environment.

Perhaps next time I hear a keyboard on TV, I'll lower the EQ on the upper frequencies and see if it makes any difference.

Re:That's all very well but

[PhoenixFlare]

Wow, your impassioned use of "fucking retard", "dipshit", and "dickhead" has completely destroyed my self-confidence.

I'm going to go weep in the corner now, and wait for the "MP3 police" to take me away.

In all honesty, I find it rather funny that you're so pissed off at the idea that someone might, horror of horrors, not want to use OGG.

So what? See above... no-one is saying you (or anyone else) should dump all your MP3s and not download any more. It not a fucking hard idea to understand, even for a dickhead like you.

True...What you are saying, though, is that I would be an idiot not to rip new material in OGG, something which I, again, have no desire to do. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

Look moron, I don't care whether you rip in MP3, AAC, OGG, or PCM. I know you've got shit for brains because you are trying make an argument that due to old stuff being MP3, you must rip new stuff in MP3 format too. My argument works even if you we were talking about AAC -- you are the one hung up on bashing OGG.

Why don't you just give it up and go back to your coloring books.

Re:That's all very well but

[PhoenixFlare]

And you're the one trying to convince someone with "shit for brains". Guess you're not the brightest bulb yourself, either, are you?

Look moron, I don't care whether you rip in MP3, AAC, OGG, or PCM.

Then why are you even posting, exactly?

My argument is that I don't want my music collection to be split into 2 or 3 different formats, siwwy AC man. And there's also the fact that my portable MP3 player wouldn't exactly work on OGG files, either.

And c'mon...If you're going to swear and be all flustered at me, at least have some guts and log in.

FLAME ON!

Re:That's all very well but

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why are you even posting, exactly?

Because you are talking rubbish about how you *MUST* ENCODE IN MP3 OR YOU WILL DIE OF SHAME. Haven't you managed to understand this yet? Go back and read the start of this thread. How many times does it have to be stated before it sinks into that steaming pile of rancid dung between your ears? Perhaps reading it again will shake something loose and you'll realise what's wrong.

My argument is that I don't want my music collection to be split into 2 or 3 different formats, siwwy AC man.

No, that's not your argument... it's not even a sensible one. Do you keep all images in one format? Doe you have some MP3s in VBR and some in ABR? Do some of them have ID3 tags, and some not? If we were taking about half a dozen formats and their associated codecs then you may have a point, but we aren't. Not switching codecs just because you want to keep everything you've ever encoded in the same format isn't just retarded, it's anal in the extreme.

Here, I'll try something simpler:

I can't switch to eating brown bread, because I only have white bread in my bread bin -- and my knifes are only designed to cut white bread, and the plates to hold white slices. -- PhoenixFlare 2003

the fact that my portable MP3 player wouldn't exactly work on OGG files

You are the only one banging on about OGG, you shitwit! This has nothing to do with OGG, it's about your argument that you must use MP3, or the world will end.

Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, these codecs are supposed to change the waveform and spectral content. They are lossy!

The only thing that counts is if they remove the right stuff and keep the stuff we like to hear. Only listening tests are valid to judge a lossy audio codec!

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[ramzak2k]

why not ? Assuming that the goal of each of these codecs is to produce music closest to the original in the best possible compression - it does make for a excellent yardstick. If modifying aspects of the music piece is the goal - a codec that performs well on a particular genre will not do so well on the other.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Jon Abbott]

According to this blind listening test conducted by c't magazine, AAC at 128kbps was ranked the lowest of all codecs sampled at that bitrate (WAV, OGG, WMA, RA, MP3Pro and MP3)... One can always hope that the claims of Apple making their AACs directly from the record masters are true, as this would help the situation some.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[MS_is_the_best]

How can this parent be +5 insightful? It is wrong and uninformative.

I worked with MPEG4 (AAC) and OGG a lot (for my phd. thesis) and spectral analysis IS very important. Although it is correct that it doesn't show precisely what information is left out because of what our hearing system doesn't register. However, these hearing curves and integration times are already known (although not the same for evry human) and most post-MP3 encoders do this rather correct. Most profit nowadays is in clever signal processing. The spectrum of a decoded signal shows almost all artifacts very well and is therefore something which helps a lot in showing artifacts in a coding scheme.

Of course listening test must also be done. They show that modern encoders make choices (not all our ears are the same, and so isn't all the music) which very often pays of in a certain test.

Theoratically AAC and OGG are rather similar, but AAC has a few nice extra's like the Temporal Noise Shaper. However in practice OGG seems good enough (unless MP3) and is free, while AAC is not that much better and unfree, so my choice is obvious.

I will wait for the OGG hack of the IPod, now it had a better processor.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. One can instantly recognize the amateur tests because conclusions and made solely based on graphs.

What I find sad is that this kind of useless comparison was linked from slashdot in the first place, feeding even more the misconceptions that graphical analysis of audio is the way to go. It is not. Ask any codec developer and you will always get the same answer every time: listening tests are the only valid way to compare lossy audio quality.

Just like the above poster said, graphs can't show conclusively what is audible and what is not. The purpose of lossy audio is to remove the inaudible parts and retain enough resolution for the audible parts.
Graphs can also easily lie, and this can be used purposely to deceive uneducated users. Fortunately some knowledgeable sites like http://www.hydrogenaudio.org spread the knowledge of how proper (blind) testing should be done.

That said, the fact is QuickTime AAC is really not the best quality AAC implementation. That doesn't mean that AAC doesn't have potential, it does, but it depends on the implementation.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Genyin]

According to this blind listening test conducted by c't magazine, AAC at 128kbps was ranked the lowest of all codecs sampled at that bitrate (WAV, OGG, WMA, RA, MP3Pro and MP3)...

That was the ORIGINAL wav, not a 128kbps wav. A 128kbps wav would suck compared to a 128kbps compressed anything.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that many audible artifacts can be seen from different kinds of spectral analysis graphs. However, many CAN'T be seen. And if some spectral parts are masked, of course those parts can look different, but it doesn't necessarely sound any different. That's why listening testing comes always first, and graphical analysis is used to confirm and analyze what went wrong. But it is dangerous to judge lossy audio quality solely based on graphs. That simply won't work.

All codec developers will agree what I just said.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[elwinc]

The parent post is right. You want to look up a psychoacoustic phenomenon known as masking. Some small changes to a signal are perceptually undetectable; other small changes are detectable.

And by the way: when running perceptual tests, whether it's wine tasting or audio equipment, you need to do an "AAB" test. Most comparisons are "AB" comparisons where you tell the subject: "here are two different samples; which one is 'better'?" Telling the subject to expect a difference will skew the results. The fix is to present the subject with a control signal, and then two test signals (in randomized order), one of which is identical to the control (i.e. either "AAB" or "ABA"). Then see if the subject can do better than random chance in identifying the "B" sample.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Jon Abbott]

Point taken... I only included WAV with the rest because it was listed in the same table as the other codecs. Humorously enough, WAV at 128kbps would be one of the following real crappy sample rates:

4kHz, 16-bit, stereo

8kHz, 16-bit, mono

8kHz, 8-bit, stereo

16kHz, 8-bit, mono

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

i've been listening to 128 AAC all morning and it sounds better than my mp3 collection which was ripped at 192 w/ vbr. 128 AAC is amazing compared to 128 mp3 and is probably a little better than 128 mp3pro.

I couldn't tell ya about wma or ogg.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Objective measurements like spectral analysis may be useful for research and development of codecs, but when it comes to deciding which codec is better, there is one and ONLY one thing that's important (besides compression ratio), and that is listening tests. The purpose of a codec is to provide faithful reproduction of music for human listening. It has no other purpose. Thus, the only reasonable test of its fitness is a listening test. Naturally, a proper listening test would be double-blind and would include large numbers of people (thousands?) who were given lots of time (maybe even years) to listen and get a feel for differences.

In an unrelated note, I'm not really as confident as others that spectral analysis is even a good test. I can think of some kinds of distortions of an audio signal that would be virtually undetected by it and yet are easily noticeable to the human ear. For example, if you put a signal through a pretty slow compressor, it should have almost no effect on the spectral balance, and yet that is a distortion that is definitely audible (although desirable to some). Plus, I don't see how spectral analysis is going to easily show small phase differences, and those can be audible.

I'm no expert on lossy codecs (IMHO disk capacity is growing fast enough that in 5 years they'll be obsolete for music listening purposes and we'll be stuck with them like we're stuck with the GIF image format), so I don't know if lossy codecs produce the kinds of distortion I've named, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where we know enough to compare the usefulness of codecs based mainly on objective measurements. Spectral analysis might be or it might not be an accurate reflection, but I think that's debatable, and as long as it's debatable, it's best to stick with the one thing that must correspond to what we hear, which is listening tests.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Skuto]

How can this parent be +5 insightful? It is wrong and uninformative, and probably a troll anyway (see the nic and remember this is /.)

>I worked with MPEG4 (AAC) and OGG a lot (for my
>phd. thesis) and spectral analysis IS very important.

It's interesting so many unsupported and blatantly false claims are made by people that claim to have PhD's.

>However, these hearing curves and integration times are already known

Really? Correctly modelling those is one of the greatest challenges in improving psychoacoustic encoders. We know how things work on a coarse level, but finemodelling needs a lot of work still.

>Most profit nowadays is in clever signal processing.

Not at all. Better modeling of human psychoacoustics, more efficient encoding (e.g. TNS in AAC, VQ codebooks in Vorbis), and generally 'tricks' like lossy stereo or perceptual noise substitution provide the largest gain. (It's arguable whether these are 'clever signal processing', but you were saying it was not due to psychoacoustics, which is just wrong)

>The spectrum of a decoded signal shows almost all artifacts very well and is therefore
>something which helps a lot in showing artifacts in a coding scheme.

This is blatantly false and if you had ever seriously worked in this field you would know it.

>Theoratically AAC and OGG are rather similar, but AAC has a few nice extra's like the Temporal
>Noise Shaper

And so does Vorbis have many things that AAC does not have, moreover, most of the similarity is only superficial.

--
GCP

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[blibbleblobble]

"Really, these codecs are supposed to change the waveform and spectral content. They are lossy!"

So by RIAA accounting methods, they're worth 3% the cost of the uncompressed file?

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[MS_is_the_best]

It's interesting so many unsupported and blatantly false claims are made by people that claim to have PhD's.
Never claimed I obtained my Phd, BUT I'm 100% sure I am working on it.

Really? Correctly modelling those is one of the greatest challenges in improving psychoacoustic encoders. We know how things work on a coarse level, but finemodelling needs a lot of work still.
I'm not going to discuss in depth issues on ./ However you are right in what you say (and I know your ogg work, you understand the topic fine), BUT here we are talking on a different wavelength. I say the psychoacoustics principles are known and take modelling as a signalling issue. Or have the ogg guys measured the human ear themselve? The efficient coding and tricks you mention fall under the umbrella of signal coding in my (foreign) dictionary.

>The spectrum of a decoded signal shows almost all artifacts very well and is therefore
>something which helps a lot in showing artifacts in a coding scheme.

This is blatantly false and if you had ever seriously worked in this field you would know it.
Perhaps you should read some scientific articles instead of keeping your nose in C-code. (I don't need to come up with arguments as you don't do that either?)

probably a troll anyway (see the nic and remember this is /.)
This is partly correct, my nick was a bit of troll four years ago (grew a bit tired of the anti ms comments, which were 50% of the posts), however not anymore, just kept it.

Anyway, please don't feel offendend and keep up the good work!

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

most encoders are not optimized for sample rates >44khz. on top of this, encoding from a master copy would make the chosen bitrate of 128kbps even less appropriate, for there would be more available data to compress down.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

What this proves is that you can find a study that proves anything.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Skuto]

>I say the psychoacoustics principles are known
>and take modelling as a signalling issue. Or
>have the ogg guys measured the human ear
>themselve?

Ha, this is a matter of definition. As I stated above, the basic principles are known, the finer work is not. This is still psychoacoustics in my book, but apparently it's not in yours. But I assume we actually agree about the state of things.

All of the lower level work and research on the psymodels was done by the Vorbis people themselves, which includes some refutations of scientifically published data.

>Perhaps you should read some scientific articles
>instead of keeping your nose in C-code. (I don't
>need to come up with arguments as you don't do
>that either?)

Ok, I'm curious how you reliably (key word here) judge quality of a psychoacoustic audio codec with spectrographs. Pointers to articles or links are fine. Methods that 'somewhat' or 'usually' work are not! I know that none of the developers for Vorbis, AAC and LAME and MusePack use spectrographs for any serious work. And I'm sure they read a lot more scientific articles than me.

>This is partly correct, my nick was a bit of
>troll four years ago (grew a bit tired of the
>anti ms comments, which were 50% of the posts),
>however not anymore, just kept it.

Ok, my bad.

--
GCP

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Pieroxy]

This is just so untrue. When I am compressing a music at 16kbps, I expect a large part of the spectrum to disappear, right? I can easily write a codec that will try and maintain the closest spectrum possible, but then I'm going to miss precision in my low-freq where stuff are audible.

My point is that I prefer a codec that remove some frequencies and achieve a far better quality in the low freqs than a codec that will stick with the entire spectrum and have less bits to allocate to the more audible frequencies.

The ultimate quality test can be only a listening test. It's the whole point!!!

The idea of MP3 encoding *is* to remove frequencies that are _not audible_. So you can't blame the codec for doing it's job!!!

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that."

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[dobber]

Testers were asked to rank the seven files in quality when compared to the uncompressed reference files. If they couldn't hear a difference between two formats, they were supposed to rank randomly, so that uncertainties would not lead to statistically significant changes.

You cannot ask testers to rank randomly, as humans don't produce statistically random results.

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[_Shorty-dammit]

how can you say it's wrong? Especially since you're supposedly doing your phd thesis on the subject? Spectral analysys is meaningless. The whole point of any lossy audio compression is to distort as much as possible and throw away as much as possible and change the signal as much as possible WITHOUT THOSE CHANGES BEING AUDIBLE. With the way humans hear it is possible to drastically mangle an audio signal and still have it sound the same TO A PERSON. And that's the whole point of lossy audio compression, save space by throwing data away until it's just below the threshold of what an ear would or would not notice being different. Something's seriously wrong if you're doing a phd thesis on lossy audio compression and you are unaware of this simple concept that lossy audio comression is based on. Spectral analysis will, and should, show major differences between the original and the lossy compressed samples. The point is, DOES IT ACTUALLY SOUND DIFFERENT TO A PERSON?

Re:Spectrum analysis is useless

[harlows_monkeys]

And by the way: when running perceptual tests, whether it's wine tasting or audio equipment, you need to do an "AAB" test

Here's how I tested when I was deciding what MP3 encoder to use and what settings to use when ripping stuff for my jukebox. Anyone see any problems with this?

I wrote a program that I can give two files to. The first is designated R (for reference) and the second is T (for test).

For each test run, the program picks one of those files, and that file is designated X. I can ask the program to play any R, T, X, or whichever file is not X. I freely play any and all of these, in any sequence I want, listening for differences, until I decide if X == R or X == T. I can then tell the program my decision, and it tells me if I'm right or wrong, and then random picks on of R and T to be X for the next run. Repeat several times. The program then gives me stats on how good I was at identifying X.

When the program plays a file, it throws in a random delay before starting playback. I did that because I noticed that .mp3 playback has a short but noticable startup delay compared to .wav playback, and I did not want that to provide a clue. Next time I revise the program, I'll throw in a small random volume variation for each playback, too.

They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTime

[Fefe]

And it's more efficient than MP3.

Their encoder is not particularly good, and AAC is covered by a ton of patents, so there probably are other reasons why they chose it.

For anyone else but Apple I see no reason to use AAC when you can have Ogg Vorbis.

PS: Shameless plug: I wrote a vorbis patch to add SSE support for enhanced encoder and decoder speed. It also contains some 3dnow! optimization for you K6 users, decoder only.

Lossless

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish lossless compression was at a point that it would be practical for this. That would settle all the debates on which audio codec to use. Unfortunately the best lossless compressors can only achieve a maximum of like 50% compression, and on 50-90MB files, that's not really practical for a solution yet.

Re:Lossless

[the_bahua]

Nevertheless, I encode into flac now, as 1) it sounds much better than vbr mp3 or ogg, and 2) at 20-30MB per song, it really discourages people from downloading songs from me when I tell them how big they are.

Re:Lossless

[RightInTheNeck]

I agree...there are some great lossless compression encoders out there that are even playable in thier compressed form....Monkey's audio being one..shorten being another...while I agree it wouldnt be practical for the masses to d/l a 25mb single song...for quite a few people its not that big of a deal...considering the people who will be attracted to these online music services are going after one song on an album....so downloading one 25mb file isnt a big deal...the people who are interested in the entire cd will still just bye the cd....at 99 cents a song...its about the same price plus you get perfect quality and cover art

Re:Lossless

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why not just use .wav? It satifies both your criteria, and saves time.

Re:Lossless

[mkawick]

Try INDEO. It's hard to find much left after Intel bought the IP for it, but there are still tools for it and if you use DirectSound (on non-WinNT OS's like Win98), the Codec is built in. It guarantees an 8:1 compression ratio, lossless, and the DEC is still available in WinXP.

I have source for the DEC portion if you'd like to try using it. email me at mkawick@yahoo.com. The encoding is very similar so I'm sure that you can figure it out.

Re:Lossless

[furrycushion]

nothing can guarantee a lossless compression ratio.

Re:Lossless

[Anonymous Coward]

GOD. When did this obsession start with typing "..." after EVERYTHING! It makes me feel like I'm talking to an old man or a stoned person that keeps trailing off after every word. Not to mention that it makes you look like a retard. But that seems to be the point of most posts, rit d00d?

Re:Lossless

[tamyrlin]

It is very hard to make a lossless codec for this kind of signal. The least significant bits look more or less like noise if you have 16 bit samples, and the entropy of noise is quite high. I would be surprised if there are any significant breakthroughs in lossless compression of arbitrary audio streams.

Re:Lossless

[ePhil_One]

nothing can guarantee a lossless compression ratio.

What?

Sometimes I have to wonder where people get this stuff from. So tape drive manufaturers play russian roulette with peoples data every day? Modem users have to tell their modems to turn off data compression to ensure data integrity? The kernels I download might not be the ones Linus uploaded? We rely on lossless compression every day without even thinking about it.

This is utter non-sense. There are lots of lossless compression schemes out there, they are all mathematically proven to be lossless. The problem is that if you know the type of data you are compressing and the patterns it tends to form you (a black pixel rarely follows a white pixel in a photograph, 300hz at 100% is rarely followed by 301hz at 0%) you can toss some of the data with minimal loss. Thus you get lossy compression such as jpeg, mpeg, ogg, etc. By making better assumptions about the data you are compressing, you get more accurate results. Hence jpeg makes a lousy algoritm for audio, and as good as Ogg is for audio, it makes for really nasty pictures

Re:Lossless

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you prefer "!!!1!" after every sentence? ;)

At least he didn't
hit return every
few words like some
idiots do.

Re:Lossless

[antiMStroll]

Given the rapid technology curve for storage, processing and network bandwidth, non-lossy storage will soon be practical. The hard part will be convincing a world of mp3-is-perfect listeners to shift.

Re:Lossless

[Sancho]

But you don't get to pick and choose if you buy the CD. You have to take any crap that goes along with anything good.

Re:Lossless

[Sancho]

a black pixel rarely follows a white pixel in a photograph, 300hz at 100% is rarely followed by 301hz at 0%

But that doesn't mean that it /can't/ happen. Unless something in the file or data format actually requires that these rules be adhered to, you can't guarantee that they will be adhered to.

What did the grand-parent post say? Guarantees 8:1 compression losslessly? That's pretty amazing...I have ripped wav file of a song. It's 30 megs. At the /guaranteed/ 8:1 compression ratio, that means I can losslessly compress this file to 3.75 megs maximum. That's only slightly larger than the 128kbps mp3. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Re:Lossless

[RightInTheNeck]

Please ignore that reply. Its just my bitchy ex-girlfriend. Im sorry honey were just not getting back together, its over. We had some great times, like when I use to give you those morning dutch ovens to wake you up, we laughed about those forever. Its time for us to move on, your starting to scare me. P.S. tell your mom im sorry I pulled her wig off and set it on fire at her birthday party. I thought I was saving her life. I hope you find someone, love ya.

Re:Lossless

[Onan]

It is correct to say that "nothing can guarantee a lossless compression ratio." You have chosen to interpret this as "nothing which is compressed can be guaranteed to be lossless," which is entirely different.

The more entropy in a dataset, the less you will be able to compress it without loss. Perfectly random data is not compressible at all.

If lossless compression could be guaranteed for any data, why wouldn't you just feed the output of that compressor back into itself? Iterate over that until you can losslessly compress any file down to 0 bits, and you've got yourself a hot product.

Re:Lossless

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a geek. You have to encode your music to some kind of cool format, or else you will be made fun of by the rest of us.

Or if you are an audiophile, you get to make fun of all the people who encode to a lossy format.

FLAC Attack beeyatch.

Re:Lossless

[Doomdark]

It is very hard to make a lossless codec for this kind of signal. The least significant bits look more or less like noise if you have 16 bit samples.

That's assuming scheme similar to run-length encoding isn't it? A lifetime ago (when I was 16) I actually wrote a small sound-compression app for Amiga, that was able to losslessly compress (8-bit) samples by 20-50% (on average), using a very simple delta-encoding (using varying number of bits representing deltas between consequtive samples, changing number of significant bits etc). Same could be easily adapted to 16-bit samples, but I'm sure current lossless codecs use other (or additional) methods. A while ago I toyed with the idea of trying something along the lines of the old method, but after writing piece of simple java code to see maximal compression (assuming no compression overhead) I decide dit wouldn't be worth it, without additional methods (probably combining cos transforms a la MP3 or such with compressing 'leftover' bits with something else)... and didn't really have time to get back to that project. :-)

Re:Lossless

[the_bahua]

Well, it's still compressed, and if I want to reencode it to ogg/mp3/aac/whatever, I still can, without any repeated loss in quality.

The presentation...

[Ponty]

My favorite part of yesterday's presentation were Steve's constant, subtle pokes at ogg. He never said the name, but it was clear what he was talking about.

Re:The presentation...

[Anonymous Coward]

How so for those of us who didnt' see it?

Re:The presentation...

[Bendy Chief]

Sounds like Jobs to me... "Well, let's see... we have an open standard, developed by a community with a vested interest in the well-being and openness of the computer world. It has superior quality at lower bitrates... hah!"

But this is The New Hotness, AAC, as brought to you by the Jobs Reality Distortion field. In a way, I'm surprised he didn't take parts of OGG and wrap them up in a proprietary GUI. :P

Re:The presentation...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Ogg, not OGG, dammit!

Re:The presentation...

[feldsteins]

My favorite part of this discussion is where slashdotters believe that they, the open source community and Ogg in particular are foremost in the minds of people like Steve Jobs as he unveils his new music service.

Get a clue already. Apple went with AAC because it's great quality, supports the (fairly mild and necessary to get the RIAA onboard) DRM restrictions for the service, and is a subset of the excellent MPEG4 video codec.

Even if Ogg is better quality at lower bitrate (a point that I am not convinced of, "waveform comparisons" notwithstanding), Apple has legitimate reasons for going AAC that have nothing to do with The Man trying to keep you and the open source community down. Jesus, it's not always about you, mkay?

Re:The presentation...

[Ponty]

I'm not sure you got what I was saying: I fully support AAC. I just bought an album in that format from the Music Store, and I'm enjoying it right now. AAC was obviously the right choice: It has the DRM necessary to get the music labels on board. I can't tell the difference in quality, and I like the fact that it is supported on my iPod.

I, actually, think that the Slashdot community is a wonderful example of people who think they're important and relevant, but just don't really make that much of a difference to the world.

Re:The presentation...

[IamTheRealMike]

Get a clue already. Apple went with AAC because it's great quality, supports the (fairly mild and necessary to get the RIAA onboard) DRM restrictions for the service, and is a subset of the excellent MPEG4 video codec.

The first one seems rather dubious, sure, it might be good enough, but "great" implies better than the rest. The second seems irrelevant, they could have easily built a DRM/encrypted wrapper around Ogg (though I'm sure that'd have gone down like a ton of bricks here ;) and the third seems equally irrelevant, unless Apple actually enjoy paying extra licensing fees.

I rather suspect AAC won out because, as is often the way, the commercial codecs have people with large wallets in the right places with a vested interest in seeing them succeed, while Ogg only has Monty. Plus after having gone to all that trouble to try and make MPEG4 slightly less unfree, they probably wanted to get their monies worth.

Re:The presentation...

[antiMStroll]

If Ogg is audibly better and 'you' = customer, then yes it is all about 'you'.

Re:The presentation...

[afidel]

ok if the pretty pictures dont convince you how about the largest blind listening test done by C't magazine which placed AAC dead last at 128Kbit ? Yeah it sucks worse then wma and mp3 at that rate, which quincidently (sp?) is the rate at which apple is distributing these songs.

Re:The presentation...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Even if Ogg is better quality at lower bitrate (a point that I am not convinced of)...

I am going to define "lower bitrate" as 40Kbps. In my own tests (UT2003 theme, compress in ogg and mp3, both mono at 40Kbps) it was difficult for me to tell the difference between the ogg file and the original (sans stereo). The mp3 on the other hand was HORRIBLE. Now, I don't know about you, but when the ogg file contains little distortion and the mp3 is one big distortion, I qualify that as noticably better quality at a lower bit rate. I don't think that there is any codec today that can beat ogg at 40Kbps. I personally like ogg's excellent quality so much, I use it as my codec of choice for my PDA.

note: I am not an audiophile, just an average joe
note 2: when I refer to ogg, I mean ogg vorbis

Re:The presentation...

[Pieroxy]

"great" implies better than the rest

No. Best implies better than the rest. Great is just implying some quality.

they could have easily built a DRM/encrypted wrapper around Ogg

Problem is they don't have control of Ogg. They don't know where it's going to go and it is still not in a final+stable release. In fact, developpers could just drop it tomorrow.

Re:The presentation...

[Anonymous Coward]

The absolute best part is how the "Apple is always right" people come out of the woodwork on slashdot to pounce on people for daring to claim that something Apple does is not the best.

Re:The presentation...

[IamTheRealMike]

They don't have control of MPEG4 either, and due to patents/licensing, I doubt they could fork it if they weren't happy with progress.

Re:The presentation...

[Pieroxy]

The main thing is the MPEG consortium has shown a good consistency with their standards in the past already. They are a "serious" organization. Not mentioning that their standard is pretty much frozen so far and is reaching a good acceptance already.

Ogg is just this brand new thing that no one has ever heard of (but geeks like us). Who wants to bet on that for the next 10 years or so, just to save some kbps?

PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[ObviousGuy]

Nothing will every beat Ogg in PhatAudio's eyes. They seem to find evidence of Ogg's superiority where there is none. It's like the lovers of vacuum tubes rather than transistors.

"It sounds warmer!"

Sure. And the incandescent lights in my house have a better smell than the fluorescent ones at work.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[rm -rf /etc/*]

Tubes and transistors are different though. With Ogg vs whatever, it may be more subjective, who knows. But at least with tubes there is a known difference between how they amplify and how transistors amplify. Tubes produce more even order distortion, which to our ears sounds warm and pleasing. Transistors produce more odd order distortion, which tends to sound harsh and stressing.

Subtle difference? Perhaps, but it's there.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[gpinzone]

Baloney. There's been countless tests that prove there's no perceptible difference between tube amps and transistor amps. It's all in your head.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[nattt]

Bollocks. Tube measure worse and sound better.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[afidel]

Umm, no there is a big difference, solid state amps reproduce sounds more exactly but can introduce harsh harmonics, on the other hand tube amps tend to add warm harmonics while distorting. These warm distortions are more pleasing to the ear, of course ideally you would produce zero distortion and get your harmonics from an effects processor =)

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[archangel77]

You can certainly prove that with a link, can you?

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[gpinzone]

http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?113
So where's your evidence?

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[RoLi]

Actually, a double-blind listening test with over 3000 participants revealed that OGG beats all other (mp3, mp3pro, wma, aac & realaudio were tested) codecs at all bitrates (64kbps, 128kbps, 160kbps)

The test samples were distributed as wav-Files and had 3 different music genres on them, the tests were made by a German computer magazine with no affiliation with any of the codecs.

Look here

If you don't accept that as proof of the superiority of ogg in general (there might be special cases where ogg might be worse, but this test shows that in general ogg beats them all) what else do you accept?

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[satterth]

And the incandescent lights in my house have a better smell than the fluorescent ones at work.

I think that is the dirt and bugs burning up from the heat of the bulb. :-)

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[norton_I]

This is somewhat true(*) with hi-fi gear which is not generally run anywhere near clipping limits. In that case, both valve and transistor amplifiers operate as nearly ideal amplifiers, and sound is very similar. However, sound production gear, particularly guitar amplifiers are almost always run outside of the linear range, where the characteristics of individual amplifiers become significant. This is because if you had to listen to the flat lifeless sound of your average electric guitar without the harmonics added by an amplifier, you would go nuts (no comments about going nuts either way are necessary here).

I have measured output of some tube amplifiers, and you can easily hear the difference in a simple sine wave signal, which show up easily by looking at the waveforms or power spectra.

Also, when distorting, there is far more than the "even/odd harmonics" theory affecting the relative sounds of different amplifiers.

(*) There are still real differences. Valve amplifiers typically have output impedances of a couple ohms, while transistor amplifiers usually have nearly 0 output impedance. This makes a big difference in damping, which contributes to what audiophiles people call "warm" vs. "tight" in a way that depends heavily on the speaker driver and enclosure. Valves also have inherently higher THD figures than transistors (commonly .2% vs .001%), and several "old school" valve amplifiers run without negative feedback in which case they are never even approximately linear, and do not behave as an ideal amplifier at all.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[Anonymous Coward]

Goldilocks?

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's troll is another man's humor. This point is completely missed by clueless moderators.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[japhyr777]

Have you listened to solid state amplifiers versus vacuum tube amplifiers? I don't know enough about music theory, or music in general. The harmonics are filtered differently. A small search on the web mentions that tube amplifiers favor even ordered harmonics(more in line with musical instruments), and solid state amps tend to favor odd ordered harmonics.

http://www.norh.com/docs/amps/

At school I saw a couple demonstrations and lectures that pointed that fact out in more detail.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[spahn]

>It's like the lovers of vacuum tubes rather than >transistors.
>
>"It sounds warmer!"

Yes. Tubes do sound warmer than transistors for a very good reason. Transistors and solid state technology for amplifying and reproducing audio tend to recreate odd numbered harmonics to the fundamental. The odd numbered harmonics are less pleasing to the ear than even numbered harmonics.

And with that in mind, guess which harmonics the tube amplifiers reproduce. Thats right! EVEN harmonics.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, TUBES, oooh yyea.

Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick

[Sycraft-fu]

MOSFET transistors, the ones that most current transistor amps use, distort along even harmonics.

Hmmm

[akpcep]

What about if I tell someone I'm off to trade some OGGs with my friends, and they think I'm going to throw little plastic discs about?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, it sounds more like a sex game where 2 men jack each other off into a cup, and then drink it.

Maybe in the future...

[borgdows]

"the increasingly popular OGG codec."

sadly, I don't think OGG is *currently* known to anybody except nerds or IT pros.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[tomstdenis]

Not to mention the codec is named "Vorbis" and the container format is named OGG!!!

[or do I have that backwards?]

Tom

Re:Maybe in the future...

[black mariah]

So? Like MP3 or ACC is any better than OGG? All software has a stupid name when you try to fit it into a three letter file extension.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[Azghoul]

And "sadly", just a few years ago noone had heard of mp3 except nerds or IT pros.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ogg is a container. Vorbis is the audio you speak of.

Oh, and as far as 3 letter extensions go, Apple use .m4a with their AAC files. Because it's MPEG-4 Audio.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

"sadly, I don't think OGG is *currently* known to anybody except nerds or IT pros"

Entering geek-fantasy bizarro world, please wait...

Marketing department hottie: Oh you sexy IT guy! Tell me more how I can get higher quality and higher compression rates on my music files! I want to know ev-ery-thiiinnggg!

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Marketing department hottie: [silence as she passes by, avoiding piercing leer of geek]

Geek: Hmm, I wonder if she noticed me. Doesn't she know the powers of music compression that I possess? (note to reader: she didn't, and she doesn't care)

Re:Maybe in the future...

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be so, but it is developing momentum. Take a look at this list of games that use ogg, for example.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutly correct. Ogg is also the container format for speex, flac, and theora.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[91degrees]

That's true, but for the average user, Ogg vorbis has no advantage over mp3. All most people care about is whether it costrs them money. mp3 is free for most users so what benefit does this strange sounding opgg format give?

Re:Maybe in the future...

[FooBarWidget]

AAC is no different. Ask your neighbour what AAC is. It's very likely that he's never even heard of it.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[CraigoFL]

When you start at zero, anything more than that is "increasingly" :-P

Re:Maybe in the future...

[tuffy]

That's true, but for the average user, Ogg vorbis has no advantage over mp3. All most people care about is whether it costrs them money. mp3 is free for most users so what benefit does this strange sounding [ogg] format give?

The one big advantage is that ogg encoders are free for both users and developers. Unlike LAME, whose use requires a patent license in some countries (per their web site), anyone can build ogg encoder/decoder support into their products free of charge. And by making ogg vorbis encoders ubiquitous, people can rip their own music with a lot less hassle.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[spinlocked]

AAC is no different. Ask your neighbour what AAC is. It's very likely that he's never even heard of it.

The difference is, they probably will soon as commercial ventures (like Apple's song download service) start to take off. Ogg/Vorbis is likely to remain niche (loved by nerds, used in game engines, embedded applications etc.).

Ask your neighbour if he knows what .bmp or .jpg file contains (I suspect he probably will if he owns a digital camera, or has used the web much), now ask him if knows what a .tga, a .xpm or a .wpg contains, I bet he'd be none the wiser even after double-clicking on the file and reading the error message.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[tempfile]

About a year ago, the biggest German newspaper's PC magazine (Computer Bild), which isn't really competent but read by a lot, made a comparison of lossy audio codecs. Guess which codec came out on top?

That's right, Vorbis. It's not going to stay in the geek niche forever.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[RoLi]

All most people care about is whether it costrs them money. mp3 is free for most users so what benefit does this strange sounding opgg format give?

About twice the compression ratio at equal quality or much better quality at the same ratio.

Hell, why don't we all use wavs? According to your logic, compression offers nothing, right?

Re:Maybe in the future...

[nemoest]

sadly, I don't think OGG is *currently* known to anybody except nerds or IT pros.

You forgot Unreal Tournament 2003 players... although I guess you can catagorize them as nerds.

UT2003 uses OGG for all music files and you can even rip your own tunes to OGG format and play them from within the game.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[91degrees]

Wavs are very large. mp3s are about a tenth of the size while retaining adequate quality. Losing another 50% isn't as important a consideration. mp3s are small enough for most people.

And many people simply don't believe that a lower bitrate could offer the same quality. People expect a 128kbps mp3 to sound the same as a 128kbps ogg. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they don;t have this misconception.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[arkane1234]

sadly, I don't think OGG is *currently* known to anybody except nerds or IT pros.

And those sitting within a 50 foot radius of said group ;)

Re:Maybe in the future...

[Anonymous Coward]

The moral of the story: if you use an incredibly stupid name for your product or service, don't be surprised or disappointed when people misunderstand or misapply that name.

This thing that was once called "Ogg Vorbis" is dead. It's OGG now, and shall be forever and ever, amen.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[TKinias]

scripsit borgdows:

sadly, I don't think OGG is *currently* known to anybody except nerds or IT pros.

What I want to know is: Are there any car players for OGG? I'd like to find an in-dash CD player that will also handle OGGs on data CDs... Is there any such thing?

Any differences in sound quality aren't going to matter with 80 m.p.h. freeway noise; I'm one who actually cares about free-as-in-speech.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[TheRealRamone]

.... someone will come up with an appealing alias or acronym for ogg (how does "OV7" sound?) which the masses can chew on.

--TRR

Re:Maybe in the future...

[archen]

Oh you sexy IT guy!

My girlfriend said that to me once jokingly and it sort of made me cringe for some reason. It just sounds wrong =P

Re:Maybe in the future...

[Azghoul]

You're right. We should just give up, and use whatever the "winning" format is. We should all by Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords, we should all just vote for one of the two major parties, etc. etc. etc. Heck, those Newtonion physics were pretty much good enough and the average user didn't need anything better...

What does "the average user" matter? Innovation seeks to push the boundaries, not cater to the masses.

Re:Maybe in the future...

[evilviper]

Ogg is gaining a good deal of popularity on P2P. No doubt it's less than 1/10th as common as MP3, but compare that to the 1/1000th it was about a year ago.

It's popularity is increasing, the only question is when will it stop advancing...

You could say that nobody but nerds knows about OGG, but that's rather misleading. You see, nobody but nerds knows about MP3s either, but they seem to be a large group. And let's not talk about how video-game nerds are talking over the planet...

Re:Maybe in the future...

[91degrees]

We should just give up, and use whatever the "winning" format is.

we shouldn't. We do ("We" being the majority of people). This is why it's so hard to find a video cassette recorder that uses a format other than VHS, and why almost everyone uses Windows as their OS.

What benefit does ogg give? It may offer disadvantages, like the fact that Windows media player doesn't play it without adding an extra codec. And converting existing mp3s to ogg will reduce the quality, so what benefit does Ogg give that makes it worth changing over?

Mirrors

[brejc8]

Does anyone want to add a mirror of the comparison?

Re:Mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any particular reason why it cant run on port 80? im sure im not the only one thats behind a restrictive firewall

Re:Mirrors

[brejc8]

Mainly because of firewalls at this end.
There are no mirrors anyway.

/. effect strikes again

[Jon Abbott]

Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform.

Furthermore, "ping analysis" was used to see if the webserver survived the /. effect, and tests conclusively show that this is not the case. :^)

Ogg

[91degrees]

Most people who use ogg do not use it for it's quality. All that matters in that respect is that Ogg is comaprable to other formats at similar bitrates.

The important aspect of it is that it's free. There are no patents (at least as far as we know of) preventing anyone from using it, and it's made quite clear that the code can be included in open and closed source software without royalty payments.

Re:Ogg

[Agent Green]

Well, I switched because of it's better quality, particularly in the low bitrate arena for lectures...and for all my CDs. Yes...I re-ripped everything I owned once I got a taste for the format.

Using a Winamp vorbis encoder plugin, I was able to achieve significant crunches on classroom lectures, that were close enough to the original to be useful. Bear in mind too, that this was before Speex became part of the project.

MP3 on the otherhand was totally useless at anything less than 64k. The loss drove me nuts.

Let's not consider only that Vorbis is free...but it's also further extensible. Last I knew, none of the "new" audio formats being touted could support up to 255 discreet audio channels...which could be a very big hit with multispeaker surround systems well into the future. Bitrate peeling promises to be very exciting...once the details of that are all worked out. The Ogg multimedia foundation will be a true thing of beauty.

And it's free not just from the licensing and patents...but also from that DRM BS that all of us hate so much. Probably another reason Apple decided to go with ACC was to get the DRM support from the record labels.

Re:Ogg

[lowmagnet]

And there are no patents preventing anyone from using MP3, either. What's your point?

The patents aren't the issue here. If you want a codec that provides excellent quality (which Vorbis does) then use Vorbis where it is supported. But don't say you do it because of patents, because patents aren't stopping you from using the MP3 format.

Re:Ogg

[91degrees]

And there are no patents preventing anyone from using MP3,

Tell that to the guys that received this letter

Re:Ogg

[lowmagnet]

And again, I say it doesn't keep me from using the MP3 codecs available to me. One guy gets a C&D, and suddenly NOBODY SHOULD USE THIS IT'S EVIL HOMPH HOMPH.

Re:Ogg

[91degrees]

You said "There are no patents preventing anyone from using mp3s". I said there are, and provided an example. It's the reason that many games companies use ogg vorbis as well. If you are a company that can actually be targetted for patent infringement then there are patents preventing some people from using mp3.

There may be no patents preventing you from using mp3, but there are patents preventing other people from using mp3. I did not state that these patents prevent everyone from using it. I merely implied that some people are.

Re:Ogg

[evilviper]

Let's not consider only that Vorbis is free...but it's also further extensible. Last I knew, none of the "new" audio formats being touted could support up to 255 discreet audio channels...which could be a very big hit with multispeaker surround systems well into the future. Bitrate peeling promises to be very exciting...once the details of that are all worked out. The Ogg multimedia foundation will be a true thing of beauty.

That's not the half of it. You can have text info in an ogg, so either lyrics for your music, or subtitles for your video... You can have just about as many different groups of text as you want...

You can stick MNG animations in an ogg container, so you can do any type of losless animations you want, with anything else that you can stick in the container... Maybe you just want an MNG animation with different subtitles... Maybe you want an entire losless movie with vorbis/speex audio. Of course, you could do the same thing with VP3/Theora or MPEG4 video in the ogg as well.

And if that's not enough for you... Check out VorbisGain, which sticks comments in the ogg file, telling the decoder how to adjust the volume at each point in the file... The best thing about this, is that you don't loose any quality at all, and can always playback the original ogg by either using vorbisgain to strip the extra info, or just tell your decoder to ignore the vorbisgain info.

Ogg/Vorbis has a lot of things going for it already, and I expect even more neat hacks will be available in the future.

Re:Ogg

[ashpool7]

I think you just nailed why Apple doesn't support Vorbis.

There are no patents anybody _knows_ of. Who wants to be a big corporate target to begin with and then paint a sign on their back saying "we're making millions on stuff that you might own a patent to."

With AAC, they at least know a legal team spent countless man-hours checking it out. Well, I'm guessing on that part, but it *is* Sony ...

Re:Ogg

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that Ogg is just like QuickTime, except with even less industry support.

Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[jolyonr]

I agree that Ogg is a better format, better quality sound for similar bitrates to MP3, but until the portable devices I use, in-car CD/MP3 players, etc. accept the Ogg format as readily as they do MP3, then I (like most people) are stuck with the MP3 format. At least nowdays storage is cheap, so I whack everything to MP3 at a high bitrate.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[glesga_kiss]

I'm sure that in a few years or so, most devices will feature upgradable codecs. The software industry is moving much faster than the hardware one for consumer items, and they are always behind in the codecs.

When a codec is released, you can install it on your PC without any problems, worst case a reboot. With hardware, you need to wait for the entire life cycle to reach the shipping phase and by then the codec will be old.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[Thanatiel]

I do it the other way.

I do not buy a portable player which does not supports Ogg.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[jolyonr]

I will make sure the next player I buy supports Ogg - but until it breaks or I lose it down the back of the sofa, I'm stuck with my old player which works quite nicely, albeit only with MP3s.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand iPods couldn't play AAC files yesterday morning. They can now.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[Carrot007]

The only sane option, and one which is becoming increasingly viable (cost / storage etc) is having a pda, pda's will run any software by their nature and there are now able to provide enough power and storage to become your portable music player, all you then need is a line in on your car radio and your happy.

And them you can play all your music whatever the format! (remeber a lot of "players" put restrictions on bitrate / vbr)

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[tuffy]

will make sure the next player I buy supports Ogg

Introducing your next player. It's a pretty nifty little device, actually, and upgradable to boot.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[RoLi]

So how long will you keep yours? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

It will take a very long time, but in the end ogg will become the standard (unless something even better comes along the way ;-)

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[Bullseye_blam]

but until it breaks or I lose it down the back of the sofa

Dang wives.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[TKinias]

scripsit tuffy:

will make sure the next player I buy supports Ogg

Introducing your next player [neurosaudio.com]. It's a pretty nifty little device, actually, and upgradable to boot.

Hmm. Looks like a neat toy, but their Web site says it only plays MP3s.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[tuffy]

Hmm. Looks like a neat toy, but their Web site says it only plays MP3s.

For now, it does. But Vorbis support is coming Real Soon Now (scroll to the bottom). Not too shabby for a 2 year old codec.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[jolyonr]

Now, of course, if I lost my wife down the back of the sofa then I'd be able to go out and get a new Ogg-playing device without being shouted at!

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[SomeOtherGuy]

I'm sure that in a few years or so, most devices will feature upgradable codecs. Only problem with this theory is the life expectancy of any player. Other than the Ipod and to some degree the Archos units -- I have yet to see any of these devices have a long enough life cycle to where support is even available 10 months from introduction let alone firmware updates. They are usually only supported until something newer comes out -- or the company goes under. So -- even if they can be "upgraded to support future formats" they stand about as much chance as Doom III getting ported to DOS and OS/2. I thing the buzz term should be changed to: "firmware updatedable to future formats, as long as the decoder chips can support future formats -- and the parent company still gives a shit after 4 or 5 months in the market."

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

good decision. hope you like your choices of players.

Re:Unfortunately I'm sticking with MP3

[evilviper]

pda's will run any software by their nature and there are now able to provide enough power and storage to become your portable music player

I tried this with a Windows CE device of mine (WinCE is the devil!). There are problems too numerous to name. First, to shut off the screen, I have to run a program... But since that program has the focus, button-presses no longer go to the media player. So, to change to the next track, you have to close the scree-blanking program, nit the button to go to the next track, then launch the screen-blanking program again.

Even if I didn't have the above problem, it would still be a PitA, just because the buttons on my handheld are arranged to be used for videogames, and things like that... Definately not for one-handed use to change the volume, track, etc.

To create/load a playlist or open another set of files, you have to pull out the stylus... which means more complexity and slower going than any MP3 player.

You are pretty much stuck with CompactFlash as a storage medium, which is really too expensive for music. What I would REALLY like is an Ogg player that plays files off of Mini-CDs (full-sized CDs might be okay).

Battery life still sucks. Sony CD players could go 40 hours on 2 AA batteries a few years ago when I bought mine, and it's claimed that their minidisc players can go for 100 hours on a single AA battery... From previous experience, I believe them.

all you then need is a line in on your car radio and your happy.

Okay, I understand the "line in" (sic), but where am I to find this "happy" you speak of? Unless you meant "you're", which would be entirely.

(Not a Grammar Nazi, but I have my moments of annoyance)

MOD PARENT DOWN - Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the article? It is talking about files ripped from a CD, not about files from Apple's new music service.

To be fair, know what you're talking about!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - Wrong!

[Gropo]

Site severely /.ed... Why, then, does the blurb mention the AAC's as being "Apple ripped"?

Sure, it's nice to live in a hermetically-sealed labratory environment where everybody has to rip from 16-bit AIFF's on equal footing, but that's not the case with AppleMusic's AAC's...

Audio formats

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done independant listening tests of my own on various formats. At the time OGG@~128Kb/S was much better sounding than MP3Pro@64Kb/s, MP3@128Kb/s, and WMA@92Kb/s. These are the settings which claim to be near CD quality, and for the most part don't even come close. OGG was a better sound format then, and if ACC is comparible to OGG, then OGG would win out. It's a more standardized format right now, and you don't have messy patents to dodge. I may be bias, since I hate quicktime with a passion.

pretty lame!

[bromoseltzer]

This is not much of a comparison. Spectrum analysis is not enough to tell you what a musical track sounds like. Kinds of distortion that sp. analysis may not pick up: harmonic (e.g., from clipping of high levels or quantization of low levels), transient (percussion, attack), intermodulation (tones "beating" against each other), dynamic range (noise at low levels vs maximum loudness), phase (relationship of pure signals at different frequencies), and on and on.

So it's interesting to compare the Apple codec with all the others, but this review doesn't do it.

-mse

Re:pretty lame!

[trezor]

And as all people who have taken advanced math knows: Sound can be described with equal precision in the time-domain and in the frequency-domain.

It's called a Fourier-transform.

And in the frequency-domain you still got phase, in case you wondered. It's covered by the use of imaginary-numbers.

So analysing the signal in the frequency-domain should uncover the same errors as an analysis in the time-domain, if it's extensive enough, that is.

I don't bother going into the theorys behind this, but google for Fourier-transforms and wise up :)

Re:pretty lame!

[MS_is_the_best]

And as all who know AAC and Ogg vorbis know, know: These codecs use the MDCT and not the FFT for signal processing. (FFT is just a way to describe the frequency of sines in the original signal, there are more transforms which are able to do so). The MDCT has only real and no imaginary numbers in their domain! Go google for MDCT!

Re:pretty lame!

[trezor]

And as you surely know: FFT stands for Fast Fourier Transform and is one special implementation which is not a complete Fourier Transform. I'll not go into boring details here, as you seem informed enough :)

As I know little specific about MDCT I will not go out on a troll raid either, but it's still a Cosine-based transform. Hence a Fourier-derivate work.

So my point still stands. Given a proper transform (I never mentioned FFT), you will keep phase information even in the frequency-domain, and a frequency-domain analysis will not be inferiour to a time-domain based analysis.

Re:pretty lame!

[MS_is_the_best]

Good answer :-), I was a bit too quick with my FFT comment. I just wanted to bite and return the google comment, thus the mistake.

Fact is that these encoders do their data-twiddling in the MDCT domain, from which the parameters are saved. However the inverse MDCT of a MDCTransformed block is not equal to the original block.

For a perfect reconstruction the blocks are smeared out in re- and construction, and thus the information in an input block of audio in the time domain does NOT have the same amount of information as the decoded block in the fourier domain. => You are wrong anyway :-). (although for an entire audio signal you are right).

Re:pretty lame!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a spectrum analysis should be able to pick that up, and what that misses, a very good oscilloscope should be able to pick up.

Re:pretty lame!

[poot_rootbeer]

Spectrum analysis is not enough to tell you what a musical track sounds like.

No, but you can use it to compare the original waveform to the compressed waveform, and take a delta to get a quantitative answer to the question of how much the signal has been degraded.

IOW, it tells you how ACCURATELY the sound was reproduced, but not how WELL it was reproduced.

Re:pretty lame!

[vrt3]

Indeed, frequency-domain is not inferior to time-domain. But not superior either. Both can only analyze the differences and similarities between the original and the processed signal. Lossy compression techniques are designed not to accurately reproduces the same signal, but to produce a signal that sounds the same to our human ears and brains.

In theory it can be analyzed with a psycho-acoustic model, in practice only listening tests are really effective.

Re:pretty lame!

[glwtta]

It's covered by the use of imaginary-numbers.

Yeah, I noticed that a lot of reviews of this type use imaginary numbers.

Re:pretty lame!

[Anonymous Coward]

FFT is just an algorithm for computing a fourier transform. It is exactly a fourier transform. It most definately has all the phase information. If you do an Inverse FFT you get your exact original signal back. The only place where you can get any errors is due to floating point error (rounding and such). But a good implementation of an FFT will not have these problems.

Re:pretty lame!

[firewood]

And as all people who have taken advanced math knows: Sound can be described with equal precision in the time-domain and in the frequency-domain.

This is true for the analysis of linear systems. The codecs use a non-linear process, which renders frequency-domain only analysis useless for certain kinds of signals (ones the encoder thinks are completely masked, for instance.)

Re:pretty lame!

[TooTechy]

Since you did not mention FFT but only FT and since MDCT is just a modified Cosine Transform which is a Fourier Cosine Transform you are both right! A win all round ;-) We all know what we are talking about.

Re:pretty lame!

[tgv]

And as all people who have taken more advanced maths know: you can't plot the entire FFT in a 1000x200 pixel size window.

I can send you a file with exactly the same FFT output as the one claimed to represent the original and I can assure you it will sound distinctly different.

Here is how to do it: the height of each pixel corresponds most likely to sqrt(a[k]^2+b[k]^2), where a[k]+ib[k] is the k-th element in the fft output. So, you can try to estimate what the original value of the sqrt must have been by eyeballing the graph (just like the article poster did). Then you just guess the relation between the real and imaginary part, since it is not shown in the graph. You've got about 1000 of these points, but your song probably needs a few minutes at 44.1kHz, which translates to 8 million per channel (the stereo distribution of course also is missing from the graph, giving you some extra freedom to randomize numbers). Now distribute your first point over the first 8000 of the new song, the second over the second 8000, etc., feed it into the inverse FFT and you've got a file that's undistinguishable from the original, according to a visual spectral comparison.

But I bet you'll be able to *hear* the difference...

It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ogg is a container format. I could in theory put an ACC audio file into an Ogg container.

The audio format you're babbling about is Vorbis. Usually .ogg because it is inside an Ogg container.

Hell, it's not just a silly name problem, it's an entire naming convention issue.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ogg is a stupid name, Vorbis is a stupid name. Xiphophorus mercifully seems to have changed their name to xiph.org - but that's still a fairly stupid name.

Luckily the stupid name issue is irrelevant, since Ogg/Vorbis is unlikely to ever work 'out of the box' on Windows and so is doomed to be unavailable to 99% of the population who have never even heard the word 'codec' let alone know what it means. Sad but true.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first thing a Windows user will do is to download and install WinAmp. WinAmp comes with Vorbis codecs. QED.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps 2 years ago. Now the unwashed masses just use media player because it's there.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first thing a Windows user will do is to download and install WinAmp. WinAmp comes with Vorbis codecs. QED.

A Windows power user might, an average Windows user certainly won't. They'll be using Windows Media Player, which last time I looked had no Ogg/Vorbis support.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned during my brief foray into business that you should never give your company a name that has to be spelled aloud.

"Ziff dot org."

"Huh. That's not your site. That's some magazine site."

"No, it's Ziff. Ecks-eye-pee-aitch. Ziff."

"...What?"

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[TedCheshireAcad]

Ogg is a stupid name, Vorbis is a stupid name. Xiphophorus mercifully seems to have changed their name to xiph.org

Ogg/Vorbis: 2 Stupid names make a cool name.
Xiphophorus: ...but throw in another stupid name, and you come out with a stupid name.

it's like cubing a negative.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Verteiron]

You'd like to think that. So would I. Sad thing is, it's not true. The vast majority of the home machines that I work on have got nothing but Windows Media Player on them. About 1/3 have MusicMatch Jukebox (and in the majority of those cases the user doesn't know how it got there). Winamp is showing up less and less...

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[dk.r*nger]

The audio format you're babbling about is Vorbis. Usually .ogg because it is inside an Ogg container.

Hell, it's not just a silly name problem, it's an entire naming convention issue.

Yeah, and the correct term for .mp3 files would be MPEG Layer 3. But it isn't so.

Linux is linux, not GNU/Linux, because that is what people call it. Vorbis encoded music is ogg, because that is what the people call it. That kind of complicated naming conventions are just plain stupid, because they will not be used. If the xiph people make a video codec (i believe they will) and its files end in .ogg, they are just asking for it!

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[repetty]

"Yeah, and the correct term for .mp3 files would be MPEG Layer 3. But it isn't so."

Please go back and read his post before you reply.

His point is that .ogg is a container like Apple's QuickTime is a container. If you listen to a QuickTime sound file you might actually be listening to a file encoded in mp3 or Vorbis, or a half-dozen other codecs.

Get it?

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[Trogre]

*Sigh*, this is just semantics.

We all know that ogg is a container format.
However due to Vorbis being by *far* the most popular codec for it, ogg implies vorbis. Get over it.

Just like these days Quicktime implies Sorenson.

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[zonker]

you are assuming that a windows user even knows about winamp. not to put win users down, but most folks don't know one player from another and are more likely to use what came with their computer, which is windows media player...

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[PCM2]

Just like these days Quicktime implies Sorenson.

Or is it AAC...?

Re:It's Vorbis, not Ogg.

[WNight]

Windows doesn't come with Kazaa either, but all the joe-average users I know have managed to install it. Hell, most of them managed to get divx working, back when it was a real pain. All it takes is motivation.

As oggs get more common, the average joe will go to google and search for "ogg music" and within minutes they'll be listening to their new music.

Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[tgd]

I spent some time last night playing around with the new Music Store feature in iTunes 4. Besides the fact that iTunes crashed on me twice, and 3 never crashed on me, it seems like a very well put together feature.

What kept me from buying the dozen or so tracks I found that I thought were worth a buck a pop was the fact that my Rio Receivers need MP3 or, via "upgraded" software, FLAC, etc... Although the AAC->CD->MP3 route is possible, and I intended to buy a track and see how the quality comes out, has anyone seen anything about how the DRM works on the Apple files?

I'm wondering if there are any libraries out there for decoding them, even within the confines of the DRM... just so I can get them into either a raw data stream or something so I can play them on my Rio Receivers... I'd probably switch to buying all my music (where possible) from them, if thats the case... but if I can't get them into a format I can play using my existing equipment, I'll have to pay the five buck "CD"-tax to get them in a format I can rip to high-bitrate MP3.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[s.o.terica]

Although the AAC->CD->MP3 route is possible, and I intended to buy a track and see how the quality comes out, has anyone seen anything about how the DRM works on the Apple files?

Regarding the AAC->CD->MP3, I burned a couple of Music Store tracks to CD, then re-ripped them (using iTunes, no less) using VBR High, and they sounded indistinguishable from the original Music Store files (albeit being significantly higher average bitrates).

Regarding DRM, it appears that your Music Store file is locked to your Apple ID, and you have to Register up to three computers that you want to be able to play songs associated with your Apple ID. If you sell a computer, you have to unregister it before you can register a replacement computer. This appears to be the only restriction on usage -- you can still burn the songs to as many CDs as you want, copy them to as many iPods as you want, and streamthem to as many other Macs (and TiVo) as you want using Rendezvous.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[s.o.terica]

Oh, and if you want to avoid going through a CD, one route you can take is Audio Hijack, which will record to an AIFF file anything that's sent to your speakers. Drop-convert the AIFF to MP3, and voila.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[Zathrus]

Note that you cannot stream AAC's directly to TiVo -- there is no support (and I doubt support will be forthcoming). You'd have to re-rip them to MP3 first or do it on the fly - TiVo can only play MP3's natively since that's what's supported on the MPEG decoder.

I suppose that someone will get around to writing a wrapper to do this on Macs... it's a shame that TiVo didn't just release the source to the TiVoServer (for both Windows and Mac) so people could just hack support into it directly.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[MasterVidBoi]

I'm wondering if there are any libraries out there for decoding them, even within the confines of the DRM...

While I'm not sure, I would say yes.

I noticed last night that the protected AAC files played both in the Finder's preview pane and in Quicktime 6.2 itself. I assume the actual AAC-Protected decoding is done in quicktime, and no modifications were made to the finder to allow it to explicitly play AAC-Protected files. This implies that any program that can use quicktime can also play protected AAC files.

I'd be suprised if may of the other mp3 players on the mac didn't already support playing via Quicktime, and by extension, playing AAC-Protected

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[dschuetz]

I burned a couple of Music Store tracks to CD, then re-ripped them

A coworker recorded a few songs to CD last night. This morning, I ripped them to q7 Ogg Vorbis, and downconverted those Ogg files to MP3 (VBR, 160 to 256 kbps).

Listening to them (on decent speakers, but still computer speakers nonetheless, and also through headphones), they all sound pretty good. I'm listening mostly for "bad artifacts" -- pumping, popping, clicking, phasing/flanging, stereo movement, etc. I can't hear anything of the sort, even on the MP3.

So, we've got WAV -> 128 AAC -> q7 Ogg -> 160+ MP3, and it's still quite listenable. Certainly, it's not studio quality, but for listening at home, on a typical system with typical speakers, it's pretty good, to my ears.

I'm still sort of annoyed, philosophically, at not being able to get a full-bandwidth .WAV file. I mean, you're paying for the track, you should get the exact same data as you can when you purchase the CD outright. But as a "best of evils," this is very good. And, truthfully, I'm not convinced that other similar services (like Listen.com's Rhapsody) don't do essentially the same thing.

Can anyone suggest a good 'test pattern' file? Something with lots of dynamic range, easy-to-identify instruments (especially with lots of layers of detail), variations in note types / waveforms, etc.? Basically, an Indian Head for audio. Because it'd be great to be able to say "download this .wav, and as you decrease the bitrate listen for the flutes at 0:35 to start sounding weird" or somesuch. Just a thought.

Anyway, I'm satisfied with the quality, at least on the minimal sample set I've heard.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[octover]

I copied some protected file from my friend, and when I went to play them in the Finder, it asked to open iTunes to authorize me. So bypassing the DRM is going to take more work than just using the Finder or something similar.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[IamTheRealMike]

Being able to play something using QuickTime isn't the same as decoding it unfortunately.

I'm not sure how much of a blind eye they'll turn, but Windows for instance actually decrypts the audio in the kernel to try and prevent people writing fake audio drivers that dump straight to hard disk.

Sure, today the only way to copy things is to burn to CD and back again. Tomorrow, there'll be a hacky way to do it direct, and the day after there'll be a GUI for it. How many people will say no to their friends? Boom, network effect. That's what the industry is scared of.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[illumin8]

Wow, that is a lot of decompression and recompression going on in your process. I know the difference might not be audible to you, but you should really reconsider your process. Every time you use a lossy compression scheme you are losing more and more data. Each compression algorithm has to compromise in some way and by using so many different types of compression (AAC to OGG to MP3), you are getting the disadvantages of all three algorithms combined in your output file.

If I were you I would just stick with one format change if possible. Go from AAC to OGG or AAC to MP3.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[dschuetz]

If I were you I would just stick with one format change if possible. Go from AAC to OGG or AAC to MP3.

Oh, I definitely agree. I was primarily interested in seeing (hearing?) whether there were significant audible problems, ignoring for the time being the expected loss of fidelity.

Generally, I rip everything to q7 Ogg Vorbis, which is "pretty damned good" from all accounts (and serves as my "Master Copy," allowing me to keep all my CDs in cardboard boxes in the basement). Because the Rio Receiver can't decode that high a bitstream (yet), I have a second folder of automatically-downgraded MP3 files, at 160+ kbps, and those are certainly good enough for low-end MP3 players (and on-computer listening). I further degrade (from the master .ogg file, not from the aforementioned .mp3) to about 128k or so for car use (factory car radio/speakers, road noise, etc., not to mention the lousy cassette adaptor, and the 20G limit of my Riot make this an acceptable compromise for me).

I left out one stage, anyway, from the post-iTunes chain: WAV (original) -> AAC -> WAV (burned to CD) -> OGG -> MP3. In theory, one would hope the intermediate WAV step between AAC and OGG wouldn't cause trouble, but you never know.

It's a tradeoff -- always a tradeoff. But my master copies are, at least, as good as I'm likely to get (I wasn't going to go the FLAC route for 350+ CDs!), though the AAC step reduces even that a little. The plus side is that most tracks I'd be likely to buy via iTunes are one-off hits from the radio, etc., and so I'm probably not as concerned with fidelity on those, either. Albums I really care about I'd just buy as CDs.

Of course, once I find a cheap region-free NTSC SACD/DVD-A receiver, my opinions may change. :)

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[zilly]

I copied some protected file from my friend ... is going to take more work than just using the Finder...

Damn them. Damn them to hell for making it difficult to break the law. Those bastards.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[s.o.terica]

You may be right about no support for AAC, however the TiVo server software for Mac was just the iTunes Sharing preferences separated from iTunes -- it had an identical interface to the new Preferences pane in iTunes 4, and it was quite clearly at least co-devloped by Apple.

TiVo supports Rendezvous natively, thus it doesn't require specific server software for Mac as it does for Windows.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[Anonymous Coward]

philosophically, at not being able to get a full-bandwidth .WAV file.

And I am pissed of WAW files regarding not to be able to listen to the quality that would give me a nice compression format at that HUGE bitrate. Can you imagine what could I have at 1040 b/s with some better sompression that WAW? I am sure that even Vorbis, mp3 or other schemes - if they would be extrapolated - would do much better job than stupid WAW.

That's right! WAW is only compression(it compress the signal to 65000 levels, and it averages the time-dependence to 1 sanple per 1/4400 s), and very poor for that matter. At THAT bitrate, it gives you dynamics "only" 96 dB, 20 kHz bandwidth etc. Its only adwantage is that decoding is simple (simple to DA converter), and it is good enougth for human ears. And the other thing is that for peopple it is easier to "think" in time-domain than frequency-domain so they invented such a stupid format. There is ho other excuse for WAW.
Frequency domain is more appropriate for description how human ears work, what sounds they can distinguish and also for the origin of usual sounds (which are resonances of mater arround and have more pure spectrum in frequency domain than in time domain) Thats WHY mp3,ogg, AAC ... do such a good job even at low bitrates: they ALL basicly do a Fourier transformation - whatever you call it - plus some additional features.

Roman Kantor

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[Zathrus]

TiVo supports Rendezvous natively, thus it doesn't require specific server software for Mac as it does for Windows.

It most certainly does. Try seeing a server w/o installing the TiVoServer software on your Mac... you can have iTunes, Rendezvous, etc. all you want and it won't help.

All Rendezvous does is help you find servers on a subnet... it doesn't make them magically serve you data if they don't have the service running.

I understand what you mean though, but I think you deeply misunderstand what the Windows server software does (and what the TiVoServer software does in general).

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[jcr]

I'm still sort of annoyed, philosophically, at not being able to get a full-bandwidth .WAV file.

You want to D/L 45-60 megs per song?

There's a reason for audio compression. The big one is, not everyone has a T1 or better pipe in the house.

-jcr

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[halepark]

I'm still sort of annoyed, philosophically, at not being able to get a full-bandwidth .WAV file.

I think that another reason why Apple doesn't offer this is to have a barrier (albeit a minor one) against releasing these pristine tracks into the wild via peer-to-peer apps such as Kazaa after encoding them into MP3. If you go through the route you describe the you are making a lossy copy of a lossy copy. Remember that Jobs convinced many artists who were previously against digital distribution of music (Eminem for example, I hear Metallica is on the way) to agree to the Apple Music Store concept. In order for him to do that he would have had to give some sort of assurances that it wouldn't lead to even more pirating of their music.

Not to mention that most people don't have the bandwidth to make downloading WAV files practical.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm listening mostly for "bad artifacts" -- pumping, popping, clicking, phasing/flanging, stereo movement, etc

With my taste in music, usually something is wrong if I'm not hearing all of those things.

Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding DRM, it appears that your Music Store file is locked to your Apple ID, and you have to Register up to three computers that you want to be able to play songs associated with your Apple ID. If you sell a computer, you have to unregister it before you can register a replacement computer.

Holy fuck! What was that about Apple software and hardware being "easy to use" again?

what about the stereo field?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not see which codecs fuck up the stereo field like OGG? oh wait, this is a troll because no one wants to hear about how OGG isn't perfect and does a worse job at that than even mp3.

Re:what about the stereo field?

[TeknoHog]

How exactly does Ogg Vorbis fuck up the stereo?

In a lot of music, certain instruments/voices have fixed panning so there's no need to encode them separately for L and R channels. Especially if they are panned to the middle (equally to L and R), which is usually the case for bass, percussion and lead voice. It makes a lot of sense to single out these redundancies when encoding, it leaves more bitrate for the rest of the song.

I have used various 'alternative' speaker systems which utilize signals like L+R (center speaker) and L-R (surround speakers). Sometimes an mp3 sounds horrible this way, because the channel difference contains nothing but artifacts. Most mp3s pass the test fine, as do all the Oggs I've tried. So, in general, I find Oggs better when it comes to the stereo field.

But what does it actually sound like???

[velouria]

I don't think graphs are all that useful for comparing lossy sound compression.

Microsoft likes to show how their wma looks better than the other compression methods... it does look beautiful in graphs, but it sounds all tinny and horrible.

I don't care if the compressed frequency response graph looks nothing like the original frequency graph, as long as my ears are unable to tell the difference between the two.

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[ergo98]

Where have you seen a spectrum graphic from Microsoft purporting the graphed advantage of Windows Media? Links please.

Personally I've never seen anything of the sort, and that has not been Microsoft's approach. Microsoft does claim that WMA sounds better in blind testing, and I will personally agree with that, and indeed I am busy listening to some Tori Amos ripped in WMA9 160Kbps, and my personal anecdotal tests with a wide variety of the music I listen to shows WMA to be the winner against MP3, even when MP3 is at a substantially higher bitrate.

Of course this is purely my own subjective opinion and nothing more. I would really like to see some large scale blind studies of all of the various codecs, and went searching for them before I started the process of ripping all of the CDs I own for convenience reasons. Of course such a study is basically a futile exercise: Whoever is on the losing end will complain that a different set of esoteric command line options should have been used, and since they weren't it's invalidated. Of course that's the nature of the argument whenever cult-type products come out on the losing end. MySQL lose the benchmark? Well you should have compiled it with version x.x.x and used the launching commands xyz on kernel x.x.x, etc.

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[xTown]

That's a good point. The one time I tried Ogg encoding I encoded the same song on the same computer at the same bitrates as both an mp3 and an ogg. Maybe I did something wrong, but the ogg sounded like it was playing through a tin can at the bottom of a well--there was a noticeable flanging and echoing, like a REALLY bad Windows Media file-- and the mp3 sounded almost indistinguishable from the real CD. My ears are far from golden, but I'd rather hear the evidence.

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[RoLi]

Beating MP3 is not that hard - ogg beats WMA in double-blind tests at all bitrates.

Test with over 3000 participants

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[velouria]

I find the opposite!

I don't mind mp3 down to 128kbps most of the time (I can tell the difference between this and an original, but it doesn't annoy me).

112kbps mp3 is annoyingly "swishy" for me, even as background music on pc speakers.

112kbps ogg sounds absolutely fine for me; even 96kbps is ok sounding. Any lower though, and I do hear annoying artifacts.

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[velouria]

It's gone now, but the following used to show up at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/WM8/ audio.asp

For the true Audiophile:
Windows Media Audio 8 encoding captures more of the original WAV audio file than MP3 or Real Audio 8. We have created an audio demonstration so you can hear and compare what gets left behind when encoding with MP3, Real Audio, or Windows Media 8.

What has been removed by lossy compression has very little bearing on whether the result sounds identical to the original or not.

I think Microsoft knows this - they weren't inviting you or me to check out this dubious piece of evidence; they left it for the same crowd that buy $1000 power cables and green marker pens to enthuse over.

If you look up the above URL at archive.org you'll see that they had a whole lot of compressed audio in different formats to compare.
After repeatedly claiming that they are better than mp3 (at 1/3rd of the size), they then leave mp3 out of their comparison table of audio samples.

I think it is also quite instructional to actually listen to their samples - they're all actually pretty rubbish, but I definitely prefer the realplayer 'softening' effect to the wma 'tin-can' effect: maybe they were hoping you'd take their word for their superiority and pass on actually listening.

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[PhilMills]

Our NPR station in Northern Colorado has a WMA feed for it's online listeners. It's moderately low bitrate (probably 64K or so). It does fine through spoken-word segments, but as soon as the audio gets interesting (and especially if the audience breaks into appluse) it's just like listening to a tin can. Bleah.

However, I just noticed that they also put up an MP3 feed. Yay for them!

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I don't think graphs are all that useful for comparing lossy sound compression.

Amen! The whole point of audio compression is that our EARS are less sensitive to certain high frequencies under certain circumstances.

So it's meaningless to compare a compressed signal to the original VISUALLY - they SHOULD differ: the question is, can you HEAR the difference?

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[withinavoid]

I decided to do my own evaluation between MP3, OGG Vorbis, and AAC. I don't have a Mac so I used my Windows machine and the PsyTEL MPEG-4 AAC Encoder. I used the latest LAME encoder for MP3 and the latest Ogg Vorbis command line tools.

I used INXS "Need you tonight" for my source WAV file since it has some good dynamics and great highs. I encoded each format as a 160K VBR file. Each file resulted in nearly the same size, about 3.5MB. I was not concerned with how long it took to encode or with spectrum analysis (though I did do analysis just to see the differences). I found the AAC file to be almost identical sounding to the WAV. The high frequencies were so clear and vivid (symbal crashes at the :58 second mark especially). The lows did not sound muddled. The OGG file sounded only slightly worse than AAC and only at higher frequencies. The MP3 sounded horrible in comparison to the others.

My Rankings:
1. WAV (of course)
2. AAC
3. OGG Vorbis
4. MP3

I've got an iPod and I love it. It's probably the best electronic device I've bought. I use it always (snowboarding, mountain biking, gym, home, car, getting car washed, jury duty, etc...). I was quite happy to hear of AAC support. I applied the 1.3 firmware but have not been able to get an AAC file on there (don't think Xplay supports that yet).

In a perfect world I'd love to see OGG Vorbis as the standard music file type. It's free to use by anyone and sounds amazing. Apple would make my day if they added support for it on the iPod. MP3 is horrible, unless you have tons of disk space to encode at the highest possible bitrate. Likely AAC will end up replacing MP3 eventually, and that is fine by me since it sounded best IMO, however I am worried about the effects of DRM. I feel that if I buy a CD, DVD-Audio or whatever, then I should be able to do whatever I want with it as long as I'm not giving it away to others (encode in any format, use on any of my devices, and make as many backup copies as I want!).

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever *seen* WMA in a graph? MS would not use this as any kind of metric, because it's kinda bogus, but also because it would make them look very, very bad. Try it yourself.

OK, so it's a bitch to do the decoding, but when you do, it really surprised me. It throws a lot away in the lower end even at higher bitrates (more than mp3 does). It still sounds sort of okay, but where it fails, it fails bad - for many sounds, metallic, "tingly" or crackly (like the noise of frying bacon). It does spectacularly badly at fatboy.wav, no matter how much bitrate you give it.

Actually looking at a decoded WMA9, even WMA9 Pro spectrum in Cool Edit reveals that the spectrum looks... kinda motheaten. Big holes in it, lots of stuff missing. The difference looks particularly dramatic on the spectrum, and sounds less so.

Ogg actually looks quite good on the spectrum, although where it chooses to filter, the filter is usually partial - really bright noises will break through the filter and will appear, a little motheaten, above the normal. This probably works quite well, but I can't reliably hear the difference at q3 or even 128kbit constant (you can force it to do that - it hates it though, and you're warned against it, but in fact the quality is not always worse and will likely drastically improve on the reordering of the packets which will precede peeling).

MP3 doesn't look too bad except for the rather sudden filters. MP3Pro looks rather like ogg.

Of course, none of this has a bearing on what it sounds like, but of all the codecs I tried, only wma and the faac AAC encoder (which is bad, Psytel was better) was the only one that was very obviously throwing things away in the range I'd consider audible (though wma, on actual listening and subsequent ABXing, seemed to get away with it without being too objectionable - faac was awful).

Vorbis 20020717 (1.0) is, according to the tests I'd actually work on (ABX), not distinguishable from MPC ~192 at q6. It seems to do better at extremes too, handling lower bitrates very well, and simply goes higher than MP3 (lame --alt-preset extreme's one consistent problem is 320kbps limit on frames which sometimes, really do need more).

That's just my ears though, you'd have to try yours for the results to mean anything to you :)

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't before 1.0 was it?

Vorbis sucked before RC2 (not surprising as it was still in heavy development). RC3 was about on par with MP3 and there was a HUGE quality leap to 1.0 (20020717). I can't perceive a quality difference using the newest CVS code, though (they're working on weirder stuff now like doing the multichannel stuff properly, which is important as that will entice the movie scene to release ogm files, although they'll doubtless use xvid in them because theora isn't ready).

Re:But what does it actually sound like???

[xTown]

It probably was before 1.0, actually. If 1.0 has a date of July 17, 2002, then I definitely tried it before 1.0. But I recall when I tried it that it was being touted as superior to mp3, which it was definitely not at the time. I don't remember when that was, though. I'll have to try it again sometime. Thanks.

Since 80 gig hard drives are so cheap...

[Prince_Ali]

Since 80 gig hard drives are so cheap I just use ape lossless format, but then again my CD collection is relatively small.

Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will people please stop talking about Ogg as though it were an audio compression scheme. It is not - it is a wrapper format.

I don't care what kind of tests were done, but anything comparing Ogg to a lossy compression scheme is bound to be unfair, as the Ogg family includes a lossless encoding scheme. Not only does Ogg include FLAC and Vorbis, but it also includes Speex, targetted at voice, and Theora, a video codec.

So please, stop trying to compare Ogg to MP3. It's like comparing AVI or Quicktime to MP3.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a twat. Especially, don't be a pedantic twat. You know full well that when someone refers to "Ogg" they are usually refering to the Vorbis coded. When they want to talk about FLAC, Speex or Theora they say FLAC, Speex or Theora. So the names have become confused. Tough noogies.

Re:Arggghh!

[MS_is_the_best]

You are right, the encoding scheme's name is Vorbis. I know this and still say Ogg a lot, because that's the extension of the files.. Bah.

I blame xiph a bit for this, they choose these stupid names themself. However I consider format's claimig to be mp4 (which should be Mpeg 1 Layer 4, huh, we are already at Mpeg 4!), even more evil.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, maybe they should have thought of that when they came up with the naming scheme. The fact that noone even _likes_ to say the words "Ogg Vorbis" should have also been a sign that maybe some other naming scheme should have been used.

Why is it that every geek-heavy field has the naming obsession? "It is not called Linux. It's called GNU/Linux!" And, of course, my favorite, "Excuse me, I do not listen to 'techno,' you ignoramus, I listen to 'Goa Trance.'"

Re:Arggghh!

[SophtwareSlump]

I think the Ogg people should change the file extenstion of Vorbis files to .VBS! Oh wait....

Re:Arggghh!

[jdavidb]

It's like comparing AVI or Quicktime to MP3.

I've looked at all three extensively, and I'm convinced Quicktime is a much better format than MP3. I just wish my car MP3 player could handle it.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quicktime is NOT a format - it is an architecture that can use any number of video and audio codecs - QuickTime is the framwork for doing all the _heavy_ lifting when whatever encoding/decoding work (format applies here) you are involved in...

Re:Arggghh!

[RoLi]

As much as I love ogg, I have to say that they made a truely moronic decision about naming.

It doesn't matter what container format it is. If the file is named ".ogg" it's an ogg-file, period, end of discussion.

If they wanted the people to call them vorbis they should have named the files accordingly.

Theora, a video codec.

Unfortunately, the idiotic naming conventions will make it very hard for Theora. Nobody wants video files with audio-extensions, that's just not practicable.

Re:Arggghh!

[bigpat]

Ogg is easier to say than Ogg Vorbis. Ogg is easier to write than Ogg Vorbis. Ogg is a lot catchier a name than Ogg Vorbis. It is very natural that Ogg Vorbis would be known as Ogg and that files would be known as ogg files.

No problem here, nothing to see, please move along.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a twat.

Right back atcha.

Yes, people confuse the names. No, it isn't always clear what somebody is referring to when they talk about ogg. Say I tell people I am writing a script to index a bunch of ogg files. Will the features include the resolution of the video? Wait - did I mean that I am using ogg files, or that I'm limiting it to vorbis files? Is the feature even necessary?

So the names have become confused. Tough noogies.

Well if it were in mainstream usage, such as mpeg 1 layer 3, then yes, it would be tough noogies. But it isn't. It's obscure, so there is still time to get it right.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually OGM is the wrapper. Ogg is a family of products. Vorbis is the codec most commonly associated with the term OGG. .ogg file extensions refer to the vorbis codec, thus the use of the term "ogg". .flac .spx ect... are for other formats.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that every geek-heavy field has the naming obsession? "It is not called Linux. It's called GNU/Linux!" And, of course, my favorite, "Excuse me, I do not listen to 'techno,' you ignoramus, I listen to 'Goa Trance.'"

I listen to progressive house, myself... :-p

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vorbis sounds much cooler than Ogg. If they were called Vorbis files, it might not be an obscure format known only to naively-idealistic computer geeks...

Re:Arggghh!

[smithmc]

Will people please stop talking about Ogg as though it were an audio compression scheme. It is not - it is a wrapper format.

Oh, unwad your panties - you known damn well they're talking about Ogg Vorbis. Just like when people talk about "Linux", yes, RMS, they're talking about GNU/Linux. We get it, OK??

Re:Arggghh!

[catch23]

Hi Richard Stallman,

Are you trying to say that GNU/Linux is better than just saying Linux? I mean seriously, everyone knows when we say Linux, we actually mean GNU/Linux.... is it really that necessary to say Ogg Vorbis every time we refer to the Vorbis compression scheme?

Do people say "mpeg 1, layer 3" everytime they talk about MP3s? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Re:Arggghh!

[Mr. McGibby]

Yes, people confuse the names. No, it isn't always clear what somebody is referring to when they talk about ogg. Say I tell people I am writing a script to index a bunch of ogg files. Will the features include the resolution of the video? Wait - did I mean that I am using ogg files, or that I'm limiting it to vorbis files? Is the feature even necessary?

Still being a pedantic twat.

Ever heard of context? Ever heard of conversation? If I'm writing such a program, then I ASK (CONVERSATION) the person who is talking to me what they mean, if I'm confused. I'm probably not confused because of CONTEXT.

Re:Arggghh!

[bigpat]

" Vorbis sounds much cooler than Ogg. If they were called Vorbis files, it might not be an obscure format known only to naively-idealistic computer geeks..."

I argue the opposite, not so much from the coolness factor, but rather the uniqueness factor. Vorbis is a non-unique sounding name. In marketing you strive for a simple unique brand that is distinguishable from others. The Ogg Vorbis format has suffered by being called ogg vorbis, too many words.

People say "I downloaded an mp3", people might say "I downloaded an ogg" people won't say "I downloaded an ogg vorbis" and "I downloaded an ogg vorbis file" is much too wordy. Plus people are used to calling media files by what their extension is and .vorbis is just too damn long. .ogg is just about right.

Just call it ogg (.ogg) and let the software figure out what flavor of ogg it is.

Besides, scientifically speaking :) It has been proven that names with two g's in them will be successful, just look at google.

Re:Arggghh!

[jmv]

Then you should probably say Vorbis, which is more accurate than just Ogg.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

People have been naming Ogg video files '.ogm' from what I've seen.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of context?

Yes, and I gave you a an example in which context made no difference; there was ambiguity.

If I'm writing such a program, then I ASK (CONVERSATION) the person who is talking to me what they mean, if I'm confused.

Yes, because calling something "ogg" instead of "vorbis" is really so much more easy than people not having to ask what you mean in the first place. How about, oh, I don't know... avoiding the confusion altogether?

Idiot.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vorbis is easier to say than Ogg Vorbis. Vorbis is easier to write than Ogg Vorbis. Vorbis is a lot catchier a name than Ogg Vorbis. It is very natural that Vorbis would be known as Vorbis and that files would be known as vorbis files. Oh, and there isn't another specification called Vorbis (like there is with Ogg), so there is no room for confusion.

Isn't that simpler?

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a fool. You actually got it right.

is it really that necessary to say Ogg Vorbis every time we refer to the Vorbis compression scheme?

See? You called it Vorbis yourself without any need for the Ogg qualifier. Surely that's simpler than calling two separate things, the container and the Vorbis codec, Ogg?

Do people say "mpeg 1, layer 3" everytime they talk about MP3s? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Is there something else already called MP3? Yeah, didn't think so.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no, completely wrong. Both the .ogg extension, and the application/ogg mime-type refer to an ogg file. As part of the ogg project, vorbis uses these, but other ogg projects can also use them, or multiple streams can be present in a single ogg file. In fact, I'm listening to a bunch of Ogg files right now - that have nothing to do with Vorbis - they were encoded with FLAC.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

And mp3's are short for MPEG 1 - Layer III. Just like mp2 is short for MPEG 1 - Layer II. Oh wait, mp2 is also used for MPEG 2.

People will ask for more clarification, when needed.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Three letters - OGM.

Ogg Media.

That's what's used for Ogg streams (files) which contain video data.

Re:Arggghh!

[Mr. McGibby]

Yes, and I gave you a an example in which context made no difference; there was ambiguity.

A single example among the millions of ACTUAL circumstances. 99% of the time, the context of the conversation will be enough.

You're being pedantic.

Yes, because calling something "ogg" instead of "vorbis" is really so much more easy than people not having to ask what you mean in the first place. How about, oh, I don't know... avoiding the confusion altogether?

Ok. Everytime I refer to anything, I will use the complete and proper name. I'll say Divx AVI, instead of Divx, since how are people going to know if I mean an AVI or some other container format? Oh the horror! I'll say single layer DVD and double layer DVD, just so people aren't potentially confused.

Do you even know what pedantic MEANS? And did you know that most of the time it is a BAD THING?

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will people please quit bitching about Ogg not being a codec. YOU MUST SAY OGG VORBIS !
Fuking commies.

Seriously. Get over it. Its an OGG file.
Thats what people call it.except you.

BTW, theora^H^H^H^H^H^H^ OGG THEORA was dropped
and XVID is now the OGG video format.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

A single example among the millions of ACTUAL circumstances. 99% of the time, the context of the conversation will be enough.

You're being pedantic.

I'm being realistic. Just because Vorbis is the most common codec in use with Ogg at the moment, it doesn't mean it will always be, or that it is useful to confuse the two. It's like going around saying "Windows" instead of "Operating System", because, hey, you are going to be right most of the time, right?

Ok. Everytime I refer to anything, I will use the complete and proper name.

Thanks for demonstrating that you have basically NO reading skills. I'm not saying we should all refer to it as Ogg Vorbis. I'm saying the codec name is Vorbis, let's all call it Vorbis.

Re:Arggghh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Get over it. Its an OGG file.

You bell-end. I know that. Have you read any part of this thread?

BTW, theora^H^H^H^H^H^H^ OGG THEORA was dropped and XVID is now the OGG video format.

Complete bollocks.

Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[kriegsman]

My portable HD music jukebox, and my car stereo, and tons of other devices out there ONLY play MP3s.

But any new music I buy through Apple is AAC encoded, in an m4p "protected" file.

So here's a purely technical question: What's the shortest path to convert these shiny new "protected" ACC files into plain MP3s so that I can take the music that I've just paid for and listen to it on my Archos MP3 Jukebox? I've already successfully gone from AACs to audio CD, and then re-ripped and re-encoded the album as MP3 but ... ew. There's got to be a better way.

And yes, I know Apple and Big Music and the RIAA and Homeland Security don't want me to be able to do this (easily, or maybe at all) but at this point I'd like to sidestep the politics and focus on a technological solution that works for me- a legit, paying user.

So: what's the closest we can get to "acc2mp3", or better yet "m4p2mp3"?

-Mark

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you could burn your ACCs to a disc, in WAV format, then rip them back off to MP3, but... ...

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[alastairm]

So: what's the closest we can get to "acc2mp3", or better yet "m4p2mp3"?

Emm, How hard is
1) Select AAC track in iTunes
2) Advanced/Convert selection to MP3

3) PROFIT (OK, maybe not)

Or do yourself a favour and dump the Archos for an iPod :-)

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[krray]

But it sounds like shit for some odd reason. Go figure.

Taking a .M4P file and "Save As" in Quicktime, then importing the .MOV into iTunes and THEN converting it to MP3 works -- but there is a very noticable gain/distortion introduced.

Slow but sure would be Audio HiJack. Untested by me yet.

Taking the file into SOUND STUDIO (import using Quicktime) and saving as AIFF works. Import .AIFF file into iTunes and convert to MP3. I personally think that setting the MP3 encoder to 128K/VBR gives the same quality -- and same file size... Otherwise 160K/MP3 will work too.

I personally already have tons of M4P files which will be archived to DVD/RW with the MP3's staying online...

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yes, I know Apple and Big Music and the RIAA and Homeland Security don't want me to be able to do this"

You are the victim?

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[ad0gg]

Converting from one lossy compression to another lossy compression always ends up with a worse quality copy. Only true way to create an mp3,ogg,or aac is from the original uncompressed format.

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you use QT Pro to go directly to a mp3? QT Pro is only $30 US, and it adds alot of functionality to QT Player.

Re:Converting AAC (".m4p") to MP3?

[bakayoko]

try rogue amoeba's audio hijack.

it let's you save the audio stream from any carbon app.

MOD PARENT DOWN - Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple ripped... as in ripped with Apple's AAC encoder, either via iTunes or QuickTime 6.2.

I've seen the damn article, and you are wrong. They ripped from their own CD, they did not compare to a file from Apple's music service.

I'm an audio analyst...

[Anonymous Coward]

..at Real.

In my experience, as much as I hate to admit this, the format best for sound are the various Windows Media Player formats, especially those that are supported by WMP 9.

I've analyzed OGG, MP3, etc, and NONE of them come close to WMV.

Sorry guys, but I'm an expert, and this is another area where open-source has fallen behind Microsoft.

If someone would like to come up with a different format that can actually compete, I'd be happen to lend you my expertise and objectively analyze it for you.

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[shish]

Any explanation on *why* it's better? Better compression / algorhythms?

I've found that 64khz OGG (3MB) ~= 128khz WMP (3MB) ~= 128khz MP3 (4MB). Admittedly the WMP is *slightly* better, but I thought that's only because of the extra sampling rate...

Also for some reason when ripping from CD to ogg there's very little difference between 64khz and 128khz, but then 44khz is utterly unlistenable.

> If someone would like to come up with a different format that can actually compete, I'd be happen to lend you my expertise and objectively analyze it for you.

Why not just help improve ogg? Are there any major problems that would need a total rewrite to get past them?

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does it feel to know that you're being put out of a job by Microsoft? Oh come on, its not like you were a good engineer anyway; RA sucks shit covered corn nuggets through a very thin straw. Its all your fault, too. You must be fucking deaf.

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[Technician]

I've analyzed OGG, MP3, etc, and NONE of them come close to WMV

Um, we were looking for best sound quality, not the other end of the spectrum. ;-)

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[Yarn]

You should probably stop trying to encode video with audio codecs then. WMV is Windows Media Video.

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[Anonymous Coward]

son, if you were an audio expert, you wouldn't be working for Real.

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[Adrenochrome]

Why was this modded as flamebait?

WMA7 was a joke, sure, but WMA9 *is* very nice. Granted, you can't play it on anything but windows, but it sounds damn good even at 128kbps. I do need to spend more time with it on "tough" material (orchestral, opera, etc.).

I've also been playing with their latest video codec at HD resolutions, and frankly, it's wiping DIVX and XVID's butt at everything except encoding speed. Damn, they've actually done something almost right (the encoder app sucks, however).

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[usotsuki]

And you actually believed this AC? Sheesh!

-uso.

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's neat about WMA9 is you get 5.1 channel surround sound encoding @ 192kbps. THAT is damn awesome.

You can also play WMA9 on things other than windows PCs, there are audio players, DVD players, car stereo players, etc which will easily do WMA9 / WMVideo 9. Microsoft licenses the codec - you can even get decent DSPS with built in ops for WM9 decoding/encoding.

AAC (AKA Mpeg4 for audio) is also licensed. AAC players have to pay a licensing fee just like MPEG4 and WM9 players have to pay a licensing fee. The only difference is WM9 license fees are a LOT CHEAPER than AAC / MPEG4 fees, and I mean a LOT cheaper.

Re:I'm an audio analyst...

[RoLi]

I've analyzed OGG, MP3, etc, and NONE of them come close to WMV.

Well, an audio analyst would know that WMV is a Video codec.

Also, 3000 random users and 8 real audio analysts/experts disagree with you and rate OGG consistently above WMA at all tested bitrates: (64kbps, 128kbps and 160kbps):

lookie here

Is AAC an Open format...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or is it proprietry and gonna be hounded with all the difficulties of running other proprietry formats? I'll stick with Ogg for now, it sounds fine to me.

Poem.

[Anonymous Coward]

There once was a codec named Ogg,
It's name was peculiar and odd,
It replaced MP3,
Because it was free,
Hey, what the fuck is an Ogg?

Re:Poem.

[otis wildflower]

Hey, what the fuck is an Ogg?

This is.

*DOOSH!!*

Re:Poem.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not a poem, it's a limerick. ;-)

Re:Poem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew it wasn't a poem, but couldn't think of what it was. Thanks.

Re:Poem.

[burntoutjoy]

Why can't anyone get this right?!?! Poem is the *container*, limerick is the method used! Sheesh...call yourself /.ers?? ;-)

Re:Poem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanny Ogg, one of Discworld's most famous witches, is passing on some of her huge collection of tasty and above all interesting recipes, since everyone else is doing it. But in addition to the delights of the Strawberry Wobbler and Nobby's Mum's Distressed Pudding, Mrs Ogg imparts her thoughts on life, death, etiquette ('If you go to other people's funerals they'll be sure to come to yours'), courtship, children and weddings, all in a refined style that should not offend the most delicate of sensibilities. Well, not much.

Most of the recipes have been tried out on people who are still alive.

Re:Poem.

[stanmann]

And actually Limerick was NOT the method used
Limerick format is AABBA
The format used was ABCCA.

Isnt't ogg just a container like avi?

[abhikhurana]

I thought the real compression codec was vorbis.

Re:Isnt't ogg just a container like avi?

[FelixCat]

As far as I know vorbis is just one of the encoders for ogg.

On a related note, has anyone else noticed that the latest vorbis encoder totally ignores the suggested bitrate. I tell it a bitrate of 128 and I get around 260 to 300. It didn't used to behave like this.

No he didn't

[Anonymous Coward]

He took stabs at mp3, music pirates, and P2P networks, but not Vorbis.

Don't you understand? Vorbis is nothing to these big companies. The only things they compete with are what other companies are doing.

Bose??? Buahahaha

[Stiletto]

You know the saying: "No highs, no lows, it must be Bose"

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Bose and Microsoft ..no matter how much you 'intelligentsia' diss them..they are still the best... Both are proprietary... Maybe thats why you guys hate themm..you weren't told the technology!!! When Bose made the first cubes no one understood them..now every company wants to make cubes.. Cmon give me a break

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[MKalus]

Have you ever HEARD a good speakter????

Bose IS crap soundwise, they pumpt tons of bass into the sound in order to "fill the room" and drown out anything else.

The Cubes are pouplar with a lot of people because they are "neat" but there is only so much sound you can squeeze out of a small can. Turn the sub off on your Bose and tell me again how well it sounds.

Don't believe me? Go to a high end store in your area and listen to some speakers that cost the same as the Bose (and if you're "lucky" they sell Bose as well) and compare them. You'll be amazed, unless of course you belong to the group of people who think that all you need is bass.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[croddy]

No, sorry there Mr. A.C. -- Bose speakers are mediocre.

First, the subwoofer + satellite model is fundamentally flawed. 20Hz is directional. Bass doesn't "fill the room like fog" -- when a train's coming, you can hear the direction, right?

If you bought Bose, you overpaid for consumer grade stuff and the Circuit City man swindled you out of your money. Big 3-way cabinets produce a flat signal, but, granted, they take up space. Those tiny cubes sound like fluorescent lights -- almost white noise, not quite, but in a cheaper package. Sticking a subwoofer under the table doesn't make up for it.

If you want to listen to music, you should be prepared to make space for the equipment it takes to do it.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[sigep_ohio]

Another thing people like with the cubes is the size. Most people like being able to stash the little cubes anywhere without much effort. And surprizingly enough lots of people love bass. To understand that all you need to do is listen to many "good" car stereo systems. All that involves is putting as much bass in as possible, and the same goes for many home users.

As for comparisons, you don't need to spend as much as a Bose system costs for better sound reproduction. But you do tend to get larger speakers, so it goes without saying that they would sound better than a tiny Bose cube. The more variety you have in the size of your cones, the more acurate the sound reproduction in your speaker.

Headphones though are beyond my understanding.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Bass doesn't "fill the room like fog" -- when a train's coming, you can hear the direction, right?

Thats comparing Apple and Oranges.. the Bass Player isnt coming towards you! If you want the Train coming towards you.. you need surrounds
Bass is non-directional..thats why you put your subwoofer 'anywhere'

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[croddy]

apparently you don't listen to very interesting music, if all the kick drums and bass sounds are panned dead center. I guess it works for you.

and you are right, I don't put my subwoofer anywhere. left and right are flat down to 25Hz and will do 18 if I push them.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[MKalus]

Yeah I know that most people are base "fed" I don't get it.

When I got my system it was like someone opened my ears for the first time and ever since then it just makes me sick to listen to the "boom boxes" that are out there.

Interrestingly enough, even in the high end section there is a clear difference between the North American and European market.

European speakers tend to be a bit more balanced while North American ones tend to emphasize a bit more on the bass (though they are still a lot less intrusive than Sony and Co.).

M.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Reverberant]

First, the subwoofer + satellite model is fundamentally flawed. 20Hz is directional. Bass doesn't "fill the room like fog" -- when a train's coming, you can hear the direction, right?

Umm while I would agree that Bose's implementation of satellites+bass module (to Bose's credit, they don't call it a "subwoofer") has flaws, the subwoofer + satellite principle is not necessarily flawed. If your satellites go low enough (80 Hz is the common figure), a sub/sat system is perfectly workable. See NHT.

Also, it's been pretty well established that frequencies below 80 Hz are non-directional. When you look at the wavelengths of those frequencies when compared with the typical human interaural spacing you can begin to see why. The reason you can hear the direction of a train is due to the high-frequency cues you get from the wheel/rail noise (disclaimer: I spent 7 years working as a noise consultant specializing in rail noise).

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Cyno]

I made the mistake of getting some Alesis point seven studio monitors. The cheap ones. They cost significantly less than a comparable Bose bookshelf, but sound.. different.

Studio monitors reproduce a flat frequency response, in my case from about 80-120Hz~22kHz. So you hear exactly what is being played without any distortion. Some audio is distorted to make up for the loss of low bass and crisp clear high tones, mostly for old TV broadcasts because of the poor defaults speakers in the TV. But since home HiFi systems I imagine they don't distort modern sound tracks too much. The DVD bass experience is probably the main one, which I find most enjoyable.

Anyway occationally I notice some really bad tracks and have to cut the volume, which doesn't do much other than make it less annoying. 128kbps mp3 is horrible on these things.

Even though they show me the worst pops and clicks in the sound comparing them to Bose or almost anything else just makes me want to go look at more studio monitors. That and I play a few instruments which might require a slightly extended dynamic range than what your typical home stereo speakers provide. Though some cheap KLH loudspeakers caught my attention at one time. If only I knew how to play guitar.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[cayenne8]

Nope...Bose is crap. Now this:

http://www.klipsch.com/index.asp?path=/products/pr oductdetail.asp?frame=y&id=15&line=Home

is a good speaker!!

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Alan Partridge]

that's really unfair - the Japanese make some fantastic loudspeakers. The difference is in approach - British & other Euro 'speakers use off the shelf components (with some notable exceptions) and usually go to great lengths to get good box, room and component "matching" to acheive well balanced sound. The Japs tend to throw all the technology in the world at a 'speaker to fulfill a set of measurement criteria they had set themselves - this approach can sometimes produce INCREDIBLY accurate transducers - some of Technics' designs with ultra-wide bandwidth and phase-coherent, material-coherent drive units sound wonderful.

Americans? Every Bose 'speaker I've ever heard sounded shite - though I've always LOVED the sound of Martin Logan's designs.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Alan Partridge]

"left and right are flat down to 25Hz and will do 18 if I push them."

Either you're a lying idiot, or your house is the most beautifully damped and resonance-free structure ever built and you listen in a room that contains nothing but you and your speakers. Bottom-octave loudspeaker sound at home is a fucking nightmare and adds NOTHING to the appreciation of music.

Put on some headphones though...

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[SavoWood]

The problem here is terminology and the understanding of the application of it.

If I put a subwoofer in a corner, pump 40 Hz through it, and stand blindfolded in the room with it, I can point it out. The omnidirectional nature of low frequency transducers is well documented, but the source point is very distinguishable.

Problems begin to arise with very high frequencies in a reflective environment. If I take a HF horn, pump 12k through it, and stand blindfolded in the middle of a metal or glass room, I'd have a much harder time distinguishing the location.

In both cases, if you use a pulse instead of a constant sine wave, the ability to locate the sound is greatly enhanced.

Having worked on a contract for Neumann about 10 years ago or so developing the kunstkopf, I can tell you from personal experience and exhaustive testing, these observations are well documented, but never referenced by people using the satellite systems.

Additionally, your statement about 80Hz being nondirectional can be easily debunked. Meyer has developed a subwoofer system which creates a cardiod pattern from a subwoofer. Also, placing two direct firing subwoofers in proximity to cause coupling, will exhibit lobing thereby becoming more directional. As a monitor engineer who has to stand close to the stack, I appreciate this phenomenon.

Let's not even get on the horn loaded bass cabinet here. That's very directional although huge (the size being one reason for multiple cabinets or the Meyer rig).

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[clarkc3]

you miss the point that bose cubes are overrated speakers even for what they are. Something like Klipsch Quintets sounds remarkably better. Not only that - they cost less that the cubes cause bose has to pay for all their marketing materials for them

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[mjpaci]

For the same price or less you can pick up a pair of PSB Alpha Minis that sound great! PSB is a Freedom^H^H^H^H^Hrench Canadian Company that makes some great stuff.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Reverberant]

If I put a subwoofer in a corner, pump 40 Hz through it, and stand blindfolded in the room with it, I can point it out. The omnidirectional nature of low frequency transducers is well documented, but the source point is very distinguishable.

I take issue with the word "very" (at least for most people) but I understand that pure tone sources can be identified in certain circumstances. I'm talking about identifying low frequencies in the context of reproducing music where the high-frequency cues dominate.

Problems begin to arise with very high frequencies in a reflective environment. If I take a HF horn, pump 12k through it, and stand blindfolded in the middle of a metal or glass room, I'd have a much harder time distinguishing the location.

You're essentially talking about a reverberant chamber. The size and shape of the room will affect the ease of distinguishing the source location because of various path-length differences.


In both cases, if you use a pulse instead of a constant sine wave, the ability to locate the sound is greatly enhanced.

True, but in the low frequency case you have high-frequency cues that help one to locate the sound, and in the high-frequency case, the reflections will have much less energy than the initial pulse so the source will be easier to identify.

Having worked on a contract for Neumann about 10 years ago or so developing the kunstkopf,

Did you work on Fritz?

I can tell you from personal experience and exhaustive testing, these observations are well documented, but never referenced by people using the satellite systems.

Okay, but everything you described above are not inherent problems with satellite systems, they are problems with all speaker systems.

Additionally, your statement about 80Hz being nondirectional can be easily debunked. Meyer has developed a subwoofer system which creates a cardiod pattern from a subwoofer. Also, placing two direct firing subwoofers in proximity to cause coupling, will exhibit lobing thereby becoming more directional.

When I said "non-directional" I meant in regards to perception, not source characteristics. You can obviously create beam-forming implementations as you describe, and one would be able to hear the difference if one stepped in and out of the main lobe(s). But it doesn't follow that once a person is in the lobe that they would be able to identify the source direction based solely on audio cues.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[sigep_ohio]

You miss an even bigger point, sound quality is subjective. Everyone hears the same note a little differently. So a Bose system may sound good to Joe Americana, while Mike Audiophile thinks the sounds is shitty.

I worked in a store that sold all kinds of speakers, still work there in fact. It took me about a month to be able to tell the difference in sound quality between some of the higher end equipment. Only after listening to the same music over and over did I begin to notice subtle differences. Lots of times it just sounded like volume differences. A lot of people are the same way; they can't tell the difference in the way a Bose system sounds compared to Klipsch or Polk or B&W or B&O or anyone else.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[agallagh42]

PSB makes some great speakers, I agree. However, their HQ is in Pickering, Ontario, so they ain't french...

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "no highs, all lows"? Because that's all Bose is.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Uber Banker]

I just thought I'd say I have Ampzilla pre amp and amp, linked to a pair of stereo speakers my father built. It's great, damn fantastic sound. Don't know why, I can just tell, if I play a CD on my computer (Audigy + Creative DT5.1 - absolutely nothing special) or a 192kbps MP3 via DAC into Ampzilla, Ampzilla sounds foine.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[SavoWood]

Taking the bass guitar as an example, depending on the mic, the pickups, the amp, and the cabinet, you're going to have a lot of different possibilities on the sound. I've recorded bass with a "woof" sound and with a "Seinfeld" sound, and everything in between. Regardless, if the HF driver was on the opposite side of the room in any of those cases, I'd be able to tell where the LF unit was.

From that LF unit, the waves (depending of course on the frequency) radiate in basically a circular pattern. Yes, I know there are lobes and a slight reduction at the rear portion of the cone and all that jazz. However, the location of the reproducing LF cabinet is easily located using psychoacoustic principles illustrated by the kunstkopf and the various implementations and understandings of the Haas effect.

Did you work on Fritz?

The project would have probably been the predecessor. We went to a lot of cathedrals around Germany and one in Holland to record some really funky sounds using various prototypes of the kustkopf.

As for a reverberant chamber, I used the illustration of materials I did to make it more clear for the less knowledgeable people on the forum who wouldn't have a difficult time understanding the concept using something they can easily demostrate has a low absorbtion and transmission factor and a high reflection factor. As you're probably aware, sheetrock will reflect enough at 12k to produce the phenomenon I described (although not as well as glass *GRIN*).

These problems aren't specific to satellite systems, but all current sound reproduction systems. When you take the drivers and remove them from a single source point, you begin to introduce major timing issues which the average Joe can perceive. Look at the Tannoy web site and the Meyer web site about dual-concentric technologies. When you move the drivers away from each other, you introduce timing differences. I've illustrated this to friends and strangers in the local Circuit City or Best Buy. It's not hard to hear when you stop listening to the marketing hype from Bose. (BTW, "böse" in German means "evil"...just another reason to stay away from that company. heheheh)

When I said "non-directional" I meant in regards to perception, not source characteristics. You can obviously create beam-forming implementations as you describe, and one would be able to hear the difference if one stepped in and out of the main lobe(s). But it doesn't follow that once a person is in the lobe that they would be able to identify the source direction based solely on audio cues.

If you were standing on a forward or downward firing sinlge driver cabinet, you would have basically an equal radiation all around you. However, you'd still be able to tell the cabinet was below you through means other than the fact your feet are vibrating. The studies leading up to and since the naming of the Haas effect will be able to explain to you what I mean.

If you take those same LF cabinets, put them 100 meters away on a giant turntable with you standing in the middle, you'll be able to locate it as it moves around you. You will be able to do the same at 10m and even 1m. So, although the sound coming from the cabinet is for sake of argument, omnidirectional, the source point can still be located. Your brain is still able to determine the location of it in the field around you.

The Haas effect I believe is the ruling factor here. I'd read up a bit on the Meyer site as John Meyer (along with his brilliant staff) has done some amazing studies in their anechoic chamber and in real life situations (Speech Intelligibility Papers) using systems like SIM II where you could acually measure the effect I'm trying to illustrate here.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[cweber]

Whether that was a mistake or not is another question. I too bought studio monitors for my home system, in my case Carvin SRS 6.5. The very present mids (i.e. flat frequency response) took some getting used to (all of 20 minutes, actually) but I'll never go back. Ever.
Of course, my stereo also doubles as a mini PA for band rehearsals and I know the monitors will even allow for small house gigs (with hi-fi quality sound!).
Now I wonder why people even buy something that's not a studio monitor if they are going to shell out $300+ for new speakers.

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Cyno]

me too :)

Re:Bose??? Buahahaha

[Drishmung]

Amen. The aim of speakers should be to be sonicly invisible. If you can 'hear' your speakers, if they make the music sound 'better', then they are not doing their job. Good reference speakers make the walls go away---it's like there is nothing between you and the performance. And the weird thing is that they aren't even particularly expensive. However, they don't sound impressive in the shop. In fact, not sounding impressive is their entire aim in life!

Of course, if you want to play with the sound---pump up the bass, effectively remix the music, go for it, but it's a whole lot easier if your hi-fi is uncritically passing the sound through rather than 'helping' at various stages by adding treble or damping extremes.

Two Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Beta-Max!

Ogg = Too little, too late, overmatched and unknown to the masses. Also, too geeky. No hardware support to speak of. Walk down a street anywhere in the world and ask them what Ogg is, then ask them what MP3 is..... I guarantee you 1000 more people will know what a MP3 is compared to Ogg. It may be smaller, but in the age of 200 Gb harddrives for $200 size is no longer an issue.

MP3 = Widely known, was first on the scene, its everywhere, tons of hardware on the market, good quality, reasonable size ... hell my grandma even knows what it is.... that means Ogg is screwed!

AAC = Already has an installed user base, sounds just as good as Ogg or MP3, plays nicely with the best known\most widely sold MP3 player on the market. Promising, but probably the lesser of the three unless this thing takes off.

You may not like what I have to say, but it is the truth.... and you all know it!

Re:Two Words

[Lxy]

Yes, until someone gets sue happy and starts suing MP3 and AAC users. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't.

Look at GIF, JPEG, and PNG. GIF is used for its quality, JPEG is used for its size, PNG is used by geeks. Unisys started suing webmasters, now the patent holder for JPEG is ruffling feathers, PNG is slowly becoming the accepted format. All it takes is some greedy SOB to make Ogg an attractive format.

Re:Two Words

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, Dude! You're being too rational. You know as well as I that if OGG were to suddenly bcome half as popular as MP3 that all of today's OGG-heads would be espousing some other, new, obscure, "cooler" format.

Re:Two Words

[FooBarWidget]

Yeah right. AAC support on MP3 players? Since when? Can you point out one player? Because I've never seen them.
Ogg Vorbis also has portable player support. Sharp Zaurus can play Ogg Vorbis files.

You say Ogg is "geeky". What is so geeky about it? It's just yet another audio codec. It isn't geeky. You want to believe it's geeky so you think it's geeky. Technology is just technology.

"that means Ogg is screwed!"

Oooh! And so is AAC!

You make it sound as if AAC is "more widely supported" than Ogg. That is not true.
- Your grandma doesn't know what AAC is either!
- Portable player support is no better than Ogg!
- Unlike Ogg, AAC is clumbered with patens and licensing fees. This will scare away many small companies.

Face it, AAC is not more widely supported than Ogg! People only make Ogg look worse than AAC just because Ogg is open source and because AAC is backed up by a company.

Re:Two Words

[Anonymous Coward]

It took almost 10 years for MP3 to be widely known and to be used in portable devices, so it's no surprise that it may take a little while for other formats to catch on. With all the codecs currently out there, it'll take a little time for some to rise and some to fall, and I wouldn't expect many devices to pick any of them until they've been around for a while.

Re:Two Words

[tuffy]

Beta-Max!

Not hardly. Unlike video players, which have a high degree of physical incompatibility, audio formats only require sufficient processing power and the proper software to handle a new audio format. Considering vorbis already comes standard with winamp, xmms and others, there's no reason anyone should have problems playing them on the computer side. And, once sufficient demand is demonstrated on the portable side, vorbis support should arrive there as well - especially since portable processing power is getting cheaper all the time.

mp3 and ogg is not an either/or proposition any more than image formats are jpeg/png/gif only.

Re:Two Words

[Knobby]

Can you point out one player? Because I've never seen them.

Yep. The 5GB iPod I bought over a year ago plays AAC encoded files (after installing the v1.3 Firmware Update), as do the other 700,000 iPods out there. Combine that with the new Apple music store, and overnight you've got a whole lot of AAC encoded music out there with hardware support.

Re:Two Words

[otis wildflower]

Yeah right. AAC support on MP3 players? Since when? Can you point out one player?

As a matter of fact, I can.

Re:Two Words

[MtViewGuy]

Looking at your comments, I think the Ogg format is going to have to fight an uphill battle for acceptance for the reasons you mentioned.

Sure, the MP3 format may be disliked by the RIAA, but the very fact almost EVERY hardware manufacturer supports the format bodes well for its future. I mean, when you have portable CD players, automotive CD players and even DVD console players supporting MP3 format audio burned onto a recordable CD, that says a lot about the MP3 format acceptance.

The AAC format will survive because of Apple's sheer marketing influence, even though Apple has such a small share of the overall computer market. The very high popularity of iPod will at least guarantee that the AAC format can survive, since AAC is one of the native storage formats for iPod players. I wouldn't be surprised that AAC gets a good amount of third-party hardware support, since AAC does have Digital Rights Management (DRM) support, something the RIAA really likes.

As for the Ogg format, you can forget about its success except among the very serious geek crowd. The fact that you can't play Ogg-formatted files on portable and automotive CD players out of the box bodes poorly for widespread acceptance of the format.

Re:Two Words

[vadim_t]

PNG can also store true color images, while GIF is limited to 256 colors. If you have a picture with many colors and things like lines or text then PNG is the only thing that will work well. JPG will mess the text and thin lines, GIF will remove colors.

Re:Two Words

[fastdecade]

It may be smaller, but in the age of 200 Gb harddrives for $200 size is no longer an issue.

I agree with most of your comments regarding the unfortunate uselessness of Ogg, but I don't think the size argument holds up; many solid-state players are currently 128MB; a 20% capacity increase makes a big difference at that end.

Re:Two Words

[eXtro]

gif is used for it's file size, not quality. Tiff is the format for quality, it's lossless (I think there is a lossy tiff extension).

Re:Two Words

[the bluebrain]

• Yeah right. AAC support on MP3 players? Since when? Can you point out one player?

The teensy-weensy Panasonics that came out a while ago, with wrist straps etc. ("wearables") and 64+ MB SD cards.
And boy, do they suck. To load the stuff on there you need to use a propriatary extension to the "Real Jukebox" which transcodes everything to AAC, which takes about 1/2 - 2/3 of the final playtime.
Have to admit they sound good (64kb AAC ~= 128 kb MP3), but I've stopped using mine because I don't want to wait 45 mins to load it, and don't want to use the piece of shit Jukebox to fuck up (a.k.a. "manage") my MP3 collection.

But yeah, they do exist.

Re:Two Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Ogg = Too little, too late, overmatched and unknown to the masses

By the way, it's FREE. Player manufacturers don't have to pay a cent of royalties for either encoding or decoding, no lawsuits from out of the blue, nothing. That's the reason it WILL catch on.

AAC = Already has an installed user base

Of exactly ONE portable player. Apple is not Sony; they are not big enough to make up "standards" in hardware. Quicktime has been around for ten years.. how many non-Apple products use it? (Quicktime player for the PC is an Apple product)

Re:Two Words

[danwatt]

TIFF is a wrapper format (more or less). By default it is lossless-uncompressed, but there is also a lossless-compressed format (I think using deflate or LZW or similar), and some (Adobe) have even extended it to support JPEG (JPEG inside a TIFF file....) and ZIP (zipped photo data inside a TIFF file).

See the similar argument for ogg being a wapper format : OGG supports Vorbis (audio), Theora (video), Speex (speech audio), and FLAC (lossless audio, though I don't think its 100% integrated just yet).

Re:Two Words

[phatcat625]

Boy are you wrong! You remember this thing, maybe you've heard of it... THE MOUSE??!?!? Try this one.... FIREWIRE!!!! OOh and.... THE PDA!!! Just to name a few....

Re:Two Words

[Anita Coney]

GIF for quality?!

Re:Two Words

[Anonymous Coward]

MP3 is NOT good quality, and never has been. Artifacts, swishiness are all over MP3.

OGG is not too little, too late..it's easily on par with AAC. It's got a larger "installed user base" than AAC as well. How many people heard of AAC before this month? Probably fewer than those that have heard of OGG.

Why the hell was this guy modded +5 interesting? More like -1 Troll, and not a very good one at that.

Re:Two Words

[IamTheRealMike]

Ogg isn't screwed, far from it. In the long term, I suspect it'll be what we all use (I'm talking 10 years maybe here). Historically open systems have won out time and time again over sometimes arguably superior proprietary solutions. GIF vs PNG is a good example given above, the only reason PNG hasn't wiped GIF out is because IE can't do proper transparency without stupid hacks (basically the IE team are lazy asses), and from what we've seen it seems Ogg is keeping pace with the far better funded alternatives easily. Sure, it'll take time, but in a few years AAC will be as relevant to audio as Intel Indeo is to video today.

Re:Two Words

[IamTheRealMike]

You have to take the intersections, there may be 700k iPods, but you need to eliminate the people who don't have Macs, the people who don't have/want the latest version of MacOS X, the people who aren't aware of this service and the people who would rather get their kicks off the P2P networks rather than pay Apple for it.

Re:Two Words

[TKinias]

scripsit Anita Coney:

GIF for quality?!

Read: GIF for not making a complete hash out of text and line art.

(PNG is a big step. Just getting people not to JPEG text scans at quality-4 would be a start...)

Re:Two Words

[jazuki]

AAC support on MP3 players? Since when? Can you point out one player?

There is the iPod for a reasonably popular one. Old iPods will also support AAC via an already available firmware upgrade.

You make it sound as if AAC is "more widely supported" than Ogg. That is not true.

I'm guessing you're aware that AAC is the MPEG-4 audio layer format. That in and of itself ensures and will continue to ensure a lot of device compatibility. Recent Sony CLIEs support it for example.

I don't argue that AAC is better than Vorbis, but arguing that AAC is not/will not have wide device support is a little silly. It already does.

Re:Two Words

[brettlbecker]

GNU/Linux... too little too late. And you all know it!

(hint: the above was sarcasm)

B

Re:Two Words

[Abcd1234]

Yeah... 'cuz it's lossless, dumbass. Cartoons, text, or anything else with low noise will only look good in a lossless format (ie, GIF or PNG).

Re:Two Words

[Abcd1234]

Ooh, that came out harsher than intended, my appologies. s/dumbass//. Someone's cranky this morning... :/

Re:Two Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually JPEG is a wrapper for JFIF data.

Re:Two Words

[Anita Coney]

"Cartoons, text..."

Sure, but EVERYTHING else will look like crap. How is EVERYTHING else looking like crap considered quality?!

Re:Two Words

[JonathanBoyd]

Quicktime has been around for ten years.. how many non-Apple products use it? (Quicktime player for the PC is an Apple product)

A heck of a lot of stuff. Pretty much anything to do with video editting can/does make use of QuickTime as do a great number of digital cameras (stlls and video cameras). And of course, there are several usages of QuickTime. do you mean the application? The toolkit that other apps can access? The wrapper format that can contain dozens of codes?

The only problem with Ogg

[falsified]

My personal experience with Ogg is that it takes forever to rip a CD using the format. I personally don't know why this is (perhaps just a problem with the software I was using?) but if it's going to take 20 minutes to rip three tracks on a 48x CD-ROM drive connected to a 1.8 (don't laugh, it's fast enough for piracy!) gig processor, then I might as well just rip to mp3 at 192 kbps. Storage is cheap as hell nowadays, and most people (myself included) don't need 40 gigs on their hard drive but somehow ended up with it.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[BigBir3d]

If you use grip on linux, there have been very nice speed increases in the last year. My slow ass 24x cd-rom in my P3 500MHz Thinkpad will rip at 1.9x and encode at the same time at 1.4-1.6x

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[Carrot007]

The "ripping" time is nothing to do with the codec, only the "encoding" time.

The process is Rip/Encode

Even the all in one solution do that in the basckground for you.

Maybe your CD-Rom is shit as audio extraction, lot's are.

As for the encoding it takes around a minute per track to encode to vorbis on my machine (2200xp).

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[grolim13]

I'm guessing there's something wrong with your software set-up, as my poor 800MHz Duron can rip+encode at around 4x real-time.

As for not needing larger hard drives... well, I have a 60 gig which is about half full; it feels rather constraining at times - capturing video in full PAL resolution sucks up close to 1GB/min, and my CPU is nowhere near fast enough to encode that in real time.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[afree87]

Why the hell would I laugh at a 1.8GHz processor? My home computer is a 333MHz, and I am typing this from a 400MHz.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[satterth]

Get yourself a CDROM that properly supports Digital Audio Extraction and the process will speed up alot. If you have the free space available, then the fastest way is to Extract the audio with no compression first (if your cdrom has good digital audio extraction), then convert it to vorbis or MP3 after the fact.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[Anonymous Coward]

Me Too.

My desktop box, which also serves as my home file server, is an 800 Mhz PPC. My laptop is an 867 Mhz PPC. The fastest CPU I own is 1.7 Ghz Athlon, which I only use for games (and as lately just been collecting dust as I haven't had time for games). I don't consider any of these computers slow, as they all do the jobs that they have to do fast enough. This whole clock cycles fixation that PC users have is just ridiculous.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

If you use grip on linux, there have been very nice speed increases in the last year. My slow ass 24x cd-rom in my P3 500MHz Thinkpad will rip at 1.9x and encode at the same time at 1.4-1.6x

My Power Mac with a 733 MHz G4 can rip and encode a CD to MP3 at an average of 10x.

And Apple's MP3 encoder consistently gets high marks for quality.

As much as I like Ogg, it has a long way to go before it will be competitive with the competition.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[BigBir3d]

Comparing a laptop made in 1999 with a desktop made in 2001 is a bit of a stretch...

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[42forty-two42]

I don't know about the encoder per se, but is your ripping program slowing the actual read of the audio data by forcing it to go at the same rate as the encode? It should do the two in parallel, but not slow the rip by the decode.

Re:The only problem with Ogg

[Anonymous Coward]

My iMac with a single, measly 400 MHz G3 can rip to either MP3 or (now) AAC at an average of 5x. I bought that machine in 1999, I think, and it wasn't brand new then.

Sorry, but the OGG encoders really, really suck. Really.

About audio compression, CD-MP3 guide

[Compact Dick]

Arguably the best resource for audio compression information can be found at Hydrogen Audio. Visit the various forums, check out the excellent Foobar2000 win32 multiformat audio player, and learn.

I have also written a guide on ripping high-quality MP3s using CDex, aimed towards beginners. If you know people who use Musicmatch, help them switch to a decent, easy-to-use CD ripper.

Cheers,
CD

Re:About audio compression, CD-MP3 guide

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell is wrong with mmjb?

i have found it to be the best win32 mp3 player available.

Re:About audio compression, CD-MP3 guide

[foobar104]

check out the excellent Foobar2000 win32 multiformat audio player

My lawyers will be contacting them shortly.

Offtopic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is totally unrelated to this discussion.

This story is about comparing codec ripped from CD. What Apple's iTunes Music Store files are encoded from is totally offtopic.

Re:Offtopic.

[Gropo]

Not entirely offtopic. Show me where I can find an equivalent MP3 or Vorbis service and let's compare those files against one another.

sound warmth

[solidox]

people always complain about how compressed formats sound all messed up and slurred high frequencies. yet few complain about the lossyness of vinyl, they just say it's 'warmth'.
personally i dont like either sound quality, altho vorbis seems the best of the lot.

Re:sound warmth

[Anonymous Coward]

most vinyls and vinyl players generate artifical harmonics, which is different from high freq cutoff (try a master tool with harmonic exciter like ozone or something and hear the difference)

PARENT IS CORRECT; GRANDPARENT IS NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody checked out Neuros?

[Ruri]

The Xiph folks have signed up to add Ogg support on the Neuros audio handheld. Its a firmware upgradable handheld which currently supports mp3, but will probably have Ogg support by mid-late summer.

Check out the highlights.

http://www.neurosaudio.com/

Re:Anybody checked out Neuros?

[Enry]

Neuros rocks. About the same cost as an ipod, but includes FM receive and FM broadcast that actually works.

Expansion is via backpacks, so as technology changes you only need to buy new backpacks instead of an entire new unit.

Re:Anybody checked out Neuros?

[PCM2]

Neuros rocks. About the same cost as an ipod, but includes FM receive and FM broadcast that actually works.

Nice, but no Mac OS support that I can see. Bummer.

Re:Anybody checked out Neuros?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? Mac OS is a niche OS.

No specs, they sound very good though

[acomj]

I too played around with the new itunes. Its very easy to use/browse buy. A little too easy (I've already spent 8 dollars). It actually was fun and I'm listening to the CD at work.

I was worried about the quality of ACC. It seems good although not quite CD quality, its hard to tell.

itunes has a option in the drop down menu called convert to mp3. I tried it, and it informed me it wouldn't convert downloaded acc music to mp3.

There are some programs that probably allow you to convert without burning a cd (Audio Hijack or something like that.)

Re:No specs, they sound very good though

[Anonymous Coward]

It's AAC, not ACC. Apple Audio Codec.

Re:No specs, they sound very good though

[zilly]

AAC, yes, but it actually stands for "Advanced Audio Coding." Even Apple's website says so.

yours

Re: I do it the other way.

[hogger]

Unless you've got some portable-player research skills way beyond mine, your way should say "I do not buy a portable player."

My wife wanted a portable mp3 player for jogging and I found none that support ogg. I wound up buying a diamond rio s50. It supports SD cards, and there are linux drivers for it.

I wanted a car stereo that would support mp3 cds and found none that supported ogg. I didn't look at any that were over $1000 though, maybe some of them support it. I wound up getting a $150 JVC that supports mp3s on cd and has a pretty good ui.

So you don't own a portable player then...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't own a portable player then, because none of the respected brands of digital audio players support Vorbis.

(Ogg is merely a container. Vorbis is the audio format.)

bleat

[Gropo]

Well then that bolsters my original reaction, which is that regardless of the original source of these 'test samples', you'll be hard-pressed to lease the master and rip directly to .ogg or .mp3 like Apple has done with the AAC's available off their service.

an audiophiles $.02

[Anonymous Coward]

I you have a really good system (probably anything over 3k nowadays) then it is not worth it to use any lossless compression.
In my system we can hear the difference between mp3 320 and wav files. That said, the difference is small and you have to be listening critically... so

it comes down to cost. If compression is 10% worse, and you spent 5k on a system, then using compression costs you $500 of system quality. $500 at $.90 per gb for a hdd can give me plenty of capacity.

Also, with WAV I know I won't have to re-rip my music when the next new compression algorythm comes out.

Of course for a portable with anything but highquality headsets it is unlikely you could tell the difference between a good compression and lossless...

Re:an audiophiles $.02

[MKalus]

The problem with a lot of systems these days is more than just the speakser and the amp. The A/D converter (when playing CDs) has quite a huge impact.

I own a 30K System (yes, that's a lot of money) and come to realize that most AD converters in consumer grade CD Players are just horrible.

My solution so far has been to connect a DVD player and use the Digital out and feed it directly into the A/D converter of my pre-amp / process (Acurus ACT-3). The sound quality is extreme.

Same goes for MP3s. If you have a bad encoder or a crappy soundcard it WILL sound a lot worse than a CD.

I had the chance to listen to some of the Super CDs and I must say they sound amazing, the only problem with them is that right now you cannot get a digital out on the players (they are afraid someone is making high grade copies of the CDs) so you have to rely on the internal A/D convert to get the sound out. I doubt that it will take off, most of the people I know do not want to feed the amp with an analog signal if possible.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:an audiophiles $.02

[Anonymous Coward]

In my system we can hear the difference between mp3 320 and wav files.

Spoken like a true audiophile. If you're using the LAME encoder, I call pure and absolute bullshit. If not, your encoder likely sucks, in which case I call pure and absolute bullshit.

What's that saying again? A fool and his money...

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: Shameless plug: I wrote a vorbis patch to add SSE support [www.fefe.de] for enhanced encoder and decoder speed. It also contains some 3dnow! optimization for you K6 users, decoder only.

Have you submitted it to the Vorbis developers, or at least asked whether they're interesting? It would be great if this could be rolled into the original sourec for everyone to have.

your ogg pod is here

[morcheeba]

You can get an ogg pod here. ok, it's a little rough, but it's getting better.

Musepack is better at the high-end

[Jack Comics]

MP3 this, OGG that, AAC somewhere in the middle... Sorry, I don't use any of the above. I encode all of my music into Musepack. At high bitrates, it's the best lossy audio codec, period. For more information on Musepack, see Case's Musepack Page</a>, or <a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=S T&f=11&t=1927&">List of Recommended Musepack Settings</a>.

Musepack encoders and decoders are available for both Windows and Linux, with Winamp plugins available. The only real downside to Musepack is there is currently no hardware support. But having tried each of the codecs mentioned in this article as well as Musepack at the Quality 8 setting, Musepack is music to my ears each time.

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[Anonymous Coward]

no Mac version = no use to a lot of people

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[danwatt]

I agree completely that this format sounds superior to others. It does a very good job around 180kbps (note: MPC/MP+ ONLY does VBR, unlike MP3 where VBR was added later and Vorbis where it is optional).

Not only is hardware support lacking, but program support is lacking as well: there are plugins for most players (Winamp, XMMS, etc), but when it comes to downloading MPC files (read: p2p filesharing) most do not support the format (unless you search for all files). WinMX just started supporting OGG in the last few months, but none of the major filesharing programs support MPC. Unless one does, the format, which has been around for a couple of years now, will probably remain one used by only a few.

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[Skuto]

>note: MPC/MP+ ONLY does VBR, unlike MP3 where
>VBR was added later and Vorbis where it is
>optional).

Vorbis is natively VBR. You can do CBR if you really want to shoot yourself in the foot, but it also supports managed bitrate for sane people. MPC can ONLY do VBR.

--
GCP

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[Anonymous Coward]

no Mac version = no use to a lot of people

for values of "a lot" that are around 5.

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[MoOsEb0y]

I totally agree with you, and I actually searched the article for MPC to see if someone had posted about it yet. I love MPC myself, and so do all my computer-literate friends. (Even some of the not-so-literate ones). The point is though, while it is technically a "lossy" codec, it loses so little information that it is considered transparent. While there is technically one patented process used by it, it's far fewer than say... MP3, and Philips (I think that's the patent holder) doesn't really care if Andree Buschmann (MPC's author) uses it.
As is mentioned in the previous post, there's support for win32, linux, and OSX support is being worked on at this very moment. (Check hydrogenaudio.org's forums out for more info)

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you say "Sorry?" Are you under the mistaken impression that anybody gives a damn what you do with your own music?

"Gee, sorry, everybody," he said, as if the world would somehow be DISAPPOINTED that he didn't choose their audio codec.

Whatever, dude.

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[pretentiousPPC]

And what Linux is what, around 1?
If you are refering to marketshare Linux is still the minority.

If its not on Mac I wount use it.
As much as the same as the Kewl Linux Geeks screaming about if something isn't ported/suported on there fav OS it don't matter to them. The same thing applies if it dosn't support Macs->its no use to me and a lot of people.

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[Anonymous Coward]

"Best lossy codec" isn't saying much when I find MPC files to be about twice the size, and comparable quality, to my MP3s. If you have the disc space for MusePack, you've got enough to use a lossless codec, like SHN (common), FLAC (better, GPL), or god-forbid, Monkey's Audio, which is crap, but some people swear by.

Re:Musepack is better at the high-end

[Anonymous Coward]

no Mac version = no use to a lot of people

For values less than 5% for variable 'a lot' (according to Google's zeitgeist from couple of months ago).

Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it that difficult to grasp! Ogg is a container file! Vorbis is the audio codec!

People could in theory put mp3 audio into an Ogg container...

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[91degrees]

Most people who use Ogg Vorbis do not use it for it's quality. All that matters in that respect is that Ogg Vorbis is comaparable to other formats at similar bitrates.

The important aspect of it is that it's free. There are no patents (at least as far as we know of) preventing anyone from using it, and it's made quite clear that the code can be included in open and closed source software without royalty payments.

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[hesiod]

> Is it that difficult to grasp! Ogg is a container file! Vorbis is the audio codec!

IT DOESN'T F'ING MATTER!

Just like Linux isn't an OS, (it's a kernel) no one aside from you and some other geeks (not meant as an insult, I am a geek too, obviously) will ever convince others of the truth.
More importantly it doesn't even matter. The details are subtle and by continuing the geeky "I'm better than the stupid lusers" all you are doing is keeping Vorbis from becoming more popular -- people will become pissed off that they get hassled every time they mention it, and then ignore it in the future.

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[RoLi]

Most people who use Ogg Vorbis do not use it for it's quality.

Well, I do and a lot of others, including a lot of gaming companies, do also.

proof

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[91degrees]

The company I worked for considered half a dozen options. Ogg Vorbis was best in some tests, average in others. One or two formats were better for the type of music we wanted. The reason we didn;t choose those were licencing costs.

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[jdgeorge]

> Is it that difficult to grasp! Ogg is a container file! Vorbis is the audio codec!

IT DOESN'T F'ING MATTER!

Just like Linux isn't an OS, (it's a kernel) no one aside from you and some other geeks (not meant as an insult, I am a geek too, obviously) will ever convince others of the truth.

Actually, it does matter. Your point about Linux highlights the importance, as in the case where IBM is accused of putting SCO IP into "Linux". Because people generally say "Linux" when they mean more than just the kernel, nobody really knows the scope of the complaint.

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[hesiod]

> as in the case where IBM is accused of putting SCO IP into "Linux".

That is a lawsuit, the whole point of which is to flesh out the details of the issue and resolve the complaints. But in common discussion, which of course this is, the details are not the problem, but the idea that is being portrayed. If you wanted to talk about OGG containers in general, you call them OGG containers. Otherwise, you simplify it to the most common type of OGG container, which is Vorbis. If you (not necessarily you, per se) know that the person says OGG and means OGG Vorbis, then he got his point across and that is all that matters.

Grammar Nazis anger me because language is about getting across ideas between people, not to find a solution, like math. If the person receiving the information gets the right parts of it and reconstructs it in their mind to come up with the same or functionally similar ideas, then the conversation was a success, regardless of whether the exact words or structure were used.

That said, I emphasize the "same ideas" part. Some people's (now I'm paranoid, is that right?) grammar is so bad that you have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[Anonymous Coward]

IT DOESN'T F'ING MATTER!

Please. If you are too wimpy too use word FUCKING, use another word. Don't rape the good old word with your apostrophe.

(my apologies if you were referring to the president of Gabon, mister Julius F'Ing... I just couldn't figure out that making any sense in this context and am thusly asumming this is not the case)

Re:Vorbis! Not Ogg, Vorbis!

[Doomdark]

More importantly it doesn't even matter. The details are subtle and...

It really depends. Details do matter when the company holding patents demand their royalties for doing MP3 encoding or even decoding, as is the case for hardware players. And sometimes for software players too, and pretty much always for encoders (most open source tools have been walking the tight rope with patents for a while).

For end users it may not be a visible difference; for manufacturers of MP3-players it may be a minor point (although, for 20$ MP3-players it would be significant cost... what was the royalty again? ~1$ / player?), but for software writers it is often an actual problem (esp. for non-profit software).

Most MP3's...

[LeoDV]

...are bad rips, but if you're a purist (like myself) you can rip CDs in mathematically loseless quality. Takes up more space, but you don't have to worry about quality, which is always an important issue.

Of course, that doesn't make the MP3's you get off KaZaA any better, but hey, if you don't like it, buy the CD. :p

MP3's dont have to mean low sound quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Mp3 doesn't have to mean lower audio quality. A lot of tests have been done by audiophiles and mp3's encoded correctly are indistinguishable from the wave files even for most audiophiles. In a lot of cases mp3's are better than ogg's as the LAME mp3 encoder has been tuned at high bitrates to ensure good audio quality while ogg format is only now being tuned at high quality settings. See hydrogenaudio for info on various codecs, chrismyden for info on how to create high quality mp3's and Ubershare for info on how to share your high quality mp3's, ogg's, MPC's with other people who only share high quality files. And until there are some descent harddisk players with ogg support most of us will keep trading mp3's because they are more useful. In the only real advantage that makes me want to use ogg's is the fact that they support gappless playback, which is still lacking in all the harddisk mp3 players.

Re:MP3's dont have to mean low sound quality

[usotsuki]

I dunno, the oggs at SailorMusic.net are pretty good, if using audiocv and burning to a CD is any indication of quality.

-uso.

An overlooked key point?

[prestidigital]

Understandably, most of the discussion here is about the pros & cons of various compression formats. But the first thing that jumped out at me when I clicked on the apple.com link was:

"Preview any song for free, when you find a song you want, buy it for just 99... It's what music lovers have been waiting for: a music store with Apple's legendary ease of use, offering a hassle-free way to preview, buy and download music online quickly and easily."

FINALLY, a business model for downloading music that makes sense! (Now if only I could afford to switch to Apple products.)

Re:An overlooked key point?

[feldsteins]

If you can't afford a Mac then you can always wait for the Windows version of the service which will be out "by the end of the year."

Of course, I would expect the existing (crappy) music downloading services to acquire Apple's much improved set of CD burning sharing and streaming rights. So maybe the other services will become slightly less noxious than they have been in the past.

Re:An overlooked key point?

[26199]

Out of interest... do you include emusic (see my sig) with those existing crappy music downloading services?

Re:An overlooked key point?

[cheesekeeper]

(Now if only I could afford to switch to Apple products.)

They're not that expensive. The eMac is pretty darn comparable to a 2 GHz P4 or what-have-you. Plus you get one of those nifty Firewire ports for the iPod. :)

1280x960 (big enough for any self-respecting geek), 17" flat screen (flat screen, not flat panel), OS X (all the BSD you can handle!), iTunes 4 (awesome), and there's no tower you have to keep under your desk. $999 US for that, less if you're a student.

Re:An overlooked key point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of interest... does Emusic have some kind of an organized astroturfer program, or do you just get paid under the table? I wanna be an Emusic astroturfer too!

Re:An overlooked key point?

[calumr]

Overlooked? Where were you yesterday?

Re:An overlooked key point?

[feldsteins]

Yes I do. First, because it's subscription-based. There may be other reasons, too, but I haven't had a chance to look around.

Not that I'll bother. I found my solution.

Re:An overlooked key point?

[Anonymous Coward]

$779 for a new eMac (student discount) is pretty cheap. Check it out if you want to break (cheaply) into the mac domain. Otherwise, look for refurbished or used Mac stuff on eBay. It has a longer lifespan than most PCs, so you can get something a couple years old and it will last a while for you!

Re:An overlooked key point?

[26199]

What's wrong with subscription-based?... unlimited downloads for $10 a month is great value if you like the music.

And since they offer a free trial, there's no reason not to see if you like the music...

Anyway. I seem to be selling emusic a lot here... ah yes, I remember, if more people join they'll get more and better music :-)

(They just switched to high quality variable bit rate MP3s, incidentally, which is quite cool).

How is this informative?

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole bunch of baseless claims built around random numbers, then an admission of bias at the end. Oh, and it has the name "AAC" wrong.

This is not up-mod worthy material.

Next up...

[cygnus]

let's compare video codec image quality by streaming the data thru a hex editor in realtime. :)

Re:Next up...

[Anonymous Coward]

omfg, that's the best commentary of the lot! No, really!

Re:Next up...

[chmod000]

Then it would look like the Matrix....

Why were 'nice' and 'Bose' in the same sentence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering. Bose, the Nike of Audio.

And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[tweakt]

This reminds me of a naming issue I have. I know that Ogg is the wrapper format. Vorbis is the audio codec we all know and love, but people have (from what I can tell) begun naming their music .ogg, so how the hell will we know what it is? It could be music, video, speech... argh!!! Whats up with x.3 anyhow?? I wanna name it .vorbis WTF is wrong with that? Damnit... maybe I just need a Mac so I can say goodbye to file extentions.

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[radish]

The files are .ogg, just like .avi, .mov, .qt or whatever. You don't know what codec was used in an avi until you download it, and find it's some obscure 2 year old version of divx which doesn't work anymore. Doh!

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[Zathrus]

Whats up with x.3 anyhow?

It's a holdover convention from DOS/Win3.x, VMS, and a few esoteric Unix FS's. No reason to keep it now beyond historical convention... and floppies. Floppies are still FAT16 and don't do well with extended filenames. I'm not sure about the Redbook standard (CD-Data), it may limit extentions as well.

I wanna name it .vorbis

So do so.

maybe I just need a Mac so I can say goodbye to file extentions.

You'll just say hello to sidecar files instead, which are osteniably worse than extentions... although really it's merely a case of choose your poison. Sidecar files certainly have advantages as well.

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure about the Redbook standard (CD-Data), it may limit extentions as well.

The ISO9660 filesystem mandates 8.3 file names.

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISO9660 filesystem also mandates that filenames all be in uppercase, but I don't see many people caring about that.

Extensions, smensions. When are we going to get a filesystem that stores the mime-type of the file as an indicator of what it is?

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[Anonymous Coward]

And sane people continue to use Joliet extensions.

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[Hal-9001]

You don't know what codec was used in an avi until you download it, and find it's some obscure 2 year old version of divx which doesn't work anymore. Doh!

I had that same problem for the longest time until I discovered FFDShow and 3ivX, both of which handle DivX 3/4/5 like a champ (unlike the official DivX codec :-p). For files where the audio track doesn't seem to work, installing the Morgan Stream Switcher in the Nimo Codec Pack seems to fix that.

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[arkane1234]

You can name the file x.ihaveareallycoolsong as far as the decoder cares.
You don't have to use .ogg as the extension, it's just a thing alot of people do.

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[frause]

I'd say it would make more sense naming them *.vorbis.ogg

Re:And what do we use instead of .ogg?

[Anonymous Coward]

ISO9660 Level 3 allows for upto 31 characters in a file name. Normal people user RockRidge, and even Windows users will manage to enable Joilet.

-1 TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Post links to goatsee sex. MOD DOWN BIZZNATCH!

I'm The Archangel Gabriel

[RobotRunAmok]

...and I gotta tell you, having played that trumpet and serving as Music Director for the Celestial Choir since the Dawn of Time, I know Audio, and MP3 is the way to go. I've analyzed OGG, WMV, AAC, and this cute l'il analog thing which that wack job Orpheus put together Back in the Day, and I must say, nothing beats MP3, in your or anyone else's universe.

Of course, I'm logging in here under a pseudonym, so you'll just have to trust me. But hey, would a member of the Heavenly Host lie to you?

It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This such a short term issue. In two years portable players will have a terrabyte+ of storage and lossy compression will not be necessary. Zip will be fine :)

Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

This almost funny, but no.

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[ScooterComputer]

Two points:
1) Apple does not explicitly mention how their Music Store songs are encoded (neither what the source is nor what encoder they are using)---they very well could be using a higher quality AAC encoder than what ships with QuickTime, which has reviewed poorly. There exist, it should be noted, other professional level encoders that have reviewed much better.

2) That being said, Apple released QuickTime 6.2 at the same time as iTunes 4 yesterday, and one of the headlining new features is an enhanced AAC encoder. It is entirely possible that Apple has addressed problems with their encoder, and perhaps the new version would stack up better in blind listening tests.

Of course, it would have been nice if Apple could step out of the Reality Distortion Field for ten seconds, and do the "Right Thing". They had to have known that AAC--because of current, community-reviewed blind listening tests--would be a controversial choice. Why they didn't undertake/commission prior subjective testing and why they haven't bravely taken their encoder to the "street" and up against OGG and MP3Pro, I don't know...if they had, we wouldn't be arguing about how crappy their encoder was, we'd be arguing subjective listening differences. Now, this potentially great new service will suffer from a 3 to 6 month "shake out" in the more discriminating audiophile community (the people who recognize that CD is better than cassette, and can hear that 128 CBR MP3 is NOT CD quality) because of the technical merits of the quality of the encoder. No new service needs such hesitancy to overcome, much less one from Apple. I predict that the stigma of the quality demon is going to be a major adoption speed bump for this service among the group most important to its widespread adoption--the audiophiles.

Once again Apple (read Steve Jobs) makes the mistaken assumption that just because they SAY their stuff is better, everybody should just accept that--it is a clear misread of their (new) market demographic, which is proving to be growing more and more into a Slashdot crowd. If they keep ignoring the fact that their fastest growing fanbase is a fairly technical, information hungry group, they will certainly lose them as fast as they gained them...if there is one thing I have learned in my years of being a Slashdotter is that we are a fiercely loyal, but not easily fooled community, and we certainly don't suffer fools gladly.

IMO

[Isbiten]

AAC do sound better, music sounds much better with it. I can hear the tapping from the drumsticks crystal clear, with mp3 it usually sounds much "softer".

I have a better plan

[JudgeFurious]

Last night I downloaded a bunch of tracks off of Apple's Music Store Service. I then played them (along with several tracks I already had in OGG and mp3) through my computers $9.95 speakers while holding my portable cassette recorder very, very close to the speaker (For the technical out there I was holding it close to the LEFT speaker and even turned the TV down some to get the best possible sound) and then replayed them all back on the same portable cassette recorder.

My conclusion is that all three sound like complete shit.

Just need to flame!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the worst flaming war discussion I ever seen in this place for a long time.

Bose guy: I have original 901 Series I speakers. They are great. Bose lost a lot of their touch by trying to please everyone. Oh well... But you got nice headphones.

Sennheiser Guy: I have HD 590 by Sennheisers. They were the CHEAPEST I could find that didn't had any kind of problems by Sennheiser. 80$ Senns will buy you good cans but that's it. Not the end of the world.

Ogg people: I used to be on the vorbis mailing list. Ppl saying Ogg a wrapper are right. But ppl know the files by their extension. Only pros know this, as was previously stated. And only inside ppl know that Vorbis is what drives Ogg inside. This is so much off-topic I don't care. For all ANYONE should know, Ogg is a really great format. Mp3 is a great format. WMV is a great format. AAC is a great format. And I don`t care on any inside technicalities, subtleties or anything. I just want to encode. I only want to download. I only want to listen.

K... my bag is empty. :P Next...

I don't care wether WMV is a better format than AAC. WMV takes up a lot of processor power to reach its goal. It also contains that ever bad licensing limitation. I find this totally impratical and ... well ... lame. It's like the so-called HDTV video demo they did. Yeah, take the best computer in the world with the best video card and put 4x the bandwidth of 1x CD... Of course you will have a good format. *sheesh* powder in eyes.

MP3 is a great format. It still has potential. It is mainstream and Lame v0 q0 will give good enough quality for everyone except for mastering. Easy. Works. Good quality. +-220Kbps . Twice as high as AAC. Oh well.

I don't need to know of patents and free software. Quicktime can decode my file. I can burn them. I can rip them. I can do whatever I want with them. If I want to lose some quality, I can transcode them to MP3 and play them everywhere after. 99c a pop and you have the song to do whatever you want for your private use. That's a first by a big company for me.

As far as audio quality goes, I do see a slight difference in AAC between an original and this file. This makes me believe it's not for audiophiles. But audiophiles usually buy their CDs with XRCD or HDCD or SACD or other high quality encoding so any download would be unacceptable anyways. So why bother with that. 128 is great for anyone and it's streamable so you can play them instantly with broadband. I find this very nice indeed.

Anonymous Coward

I'm a BS analyst...

[FatalTourist]

at slashdot.

It's not really by choice though. It just happens when I browse the comments and happen to read a big steaming pile like yours.

The proof is in the listening

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to design loudspeakers, and I can tell you from experience that no amount of test equipment, design software, or mathematical analysis will tell you how it sounds.

btw, the apostrophe police have a warrant out for your arrest ... you're a doctoral candidate? Wow...

Re:The proof is in the listening

[Anonymous Coward]

btw, the apostrophe police have a warrant out for your arrest ... you're a doctoral candidate? Wow...

Well, a joint task force of the Capitalization Enforcement Agency and the Sloppy Ellipsis Eradication Department want you detained as a "material witness" and busted back to the third grade.

Why is 'Reply to this' below the post to reply to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering. Idiots, the blood of Slashdot.

Useless Comparison

[nathanh]

AAC/MP3/OGG are all based on psychoacoustic models. Comparing their decoded spectrums is pointless. The spectrum isn't supposed to be faithfully reproduced. Frequencies that your brain wouldn't fully hear aren't fully stored.

The only value I can see in a spectrum comparison would be to find obvious errors in the encoder or decoder. Like the 16kHz spike in the Xing encoder. But how likely is that going to be these days?

The only proper comparison involves a good hi-fi, a sensibly furnished room, and a comfortable chair. It is called "golden ear" testing and it's the ONLY way to compare psychoacoustic models.

Or at least it's the only way until the research scientists work out how the human brain works.

Re:Useless Comparison

[The Mainframe]

You're going to need a good sound tech, too. If you'd like to rent my golden ears, I'm available.

Re:Useless Comparison

[shotfeel]

Sounds pretty much like any benchmark. The only way to really know which solution is faster/better/just-as-good-as-xyz, is to sit down with your own hardware, doing things the way you want to do them, and do the comparison yourself.

The good part in this scenario is you don't have to spend thousands of dollars to do the comparison. If you already own a CD, pop it into your computer, encode using any bitrates/codecs you want to campare, and give it a listen. Go with the cheapest/smallest you find that sounds as good as the original.

Re:Useless Comparison

[enderwig]

The only proper comparison involves a good hi-fi, a sensibly furnished room, and a comfortable chair. It is called "golden ear" testing and it's the ONLY way to compare psychoacoustic models.

"Golden Ears" also say that green pens make CD's sound warmer. I've even read "Golden Ear" reviews in Stereophile Magazine where changing the fiber orientation on the rug that the comfy chair was place on made the green-ringed CD sound expansive and warm instead of like shit.

The only way to compare anything is through double-blind testing. If the only thing changing is the encoder, then any differences heard will be due to the encoder. Heck you can even use your "good hi-fi, a sensibly furnished room, and a comfortable chair"! If you've always like MP3 and hated WMA, it wouldn't matter since you wouldn't know which encoder encoded the piece of music that you were listening to at that moment. You may prefer one enocder's psychoaccoustical model to another, but that is not the point of double-blind tests. Double-blind is so you can make unbiased, educated decisions between whatever it is you are comparing.

Anthony

Re:Useless Comparison

[nathanh]

"Golden Ears" also say that green pens make CD's sound warmer. I've even read "Golden Ear" reviews in Stereophile Magazine where changing the fiber orientation on the rug that the comfy chair was place on made the green-ringed CD sound expansive and warm instead of like shit.

Golden Ears don't say that. Audiophiles do. Audiophiles like to pretend that they are Golden Ears, just like creationists like to pretend that they're creation scientists. Please don't lump them into the same category.

A real golden ear is figuratively worth their weight in gold. They really do have good hearing. Often have perfect pitch. They were employed to help develop the MP3 standard. And yes they were subjected to double-blind tests.

Re:Useless Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Point.

Great because I was going to make it myself but at the same time am happy that somebody finally said it like it is.

About the only thing that review really poses that is informative is the cutoff frequency of the codecs which is probably the most noticeable thing if you have a good hearing range like myself.

Someone once told me that he had awesome speakers and he could not tell the difference between 128kbps and 192 kbps mp3's.. I just smiled. So many people just_dont_get_it.

Reality is, if you are a real audiophile you wouldn't touch mp3's atall. Or OGGS or AAC either, lossy compression along with a very distinct loss in spatial and stereo effects. No 3000 watt PMPO (PMPO-the biggest lie in the industry - zero continuity amongst brands!) is going to show anything but the fact you're ignorant... there is a reason why good speakers can cost tens of thousands of dollars :)

not a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? I don't feel informed...

Its open ...

[Midnight Thunder]

You might want to check out this open source implementation - note: it is free for non-commerical use. As far as I can tell it is part of the MPEG 4 specification.

Re:Ogg linked with the Global Patent story

[CyrusSukhia]

Interesting that you mention there are no patents. Another story just posted talks about globalizing patent filing. From what I understood, it seems that the U.S. is the only country that considers prior art when granting (or refusing) patents (other countries simply grant a patent to the first to file). Therefore, someone in another country could still file a patent on OGG (because there it's just file first...) and start collecting royalties/selling licenses in those countries...

Signal to Noise

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are playing music on your computer then you probably have all kind of noise from CPU fans, the guy mowing is lawn next door, your mom telling you to clean your room, the music across the all in your dorm room. At this point, unless you turn up your music really loud, you can't tell the difference anymore. And if you turn it up loud enough you will kill your ears and eventually won't be able to tell anymore anyway. When it come to portable players most head phones can't give you the quality out need and you have ambient noise from your environment. I know we always want the best for bragging rights, but come-on people it doesn't matter for all practical purposes.

nerds and 'Quirks and Quarks' Listeners ....

[Boiotos]

... who go to the programme's homepage and get ogg files as an option.

Spectum analysis in invalid

[Compact Dick]

Learn why you shouldn't use spectral analysis to determine lossy codecs' quality.

The most respected technique is double-blind testing using an ABX tool such as PC ABX, WinABX or ABC/HR.

More info on conducting blind tests can be found at the PC ABX site.

Can't do that

[TomatoMan]

Although that option exists, it won't let you change the format of "protected" files. Dang. Looks like we still need "m4p2mp3".

OGG who?

[Frobozz0]

"and the increasingly popular OGG codec."

Amongst who? Slashdot readers? It's certainly not consumers. Everyone uses mp3 (mpeg 2 layer 3). Apple's AAC (mpeg 4) does sound amazing. I've bought several songs already in that format.

OGG may sound good, but I wouldn't know. It's going to be relegated to the nerd community (which I am a proud member), but I just don't see it breaking through.

Re:OGG who?

[RiffRafff]

Maybe you didn't notice, but geeks spend money, too. I'll buy the Neuros (http://www.neurosaudio.com/) before I'll buy a non-ogg player, no matter how sexy it is.

At $400+, I'm not buying a player that doesn't allow me to utilize my .ogg files. Especially when it's just a matter of changing the player's software. It's not worth it to me to rip all my cd's again, and to an inferior format.

Re:OGG who?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe you didn't notice, but geeks spend money, too."

Not the ones on Slashdot.

Re:OGG who?

[foniksonik]

Biggest problem with OGG from the commercial POV is no DRM capabilities, no copy protection.

If the spec developers decide to create a useful implementation of DRM for OGG, a version that fits into the OSS POV (think Linus's description), then you may see plenty of worldwide support for OGG.

Think about all the cheap hardware manufacturers who don't want to negotiate bulk licensing for the 50 billion McDonalds audio toys they make next month to go in the happy meals... or all the embedded linux devices which can use OGG w/o any special software, ringtones anyone?

Anyways, if the OGG people play their cards right they may still end up as the standard of choice for everything BUT personal music jukebox... with 'good' DRM they could even do that to. Until then there will be WMA and AAC.

I'll stick to AAC which at least has more than one company to hold responsible for a stable format...

(did you hear? almost none of the Windows Server family software will run on Windows Server 2003! what are the odds that M$ would require a 'forced upgrade'... apparently pretty damn good, new licensing agreements all around! Yeah!).

Spectral analysis != psychoacoustic model...

[autopr0n]

Modern compressions schemes are supposed to make sound that sounds as much like the original as possible, not looks like the original on an FFT.

The only way to test this is to use double-blind listening tests. The spectral analysis stuff is absolutely useless for finding out how good the music actually sounds.

all 15 ogg listeners...

[Anonymous Coward]

all 15 ogg listeners are getting together to 'rally' at apple trying to get them to support ogg. they have each committed to buy at least 5 ipods each if ogg is implemented, so then apple would sell at least 15*5 ipods, and it will definately be worth the effort to port ogg to ipod.

fools. its a 'mass-market' device. no one in the mass market even knows what ogg is. (do you use ogg? yeah i like em over-easy.)

Re:all 15 ogg listeners...

[Doomdark]

fools. its a 'mass-market' device. no one in the mass market even knows what ogg is.

How very true. Likewise, asking them "do you use AAC", usually gets the answer "it's very nice during hot months of summer, so yes I'm practically relying on it!".

Re:all 15 ogg listeners...

[Anonymous Coward]

all 15 Apple users are getting together to 'rally' at Id trying to get them to support Mac OS X. they have each committed to buy at least 5 games each if OS X is supported, so then Id would sell at least 15*5 games, and it will definately be worth the effort to port games to the mac.

fools. its a 'mass-market' game. no one in the mass market even knows what OS X is. (do you use ohessex? yeah i like it doggy style.)

AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change that.

[RoLi]

And it's more efficient than MP3

At low bitrates, AAC is very weak, at 128kbps it was the worst of all:

Study

I was one of the 3000 participants, btw. And my ranking which I gave (blind, I did not know which sample was which) confirms pretty much the results, at 64kbps, AAC was unbearable, while ogg was not distinguishable (by me anyway) to the original.

The only test where AAC didn't fail miserably was the "expert test" with only 8 listeners.

OGG has beaten all other codecs consitently at all bitrates.

CD is the problem, not wma, mp3 or ogg

[nxs212]

CDs have flat sound to begin with when compared to analog masters. So in order to get "better than CD" quality you would have to rip from the master tape. Also, file size would have to be less than 60mb per song. (size of a 5 minute uncompressed song from a CD)
While most master-to-CD transfers sound fine, classical music tends to lose its "warmth." I am no audiophile but I noticed a big difference when I listened to Crux Shadows live and on CD. Speaking of audiophiles, by the time they can afford to buy their must-have equipment, they've already lost their hearing. Give them 128kps mp3 file stamped on vinyl and will swear it sounds better than your original CD :)

Re:CD is the problem, not wma, mp3 or ogg

[norton_I]

Are you sure that the problem isn't in the mastering engineers, not the CD format? Almost all pop music is dynamically compressed within an inch of its life to make it sould louder on cheap equipment. I am told that this is much less of a problem with classical music, but classical music also tends to have a much higher crest factor than pop, and is therefore more sensitive to compression as well.

The noise floor and dynamic range of a CD with a high quality DAC should be better than almost anybody's ears, if correctly mastered. DVD-Audio should be even better than CD, with multi-channel to boot, and also gives recording engineers a lot of headroom in the ultrasonic to avoid aliasing while using low order filters that are in principle somewhat gentler on the sound. SACD on the other hand is a travesty, superbly wasteful of bandwidth, while having less resolution and more noise in the highest octave of the audio range and much, much more noise in the ultrasonic, which is inaudiable, but can have negative effects on the audible spectrum because of effects in the tweeter.

Re:CD is the problem, not wma, mp3 or ogg

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

CDs have flat sound to begin with when compared to analog masters. So in order to get "better than CD" quality you would have to rip from the master tape.

Steve Jobs claimed that they had gone back to the master tapes for some of the songs on the Apple Music Store. My guess is that it's a few of their "featured" classic albums.

Re:CD is the problem, not wma, mp3 or ogg

[Canar]

Bullshit. Vinyl can't even manage a dynamic range of 60dB at some frequencies. See here for a scientific study proving so. Vinyl is "warmer" because it is less accurate. Welcome to my foes list, Mr. Disinformator.

Re:CD is the problem, not wma, mp3 or ogg

[nxs212]

you read my post too fast. I was comparing LIVE music, as in concert on a stage, to processed and stamped onto a CD. Same for analog studio vs CD.
Vinyl is only mentioned to illustrate a point - just because it's analog it doesn't mean it's better. CD-to-mp3-to-record will sound horrible and not much worse than cd-to-mp3-to-cd. I agree 100% with Norton_I that once mastering engineers are done compressing and tweaking, audio cd sounds nowhere near the original.
I also mention that "older" audiophiles don't know what they are talking about. There were some horrible transfers to CD that actually DO sound worse than their vinyl counterparts. And YES, it has nothing to do with bandwidth avail and everything to do with method used to format the source to fit it on the cd.
I am glad Apple is digging up master reels, even if it's only for a handful of albums.
Oh, and I missed "they" in a sentence. I guess I am sentence-dyslexic

Ok, here goes...

[MjDascombe]

OGG is /NOT/ gaining in popularity you biggotted linux weenies. Linux is not the best operating system, and no one cares if OGG is slightly better than MP3 - people have MP3 collections, and they're not about to re-rip to OGG for the hell of it.

I mean, by all means have opinions, but while you live in your closed-eyes, hands-over-ears, linux-is-the-only-option-and-it's-gaining-populari ty world, what are you going to acheive? fuck all, thats what, just like in real life.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[Anita Coney]

Sure he's flamebait, but he's right. When I decided to rip all of my CDs and store them on my computer, I tried various formats. MP3, MP3pro, WMA, and yes OGG. In all honesty I could not hear the difference between any of them whether I played them via headphones or through my Sony STR-DE475.

Thus the choice was easy because only one factor remained: ubiquitousness.

Will it work with any portable player I buy, or will my hardware choices be limited?

Will I be able to share them with friends without having to explain how to play them?

Will it work with programs such as Nero without decoding the files to a different format first?

One format fit that criterion and it was MP3. Sure it's proprietary. But so is my car. I'm not going to stop using something that works merely because its proprietary. Computers are tools, not a religion!

Re:Ok, here goes...

[Alric]

Alright. Ogg Vorbis is gaining popularity, but most people are not willing / too busy to re-rip their collection.

If you really believe that Linux is not rapidly gaining popularity, you must be living in some closed-eyes, hands-over-ears world. Commercially backed distros like RedHat and Mandrake are making huge inroads into the server market, and even many of my non-IT friends have begun to ask me about Linux.

This kind of troll is just pathetic. But for some reason I just wasted three minutes replying. Oh well. I guess you win.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[MjDascombe]

Sorry - I didn't mean linux is not gaining popularity - it obviously is, as I remember before it was invented, and no one used it :P

I simply mean that repeating this fact over and over like rainman to convince yourself its true, as seems to be the passtime on slashdot, is neither productive nor healthy.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[MjDascombe]

Absolutely. I mean, who cares if it's propriety? Sure, it fits in with the nice free-software-is-great mentality, but lets just sanity check that for a second : Who here has a completely legal MP3 collection? With the MPAA charging $125k a track for pirated music, do the technical symantics of the EULA of your music players file format (not the player, the format) matter that much?

If you love free as in sunshine software, and pride yourself on using open protocols your allowed to : STOP COPYING MUSIC. If you want free music, accept your ripping people off, and do the whole job

It just seems to me that with all the self-praising of opensource slashdot does, it's shooting itself in the foot - haven't you seen any of the rocky films ; it's always the underdog who wins ; free software can only improve while people will admit it needs improving, and thats not going to happen with all the brown-noses on slashdot.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[dozer]

If you ripped Dark Side of the Moon (or any other continuous-mix album), you wouldn't use MP3.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[Trogre]

There are those of us who are legit.

I have an extensive ogg collection, consisting entirely of music ripped from CDs that I OWN, and do not distribute any further.

Please don't put all us music rippers into the same basket.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, you tit, I supose you ad-hoc to.

Re:Ok, here goes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever moderated this as a troll just got their butts spanked in metamoderation. Just so you know.

You have no idea what you are talking about

[RoLi]

I wish lossless compression was at a point that it would be practical for this.

And I wish you would get a clue.

There is no such thing as lossless and there never will be.

A 128kbps ogg-vorbis file mastered directly from the source will be closer to the "original" than what you find on CD today if used with a higher sampling rate.

Of course it would be useless because nobody could hear the difference anyway, so why bother.

There is only lossless compression if you define the CD as the original, which of course is pure nonsense, because the CD is also just a digital approximation, no more no less.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[afidel]

The encoding process is lossless from the source, aka there is no loss of information from the origional to the copy. Basically the lossless encoders are specialized version of encoding schemes like those that power gzip, zip and rar.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

(Why are so many people here always so rude about everything?)

Yes, it's impossible to losslessy compress or at all record the original continous audio signal - but this signal *does not exist*, so it's no great wonder. Sound is a high-level phenomenon based on the movements of the particles of which the medium (in the case of music, almost always air, i.e. a mix of approximately 3:1 nitrogen and oxygen, but the levels vary and there are thousands of other gases, floating specks of dusts and what have you) is composed. But for a completely accurate recording, you'd have to know and continously (not discretely) record *all* properties of every single elementary particle in the entire universe, which is a monumentally stupid idea. (since some effects at quantum level are believed to be non-deterministic, you can't just store the starting state and the length of the recording)

And then you'd have to find a way to accurately play it back for all that effort to make any sense.

Now, what do you think are the chances that the poster to whom you were responding had this in mind as the source for the compression, and what are the chances that he was thinking of a (sufficiently) high-quality uncompressed digital recording?

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[ShrikeDOA]

Last time i checked, Zip was lossless compression.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[RoLi]

Exactly - and now you explain how to get a lossless copy out of a lossy digital representation which is found on CD.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[afidel]

if you can hear any dropoff of information in a cd then you are superhuman because studies have been done with audio engineers using blind tests between DAT and cd and not one could consistantly pick one over the other. There are advantages to DAT going into post production but for listening there is no difference between the two, 44.1Khz PCM is good enough to reproduce sound for 100% of human ears.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Not my ears.

OOps, they're not human.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

And I wish you would get a clue.

There is no such thing as lossless and there never will be.

Oh not another "no such thing as lossless compression" ... I hate it when simpletons post comments like this, and have probably used WinZip and have no idea how the magical software works.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you are right that there is no such thing as lossless reproduction of a sound. But, there is certainly such a thing as compression that isn't lossy, and there is also definitely such a thing as having further losses beyond the losses you've already had.

Aside from the fact that you're really making an unfair comparison if you use a higher sampling rate for the lossy than you do for the non-lossy, the ogg-vorbis actually won't sound better than the CD if you ultimately play them both through a 16-bit @ 44.1kHz D-to-A convertor. If you do that, then the process involving lossy compression ultimately becomes yet another way to reduce sampling rate and/or word size. And there already has been lots of research done into how to get good results when doing those kinds of conversions, so I doubt that compressing with a lossy codec and then decompressing is likely to be the best-sounding way! I know you don't have to play ogg-vorbis at the CD sampling rate, but I am trying to speak of real-world scenarios, which is presumably why you're comparing high sampling-rate ogg-vorbis to CDs. (Otherwise, why not compare ogg-vorbis to SACD or some other non-lossy format that's superior to CD?)

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[RoLi]

if you can hear any dropoff of information in a cd then you are superhuman because studies have been done with audio engineers using blind tests between DAT and cd and not one could consistantly pick one over the other.

Finally we are progressing.

So:

Why is the non-audible loss on CD accepted but but some are hysterically telling that the equally non-audible loss on a good ogg-rip (or even mp3-rip at higher bitrates) are sooooo terrible?

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree; CD's sound like shit to me.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Sancho]

Shouldn't even bother feeding the troll, but oh well....

If we're talking about compression, we're talking about taking data removing redundancy to make the file smaller. There are two types of compression: lossy and lossless. Lossy means that the original data cannot be recovered perfectly. There will be some amount of lost data. The hope is that the data will be imperceptible. Lossless means that the original data can be recovered perfectly. The terms lossy and lossless can only apply to the compression scheme, which has an input and an output. Where the input comes from doesn't matter. You could have lossy compressed information 1000 times, but on that 1001th time, if you use lossless compression, you'd better be able to recreate the input of that 1001th time (which happens to be the output of the 1000th time).

So lossless compression /is/ possible, but you will only get results as good as your source, which, in the case of a CD, is digitally sampled and therefore lossy to a very small extent. When you losslessly compress a CD, you expect to get the exact same data back when you decompress it, but no one thinks that you should get back the original analog data.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[afidel]

because there are high range details dropped by both lossy encoders that CAN be heard by some people, I have heard them in some situation myself even when giving the encoders a basically limitless bit resivoir (Lame extreme and Ogg Vorbis highest).

p.s.
yes my spelling sucks, live with it =)

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

He's some sort of wizard! Let's burn him!

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[HalimCMe]

There is, in fact, lossless audio compression, and there are quite a few programs to do it, including the open source FLAC.

This page has a nice overview of lossless audio compression.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

And I wish you would get a clue.

And anyone with a clue wishes you'd shut up before you further embarrass yourself by your combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Fact is, there are plenty of lossless compression schemes. You may be familiar with GIF and ZIP formats. The fact that you are not familiar with any of lossless audio formats does not mean they do not exist. Do a google search for "lossles audio compression" and see if you can find some.

What you are talking about is that digitization part of CD processing, that is lossy. But that has little to do with claiming there can't be non-lossy COMPRESSION methods, digital data to digital data. It is possible to compress such data, by varying amounts that depend on redundancy in compressed content, while still guaranteeing 100% exact uncompressing.

Re:You have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - and now you explain how to get a lossless copy out of a lossy digital representation which is found on CD.

Who said anything about reproducing original signal? The whole point is reproducing digital signal CD contains, that can easily be done without a loss. Obviously the original signal is lost, but what does that have to do with compression? Furthermore, what have you been smoking, dude?

Not true

[autopr0n]

I don't know how much it's worth to pay for headphones, but there are definetly some that sound better then others. Some also have better gemoetry for fitting in your ear.

Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[pz]

Let's see. Given the task of creating a codec de novo and the financial and political means to have access to the original source material rather than a version sent through a horribly non-linear sampling mechanism out of your control and beyond your specification, which would you choose?

I'm sure most Slashdot readers will be familiar with the Nyquist limit and understand the complete inability to represent information above the limit, but how many are familiar with the degradations that occur near the Nyquist limit when you have non-infinite signal lengths? This is why oversampling is so important. In general, if you have a signal at frequency f that you want to accurately capture, you should be sampling (by rule of thumb) at 5f or greater. If you sample at lower frequencies, the distortions in phase and amplitude are difficult to predict and statistically analyze as they tend to have uniform rather than Gaussian distributions.

So again, I re-pose the rhetorical question: given the task of creating a new codec rather than rewriting an old one, wouldn't you want to use the least-filtered signal possible as a source, especially when the extant filtering is non-linear, and be able to select by design which parts to encode and which parts to ignore? I sure would.

AAC works for me...

[berniecase]

I bought about 10 songs from Apple's music service yesterday, and they all sound great. When I got home, I ripped Would? from Alice in Chains's Dirt and compared it to the 182kbps VBR MP3 I already had. The AAC sounded about the same as the MP3. It didn't sound worse, and I was running this through my iMac G4's audio system and then a pair of Polk bookshelf speakers I have on my desk (and a Pioneer receiver/amp). I'll stick with AAC, and I'll stick with the iTunes Music Store. For my money, it's a good deal.

What about...

[fireboy1919]

When you can't tell what to listen for?
You always can? Good for you.

But for everyone else, looking at the error spectrum for, say, random noise, will tell us what music to play to accentuate the error so that the listening test works, and what sound equipment to not use in order to hear the problems (we wouldn't want to have a low pass filter put on something that has problems in the high end, now would we)?

Look at spectral readouts for long enough, and you get some idea of what kind of artifacts you're going to hear, and you can listen for them and see how bad (what volume, how well they blend in, etc) they really are.

They are not useless; they are a good first step.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG. If beforehand you think the high-end is screwy, you will hear a screwy high-end. It doesn't mean the high-end contains artifacts, it means you are hearing what you have told yourself you should hear.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spectral analysis is never a good first step, and no codec developer uses spectral analysis as the first step when evaluating quality.

You always listen first, and look second. That is how it works. There's no way you can say for sure which artifacting is going to sound worse just by looking pictures. If you claim that, you don't have much experience. Sure, you can sometimes say, but you can't make conclusions based on something which is not consistent.

Sad to see many uninformed messages get often positive moderation here. I hope some codec developer writes here and silences the uninformed crowd for good...

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

But for everyone else, looking at the error spectrum for

The error spectrum shows the total quantization noise, not the audible quantization noise which counts. Sure, you can get hints about the quality, but you can't make conclusions based on error spectrum, because you don't know exactly how much of that total quantization noise is masked, and how much is audible quantization noise.

Under-reported but VERY important distinction:

[mxcantor]

from macslash:

AAC comes with a significantly lower number of b*tching [\.] users than ogg

Ogg vs. AAC

[Zebra_X]

They simply can't be compared. The reason for this statement is that AAC "supports" or "is encumberd by" (depending on what camp you are in) digital rights management. While they are all formats for redistributing music, OGG is not an option when trying to negotiate with record companies who need some assurance that their music won't be redistributed.

A better comparison would be WMA vs. AAC and OGG vs. MP3.

Your Real Score Is: -1, Wrong

[Jerk City Troll]

My personal experience with Ogg is that it takes forever to rip a CD using the format.

Ogg is an audio encoding format. It has nothing to do with ripping. Christ, who moderates here?

I personally don't know why this is (perhaps just a problem with the software I was using?) but

Perhaps it's your CD-ROM. Some CD-ROMs make it difficult to extract audio, and so the ripping software has to do plenty of magic to make this work. Read this page to learn something. See the section Like Pulling Teeth.

Re:Your Real Score Is: -1, Wrong

[falsified]

I had forgotten to mention the word "encode" but it was implied by the subject. Anyway, thanks for the help on the second part.

Re:Your Real Score Is: -1, Wrong

[PhoenixFlare]

Don't be an ass.

He means that it takes forever to rip from a CD and encode that data to the Ogg format.

Why the hell would you think he was ripping Ogg files directly from a CD?

I think you missed his point

[Anonymous Coward]

His point was that the compression ratio could not be guaranteed, not that lossless compression was impossible.

As to the accuracy of his point, I'll leave that to others.

Re:I think you missed his point

[Anonymous Coward]

It's absolutely accurate, there's no question about it.

Here's a simple proof. Imagine you have a lossless compressor with a guaranteed compression ratio. Now, consider the set of all possible files with length N or shorter. (For the record, there are 2^(N+1)-1 files in this set.)

Now, using the hypothetical compressor, compress every file in this set. Because of the guaranteed compression ratio, all the output files are shorter than length N. But there are only 2^N-1 files that are that short (and 2^N-1 is smaller than 2^(N+1)-1), so it's impossible for the compressor to have a different output for each of its input files. There just aren't that many unique files that are that short. What this means is that somewhere along the line, you had two different files (call them A and B) and when you compressed them, they translated into the exact same thing as each other! Now, how is the decompressor going to take that same compressed data and produce file A in some cases but file B in others? Unless it's clairvoyant, it just can't know when to produce A and when to produce B. And that means you do not have lossless compression, because you'd lost the distinction between file A and B.

Re:I think you missed his point

[stanmann]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, But your point doesn't parse.
1. You don't try to compress every file of size N or less. You attempt to compress every file of size N or less which contains meaningful data.
2. There does not exist a "lossless compressor" with "Guarranteed compression rate".

Re:I think you missed his point

[japhmi]

I think if you read "It guarantees an 8:1 compression ratio" as "It guarantees a minimum 8:1 compression ratio" it would make sense.

QuickTime AAC -> AIFF/WAV -> MP3

[kriegsman]

Thanks for the info.

My guess is that it's less than a week before we see someone write a drag-and-drop tool for doing this that also copies all the tags, etc. An binary executable converter wrapped in a friendly iTunes AppleScript would be great, but that might take two weeks.

I know a couple of Apple developers who are already looking at the problem from a coding point of view, since they, also, own devices that can only play MP3s.

Why is ogg better?

[Anonymous Coward]

They both using a 'masking model' to determine what you will not likely hear. Which is better and why?

I know that MP3 (mpeg2 layer3 audio) does not use any temporal masking when it decides what to throw away, something that even attrac (minidisk) did. What about Dolby AC3, it has a seldom used 2 channel format.

Are there really nerds/geeks here? Or just want-a-bees all woried about wasting there precious mod points.

PNG

[Ender Ryan]

Yeah but, people aren't really switching to PNG because IE doesn't support it. The same is true of Ogg, no hardware support.

So, instead of people doing the intelligent thing and switching to something that is unencumbered by patent liability, people stand around with their pants down and get bent over.

It sure is painful to watch...

Re:PNG

[MtViewGuy]

Yeah but, people aren't really switching to PNG obecause IE doesn't support it.

Then how come I can display .PNG files in Internet Explorer 5.0 and newer? Go to Herdthinners.com (one of the online distribution sites for Bil Holbrook's Kevin and Kell daily comic strip) and the strip is displayed in .PNG format.

Re:PNG

[Ender Ryan]

IE still does not fully support PNG graphics, specifically, it does not support alpha blending, one of the major features of PNG.

Re:PNG

[SomeOtherGuy]

PNG and OGG share a similar fate. Superior formats that are crippled by lack of support on the (to use a computer term) client side. OGG is virtually not available in the portable music digital player market. (I am sorry but a PDA does not count) -- no matter how long we have heard that popular marketing term "Firmware Upgradable to Future Formats such as Ogg Vorbis" -- we have yet to see it play out in the real world.....Which must mean that the chips on these things just can't decode OGG. As far as PNG being a standard, I hate to say it but IE does seem to have upwards of 90% of the browser market -- and just happens to only support the PNG format about 10%, goes to show why you can right click on the /. logo above you and see a .gif extension -- even on a site such as this one that should be supporting PNG before the mainstream. (Hell, even /. does not dare use PNG).

Re:PNG

[Anonymous Coward]

IE:Mac supports PNG completely... :)

Re:PNG

[Admiral Burrito]

IE still does not fully support PNG graphics, specifically, it does not support alpha blending, one of the major features of PNG.

True, but JPEG and GIF don't support alpha blending on any browser, so it's not as if the lack of alpha support in IE is holding people to those older formats.

Still, alpha transparency is a Good Thing, that many web artists would use to good effect if Microsoft would let them. There is a petition to get MS to fix IE.

Re:PNG

[rabidcow]

it does not support alpha blending

It does, but you have to do bizzare filter things in the html. Why they don't make it automatic is beyond me.

Re:PNG

[Doomdark]

PNG because IE doesn't support it

Once upon time this was true. For past 5 years or so, it hasn't really been. At least not regarding common features PNG and GIF have. Some of more 'advanced' features of PNG (that GIF does not have) are not fully supported by IE (at least on Windowd, Mac IE 5+ are pretty good), but basic functionality has been there for a while.

Of course, Mozilla does have superior support for all combinations of bit levels, transparency settings and gamma correction, but IE is not all _that_ bad with every day PNGs, certainly not bad enough to prevent from replacing non-animated GIFs.

Re:PNG

[Baki]

Current IE versions have been supporting PNG since years. I think nowadays all generated graph images use PNG because it is the only sensible option. GIF doesn't have enough colors for complex charts, JPEG being lossy doesn't produce decent charts at all.

The only options are JPEG2000 or PNG, and PNG is supported by all current browsers, JPEG2000 is not (and is proprietary).

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[afidel]

what mp3 encoder did they use and what settings? mp3 encoders are so incredibly different that they might as well be different formats. LAME and Fronhoffer are in one set and then there are the ok encoders, and finally there are the Xing's and such that just don't produce listenable results at any bitrate.

It's getting there.

[eddy]

Well, it has completely taken over the game-dev market. There's a looooot av gamers in the world (and yes, many of them actually come in contact with the format the games use, since modding and mucking about with games is also very popular)

And it's _vorbis_.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[Halo1]

The quality of an AAC file very much depends on the encoder (it's the same with mpeg4 video or mp3 audio). The test you are refering to only shows that the encoder they used (the one present in Quicktime at that time) was quite bad. It doesn't mean that AAC in itself is bad.

You have no point.

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't matter at all. It's stupid to attempt to judge fine gradations in audio quality by looking at the signal, regardless of the domain in which you've chosen to do your examination.

Vorbis is not on all Winamp versions

[edgarde]

Note that the Vorbis coded is included on the Full install (2.9, 3.0) of Winamp, but not the "Standard" or "Lite" installs.

Users who have Winamp because it came bundled with other software usually do not have the Full install. The Netscape 7 package comes with (I believe) Standard.

Winamp.com's own comparisons do not mention which package includes Vorbis.

• Winamp 2.9 package options
• Winamp 3 package options

The better AAC is...

[jonnythan]

The better songs are going to sound when they get piped through an analog channel and encoded as MP3's.

Why?

[cca93014]

Why are "audiophiles" talking about compressed music? Isn't it a bit like Ayrton Senna driving on remoulds?

Musical Frogs

[_Sprocket_]

All most people care about is whether it costrs them money. mp3 is free for most users so what benefit does this strange sounding opgg format give?

The average user doesn't understand the majority of technology they use. But that doesn't mean they won't follow a trend. And that trend is often set by those who either do understand the technology or understand the business around the technology in question.

Outside of obvious defects, usually highlighted by a lumbering mixture of competition and pundits, the average user will follow the market. Even if that market shift costs them. But when it doesn't cost anything, they'll shift without comment.

Its the old "how to boil a frog" routine.

Ogg vorbis is available either as a free plugin or as a default in most popular software music players. If content starts showing up in this format, the average user will go clicky-clicky on it and play it. They may even want to play it on their portable music system of choice - which means supporting the format directly or including conversion software.

But the real push will be early adopters, technophiles, and audiophiles. If the format fits these requirements and an early demand forms then the industry will likely meet that demand (especially if it doesn't cost them much to do so - back to the frog).

And that just makes it even easier for the adverage user to follow along.

Windows Media player support

[edgarde]

This plug-in enables Windows MediaPlayer to play Ogg Vorbis files. Unfortunately it doesn't support CD burning from Ogg, which (in XP, maybe other versions) is enabled for MP3.

It's an easy install which the average Windows user would perform if so directed.

It's a big plug-in cos it also enables support for Monkeys, ASI and MJPEG. Enjoy.

Re:Windows Media player support

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an easy install which the average Windows user would perform if so directed.

Why is everyone so determined to miss the point? Yes, there are a dozen ways of adding Ogg/Vorbis support to Windows. They vary in complexity.

Support is not available by default, therefore your average non-technical Windows user will get a window popup asking them which application they want to use to open the .ogg file that they've somehow come across and double-clicked on. At this point they will be out of their depth, they'll click on cancel and get on with their lives - ignoring .ogg files from now on, because 'they don't work on my PC'.

Re:Windows Media player support

[edgarde]

I agree with you.

Re:Windows Media player support

[Apotsy]

Correct. Unless something big changes (like MS decides to provide out-of-the-box support for it), Ogg will never take off.

Re:Windows Media player support

[mabinogi]

Yet somehow complete morons with no business even going near a computer somehow manage to locate and install the DivX;) codec.

Why should vorbis be any different?

Re:Windows Media player support

[DietHacker]

Why the FUD? Linux does not have support by default (unless your distro does). BFD. People that want it will get it and if it remains a small % for a long time, again, BFD.

Think back to the days when 95% didn't have a computer and 5% toyed around with slow-ass modems on Compuserver or something. It didn't matter then what 95% did and it sure as hell doesn't matter _much_ now. Get over it.

Re:Windows Media player support

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet somehow complete morons with no business even going near a computer somehow manage to locate and install the DivX;) codec.

Yeah, once people start coming across .ogg files that they really, really want they'll work out how Ogg/Vorbis works. Let me know when that happens won't you.

Re:Windows Media player support

[Anonymous Coward]

Not FUD, just D. And yes my distro does.

I have nothing against Ogg/Vorbis (apart from the stupid name :). Err. Indeed. BFD, I neither care one way or the other if it takes off in a big way.

Re:Windows Media player support

[edwdig]

You do realize MP3's became popular before Windows included support for them, right? Never stopped anyone from using Winamp.

Speaking of Winamp, almost everyone I know uses it, regardless of their level of computer skills. Winamp supports Ogg Vorbis natively.

problem with sennheisers is...

[EnderWiggnz]

they dont wear-and-tear well... if yer out spinning, the constant nasty wear and tear and the beating that they take will break sennheisers.

sony-600's fer me babeeee - avoid the 700's, as they will damage your ears.

Re:problem with sennheisers is...

[afidel]

For DJ'ing all my friends recomend the higher end Stantons.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[RoLi]

IIRC it was the Frauenhofer codec.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Beta-Max / Ogg analogy is invalid. Beta-Max had higher costs associated with it versus VHS. Ogg is free. MP3 costs money to license. AAC costs money to license. This is why Ogg will only grow in popularity.

You can also take lessons from the past.

MP3 first got popular by kids trading files over the net. DivX is on that same track, first popularized by kids trading files over the net. OGG and more importantly OGM is starting to take hold among the kids trading files over the net.

Amongst Many, dumbass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unreal Tournament 2003: ogg for music
Neverwinter Nights: ogg for music
Serious Sam: ogg for music

It -is- increasingly popular. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it isn't finding it's way into general usage more and more.

Musicmatch

[Compact Dick]

has a lousy ripping engine. It's also mega-bloatware.

You'll be better off using Winamp instead if all you do is play MP3s. If you want a very good, easy to use and free ripper for Windows, get CDex. Also check out my CD->MP3 guide to help you get high-quality MP3s.

Re:Musicmatch

[Anonymous Coward]

err, mega blaotware?

No.

It is fully featured.

Unlike winamp, which is mega crap, it does nothing except play files from a directory, with an extremly bad playlist/interface.

I don't use mmjb to rip, as i mostly download, but when I have it has been more than fine.

till you recommend a better player...so long.

Re:Musicmatch

[Anonymous Coward]

You may want to check out Winamp 2.91 at classic.winamp.com, since they've added a quite nice "Media Library" in the last couple of months. I'm very impressed with the speed and effectness of it.

Re:Musicmatch

[ymgve]

I think you are a bit confused. Winamp 2.91 does not have any 'Media Library', only a playlist. I guess you're thinking about Winamp 3, which does have this kind of library.

Re:Musicmatch

[nekura]

Not true, Winamp 2.91 does have a Media Library feature. If you would be so kind as to right click on Winamp and enable "Library," (it's under Equalizer) you'll see it there. Alternatively, you can hit Alt+L.

Yeah and you wanna know why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was anyone asking for AAC? Heck no. I doubt anyone had even heard of AAC before last month.

However, if you go to Apple's official forums, you will see a gigantic petition of APPLE CUSTOMERS -asking- (begging?) for Apple to add Ogg support to the iPod/iTunes.

And once again, Apple just ignored them. Bitching? Yeah so? They have every RIGHT to.

How to convert from MP3 to AAC with iTunes 4?

[benwaggoner]

In my workflow, I want to keep a big bunch of high data rate files on the home server (about 140 GB of 320 Kbps MP3 files), and then recompress to more portable formats to carry around on the PowerBook or whatever. This used to work fine. I'd use the Import feature of iTunes, and would convert from the 320 Kbps master file to ~150 Kbps VBR MP3 files for the road. While the lower data rates wouldn't work on my home Paradigm speakers, they were fine for listening to on airplanes.

However, this doesn't seem to work in iTunes 4. I see the Import option, but all the MP3 files in my current library are grayed out. Is this operator error, or does this not work anymore? If not, what is the Import function for?

Obviously I'd like to switch to 128 Kbps AAC-LC for my mobile music. But heck, I'd live with being able to make my old MP3 files!

-Ben

Re:How to convert from MP3 to AAC with iTunes 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Select the songs you want to convert
2. In the "Advanced" menu, select "Convert Selection to ACC"
3. ... (there's no step 3! there's no step 3!)
4. Profit!

Re:How to convert from MP3 to AAC with iTunes 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are grayed out on iTunes 3 as well.

Re:How to convert from MP3 to AAC with iTunes 4?

[benwaggoner]

Ah! Just the trick.

Next question - where does the metadata live one they're ripped? In the .m4a, or the library, or what?

Who cares if it sounds good?

[crashnbur]

The dilemma in comparing the quality of sound versus the filesize of various formats is similar to comparing a car's fuel economy over time at different average speeds. How fast do you want to get there, but how much more gas will that guzzle? The tradeoffs are often miniscule, so what does it matter?

If the music sounds good, why does it matter if the next format over has a slightly better way of going about it? The answer is simple: potential for further innovation and the everlasting impossible quest for perfection. Technological innovation is fun to watch.

FYI, I rip to WAV with AudioCatalyst and encode to MP3 with LAME (vbLAMEr pro frontend) at 192 Kbps for most audio, 256 Kbps for really intense music (techno and/or really loud stuff), and 96 Kbps for voice. This easily serves my musical needs, and it provides a simple pattern to follow when I want to add more music to my computer.

I like what I've heard from OGG so far, but I haven't the experience with it to care to replace any MP3s with it. (Besides, when my car stereo plays MP3s and not OGGs, there is little choice to be made.)

Oh and, um, damn you Slashdot for killing that poor server. I guess I'll read the comparison later.

Get source, get fink for MacOSx

[pr0ntab]

and compile your own damn version. Not hard.

Nitpick: (was Re:an audiophiles $.02)

[dutky]

The problem with a lot of systems these days is more than just the speakser and the amp. The A/D converter (when playing CDs) has quite a huge impact.

I own a 30K System (yes, that's a lot of money) and come to realize that most AD converters in consumer grade CD Players are just horrible.

...

right now you cannot get a digital out on the players (they are afraid someone is making high grade copies of the CDs) so you have to rely on the internal A/D convert to get the sound out.

Don't you mean D/A (also known as a DAC or digital to analog converter)? The data on the CD is already in digital (D) format and needs to be converted to an analog (A) signal for your speakers. I don't see any place for an analog to digital converter in a CD player.

most of the people I know do not want to feed the amp with an analog signal if possible.

This might just be my EE bias, but my understanding of the definition of the term amplifier is that it refers to an analog defice. Sending digital signals (two values signals, usually V+ and V- or V+ and 0) to an amplifier doesn't do anything, since the amplitude of the signal doesn't carry the information (the information is carried in the pattern of high and low signals: 0V,+5V,0V,+5V,+5V has the same meaning as +3V,+20V,+3V,+20V,+20V).

I suppose, if you wanted to run you digital signal over a very long cable, you might feed it through an amplifier to get sufficient current and voltage to get to the other end, but it won't change the amplitude of the output sound one whit (or Watt, for that matter). More likely, however, you would re-encode the digital data in a format that could detect and correct multi-bit errors (using a Hamming code, for instance, though I'd bet that data on CDs is already encoded in just such a way).

Re:Nitpick: (was Re:an audiophiles $.02)

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose, if you wanted to run you digital signal over a very long cable, you might feed it through an amplifier to get sufficient current and voltage to get to the other end, but it won't change the amplitude of the output sound one whit (or Watt, for that matter). More likely, however, you would re-encode the digital data in a format that could detect and correct multi-bit errors (using a Hamming code, for instance, though I'd bet that data on CDs is already encoded in just such a way).


Check your standard on audio cds (red book?) about error correction. There's none, or there might be a little, but maybe I'm confusing it with VCDs. But that's why copy protection work on audio cds the way they do. And for "audiophiles", the industry is messing up your sound quality, go sue them...

Re:Nitpick: (was Re:an audiophiles $.02)

[MKalus]

Don't you mean D/A (also known as a DAC or digital to analog converter)? The data on the CD is already in digital (D) format and needs to be converted to an analog (A) signal for your speakers. I don't see any place for an analog to digital converter in a CD player.

What I meant was that instead of doing the D/A conversion in the CD player it is done in the processor outside / in the pre-amp.

This might just be my EE bias, but my understanding of the definition of the term amplifier is that it refers to an analog defice. Sending digital signals (two values signals, usually V+ and V- or V+ and 0) to an amplifier doesn't do anything, since the amplitude of the signal doesn't carry the information (the information is carried in the pattern of high and low signals: 0V,+5V,0V,+5V,+5V has the same meaning as +3V,+20V,+3V,+20V,+20V).

You are correct, I meant processor / pre-amp. Should have made that clearer.

I suppose, if you wanted to run you digital signal over a very long cable, you might feed it through an amplifier to get sufficient current and voltage to get to the other end, but it won't change the amplitude of the output sound one whit (or Watt, for that matter). More likely, however, you would re-encode the digital data in a format that could detect and correct multi-bit errors (using a Hamming code, for instance, though I'd bet that data on CDs is already encoded in just such a way).

As I said, I phrased it wrong. The idea was to get a digital readout of the CD and do the D/A conversion in the external processor. They are usually of better quality than the onces in the CD player.

Then of course there is this friend of mine who insists that the analog signal degrades too much on it's way from the CD Player to the pre-amp ;)

and similarly:

[mblase]

The sound engineers gave a high rank to equipment that produced the sound accurately. The musicians gave a high rank to equipment that made the music clear.

In the same vein, young new-car-owning males gave the highest rank to equipment with the most excessive bass; yuppie parents gave highest rank to equipment that played everything at half speed; and pre-teenagers gave the highest rank to equipment that looped the same four measures over and over again.

Why VHS was better than BetaMax

[SpiceWare]

debunking an urban myth

I "knew" Betamax was superior -- that was the received wisdom, even at the time - and maybe it was, in a lab. But I wasn't buying a lab test rig. In terms of "the whole product", VHS was clearly superior, so that's the way I went. Along with everybody else.
...
VHS won because "the whole product" did what people wanted at a price they were willing to pay. And when people use the VHS v Beta analogy, they are not indicating a market failure but their own ignorance.

GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Will people please stop talking about Linux as though it were a complete operating system? It is not - it is a mere kernel.

Re:GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is an established term; Ogg is not. There isn't already something else called Linux either.

Not true

[msgmonkey]

I've done a few tests with my own comparing my own music that I have mixed down to 16 bit and 24 bit WAV's. Whilst I can't claim that this was a scientific test and whilst this was only with LAME MP3 compression the result was smaller files of around 2kbit/s with the same quality according to the decoding of the MP3 under a spectral analysis of the two files. To lame the processes are the same, except that 24 bit instead of 16 bit samples are converted to floating point.

Spectrum analysis :-

[jmv]

Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform

Will people ever stop doing that. It's complete bullshit and certainly not the way to evaluate a codec. These codecs use perceptual weighting of the noise. That means that the idea is to distort the signal as much as possible in any region of the spectrum where it won't be heard at a certain time. That means that you see a big distortion in the spectrum and think the codec is worse than the others when in fact it's better because it realized that it doesn't matter.

The only way to correctly evaluate a codec is to listen to it. I write codecs (see sig), so I know a bit what I'm talking about. I use spectral analysis sometimes, but only to identify problems which I've already heard before, not to say that my codec is good.

As a aside, I'd say it probably wouldn't be hard to write a codec that does better than any other on those spectrum analysis. They would sound like crap because their psycho-acoustic model would be all wrong.

Re:Spectrum analysis :-

[RebelWebmaster]

Thank you for posting this! Anybody who's familiar with the r3mix fiasco should know all about how far spectrum analysis gets you. It's bad science! Check out the forums over at www.hydrogenaudio.org for way more info on the topic.

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[Schugy]

Well, perhaps you can optimize the code for Athlon64/Opteron. The ordinary 1.0source just depends on the clock speed and I don't like that very much when using any Athlon (XP/64) with low clock speed. Perhaps you have an idea what technology of the Opteron finally hits the Athlon 64 desktop. Thx Schugy

Musicians hear music differently

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so right. To me, classical and jazz almost always sound better live while rock almost always sounds better in a studio recording - very few rock bands (e.g., The Who, The Doors) are better live. As a musician, you are inside the space of the music - in an orchestra, quite literally and quite loud. If I'm playing Chopin and listen to a playback, I use it to identify how I have to change the playing to make up for the translation from what I hear at the bench to what comes out of a speaker. It's never the same and I've only heard a few jazz records and a couple of ancient live piano records (from the teens) that actually capture a musician's sense of the music as though it were truly being played at that moment.

I use relatively inaccurate speakers for the same reason that I listen to old, mono recordings of Count Basie or Louis Armstrong's Hot Seven. The most accurate speakers remove the coloring and I find it harder to add that back in my head than to hear the notes through what to an engineer must be a fog.

Non-players don't realize that the music up close is actually less clear - more on acoustic instruments. And that it's full of imperfections - from the player and instrument. My daughter is a violinist and I have to put my head right next to her instrument to hear her complaints about buzzing and that annoying (to her) string ring.

At the bench, I'm surrounded by bass and the sounds definitely separate as they move just a few feet away. I was listening to a friend run through a few "big" tunes for his next CD. At one foot distance, they blew right through me, with an incredible life. But I also know that the song will be produced and so much distance added that the song won't be as competitive a release as the song deserves. In many ways, I believe major record companies (producers, artists) need constantly to find a new hook or edge for their sound because they can't put music onto a disk so it sounds lifelike.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[AusG4]

Umm, as a musician and music lover, I can say with certainty that if you couldn't distinguish a 64kbps OGG from an original recording, then you have no credibility and shouldn't be making bold statements like "AAC is very weak".

That said, the fact the the "expert test" yielded better results for AAC isn't surprising.

AAC, at least the encoder that ships with QuickTime 6.2 (and iTunes 4 by connection) does a very good job. Ripping from a source disc or even down converting from a 320kbps MP3 into 128kbps AAC yielded a very listenable file in my opinion... more then enough to please me in a decent pair of headphones or through my car stereo.

Original waveform?

[jemenake]

Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform

I was thinking of doing something like this to compare different mp3 encoders about 3 years ago... and then I actually read about how lossy audio encoding worked.

MP3 encoding (and, I presume, most or all of the other entrants) works by altering the waveform in ways that the human ear won't detect. A computer would notice tons of alterations, but, to a human, it might be indistinguishable from the perfect source.

I could probably make a waveform that, when run through a spectrum analyzer, looks closer to the original than an MP3 would... yet sounded noticably worse than the MP3.

So, the point is that any computer-based comparison of the encoding methods is probably useless. These compression methods work by changing the music in ways that humans aren't supposed to detect, so humans have to be the things doing the comparison.

Clarity...

[AusG4]

Let's remember... DivX has been out for a while too. It's an open source format and it yields arguably better results then straight MPEG4, Sorenson, or WMV. But who cares? Look around the web ... count the content you see in QuickTime, REAL and Windows Media formats compared to DivX (not counting the kids pirating framesync'd films). Count the number of MP3's (and soon, AAC files) compared to OGG. The point is, DivX is nice, but like OGG, it's an obscure also-ran in the world of codecs and in 5 years, nobody will remember it except we, the geeks. It doesn't matter how good you think Ogg/DivX/Linux/FreeBSD are ... I love them too, but at the end of the day, money talks and geeks rarely have money. That's why MP3 (and AAC for Mac Users)/MPEG-4/Windows will remain the maintstay. Quality means nothing... if quality were all that we cared about, Microsoft wouldn't have ever sold a copy of Windows and we'd all own DAT machines and beta VCR's.

Watching OGG

[Douglas Simmons]

Slightly OT, but I'm keeping my eye on OGG because any future acceptance into the masses it earns will illustrate a perfect example (even though they are license-free), of how a superior product will climb above the rest in this country and the power of advertising will succumb to superiority.

It might take a while, but that's the ideal fruit of capitalism and OGG will highlight it as the efforts behind its creation were focused exclusively and successfully on designing a superior product and not at all on money, advertising, business models, marketing, and so on. With a little help from consumer "watchdogs" (like slashdot in this instance), consumers will ultimately find and use the best product and no amount advertising will stop them.

Eventually, of course....
Go OGG!

I knew this would happen...

[TheRaven64]

It is a fundamental law of the universe that as soon as I stop using something i t immediately becomes fashionable / cool / popular / all of the above.

Over Christmas, I re-encoded my CD collection as Ogg Vorbis (previously it was in AAC format). I did this for four reasons:

1. The Tremor fixed point codec had just been eleased making support look promising for portable players.
2. Ogg Vorbis is patent-free, making it cheaper or implementors (especially since the codec is BSD licensed, so they can just plug in and go). Again, this made it look like a better bet than AAC for portable player support.
3. Higher quality. There are four encoders available for AAC. Dolby release a consumer and a professional one, and PsyTel releases another. There is also an open source one. The open source encoder sounds little better than MP3. The Dolby consumer version sounds better than MP3 but less good than Vorbis. The PsyTel one and the Dolby Pro. one both sound as good as or better than Vorbis (although the PsyTel encoder has (had?) real problems with harpsichord music). My choice, then, was either an expensive encoder, or a free one. Hmm, difficult.
4. Corruption. My AAC files had a habit of becoming unplayable after a few wee ks. I still have no idea why. Other files stored on the same disk did not. I put it down to bogons. Ogg files did not seem to suffer.

So now Apple have released an AAC iPod. Their online music store sounds great, although I think I will probably keep buying CDs for now (I tend to only buy 'all recordings by artist / composer X' boxed sets). I would be very tempted by the iPod now, except for one minor point. QT 6 includes an AAC encoder. The AAC encoder it includes is the Dolby consumer codec (yes, I do own a copy of QT 6 Pro). As I have mentioned, this is inferior to the Vorbis encoder. Oh well.

Does anyone know if Apple plan on releasing an iPod SDK? I would be perfectly willing to put in some time making Tremor work on the 'Pod if one existed...

" Wish they had WMAs in there too. "

[AyeRoxor!]

" Wish they had WMAs in there too. "

WHAT?!

I'm sorry, but my gut response to that was "fuck you too."

Can someone please explain to me why WMA is flourishing? Does everybody that likes WMA like Microsoft's streaming video format too? I just don't get it. With open or virtually-open codecs like ogg and mp3, why are some of you proud of Microsoft's competing, platform-proprietary codec?

Re:" Wish they had WMAs in there too. "

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you bash the apple proprietary AAC format? I can't play that on my Windows box. Sounds like you're a Microsoft hater who just doesn't want to even give WMA a chance. It's a pretty good codec, but I still use MP3 @ 320kbps because it is more ubiquitous.

Re:" Wish they had WMAs in there too. "

[AyeRoxor!]

"Sounds like you're a Microsoft hater who just doesn't want to even give WMA a chance. It's a pretty good codec, but I still use MP3 @ 320kbps because it is more ubiquitous."

As I stated in a later post, I don't trust the W in WMA's "platform-independent" format any more than I trust the A in Apple's. The fact that WMAs are displacing true(r?) platform-independent codecs makes in closer to the forefront of my mind. When I start trying to find songs and they're more avaiable in apples' codec than ogg or MP3, they will also gain more of my train of thought.

Monty@Xiph says to call it "Ogg". I call it "Ogg"

[Anonymous Coward]

Monty@Xiph says to call it "Ogg". I call it "Ogg". He wrote it, he can say what to call it. No one, I repeat, no one, calls it "Vorbis", or "Ogg Vorbis", except very anal types.

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[Lt Razak]

I think the Vorbis developers are very interesting people.

I tend

[SomeOtherGuy]

I only care about the quality of formats that actually play on all of my devices.

a. computer
b. Portable CF player
c. Portable CD Type player
d. HD Based player
e. DVD Home player


Last time I checked MP3 is the only format that fit the bill as far as being platyable in all. So to me it does not make a bit of difference if AAC? or OGG or WMA sound as good as sitting in Symphony Hall. The same way that it did not matter if BETA was actually better than VHS -- I could not get those little buggers to play in my VCR no matter how hard I tried.

That should be, FUBAR

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be, FUBAR, because, man, that player is one fuck up beyond all recognition. Never have I seen a more FUBAR thing in my life. Except Bush making it to the WH.

Screw it!

[Scholasticus]

I'm so fed up with all of this, I'm going back to my wax cylinders.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[RoLi]

Umm, as a musician and music lover, I can say with certainty that if you couldn't distinguish a 64kbps OGG from an original recording, then you have no credibility and shouldn't be making bold statements like "AAC is very weak".

Well, over 3000 other testers came to the same conclusion, so I think I'm not far off.

That said, the fact the the "expert test" yielded better results for AAC isn't surprising.

The experts still rated ogg above aac, sorry.

Are you sure?

[Snork Asaurus]

AAC comes with a significantly lower number of b*tching [\.] users than ogg

Are you sure that wasn't " bitchin' "?

Note to non-American English speakers: The term " bitchin' " was/is neo-American English (the roots go to California surfers, I believe) for fantastic, as in "that was a bitchin' wave, dude".

MPEG-1, layer 3

[Anonymous Coward]

MPEG-1, layer 3. MPEG-2 is similar, but uses one granule a frame, and cuts the sampling rate in half, with the highest being 24 kHz (half of 48000 Hz, the top MPEG-1 sampling rate). Crap is KING!

Been there... dont that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neo and his friends do that whenever they look at the Matrix and don't want to jack in just yet.

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, if you have a signal at frequency f that you want to accurately capture, you should be sampling (by rule of thumb) at 5f or greater.

The Nyquist limit is actually half the sampling frequency, so you should be sampling at 2f or greater. Anyway what's the point in sampling at 192kHz when even the most expensive speakers can't reproduce more than 25kHz.

"maintaining the shape of the original waveform"

[h4x0r-3l337]

It's too bad the original article has already been slashdotted, so I'll have to go by the summary alone. It sounds like they're trying to determine which format is "best" based on a comparison of a spectrum analysis of the encoded files and the original one. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT! All of the named formats are lossy, meaning that the waveform WILL be different. Once you've established that, the only right way to compare them is to do a blind listening test. Looking at the spectrum doesn't tell you anything. For example, I could take the original WAV file ripped from CD, filter out a very narrow frequency band, and then introduce a single-frequency tone of that frequency. The spectrum would look virtually identical (it would only differ at the frequency that I modified), and so it would probably come out on top in this comparison. However it would sound like crap, and nobody would want to listen to it.

Not better

[Anonymous Coward]

WMV may be okay at higher bit rates, but guess what...windows won't let you record at anything other than 192, and I can hear significant loss at 192 in WMV even with my 45 year old ears. WMV always sounds "flat" compared to the original.

WMV is okay, but mp3 at 256 is the way to go. For stuff I don't care about 192. And BTW, the only 2 decent codecs to use are Fraunhaufer itself (no surprise), and LAME. Lately, I've taken to using VBR in LAME at highest quality which gives me 256 quality with 192 file sizes. This is fine for pop music. For classical or jazz though, you've got to go higher.

People who claim to hear no loss at 128 are not lying; they just have tin ears.

The moderator is on Taco's dick

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the moderators!!! They are complete idiots with no sense of humor, style or taste. I love the fact that I can berate the moderator and they can't do a goddamned thing about it because they will undo their moderation if they respond. Sucks. Doesn't it, you stupid piece of shit? Wouldn't you just love to put your fist through my face for saying these things? But you can't do aything because you are impotent and powerless. Fuck you, fuck you and fuck you thrice!! And you're mother Toto too!!!

ya know..

[NanoGator]

... when ya listen to techno and trance as much as I do, ya dun notice encoding artifacts.

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[maxpublic]

In this case the reason they haven't "taken their encoder to the street" is because others have already done it. The results? Vorbis ranked #1 hands down, with AAC near or at the bottom in all tests - *even below mp3s*.

This was for the average listener, which is the only listener that counts when trying to sell things. Apple is making claims about AAC, rather than throwing it to the wolves for comparison, because they already know they'd lose out to Vorbis and the current mp3 standard.

The link for one of the comparison articles is already in this thread, and I think I saw one other. I won't repost here, they're easy enough to locate. Both of the articles are good starting points on comparisons, and IIRC a simple google search will turn up others.

Vorbis is still the best way to go. Unfortunately for Apple, they aren't in a position to make any money off of it.

Off-topic: my entire music library is mp3, not Vorbis. Why? Can you even begin to imagine re-ripping nearly a thousand cds just to get better sound? Perhaps an audiophile would go to this trouble, but even someone like myself who has exceptional hearing thinks mp3 is 'good enough', especially in comparison to the work that'd have to be done to make a conversion. Vorbis is certainly better, but mp3 is decent as well; when thinking about the work involved in doing another library conversion the differences between the two become more and more trivial with each passing second....

Which is no doubt why mp3 is still the default, even though Vorbis is clearly better than mp3 or any of the alternatives. Everyone else out there is just as lazy as I am.

Max

Offtopic, but has to be said

[p.rican]

I know I'll be modded down for "OffTopic" but, It doesn't matter how many times I see that sig, I just start cracking up. BTW- My brother-in-law (a very anal audiophile) has been ranting about the current CD sampling rate (44.1KHz)for years and does his own music production with equipment sampling at least 48KHz. I also had the opportunity to challenge him on the difference in sound quality.....I'm not an audiophile like him, but there was a difference

quality(wma)quality(mp3); //The truth hurts

[Cid Highwind]

Can someone please explain to me why WMA is flourishing?

Because it *sounds better* at the same bitrate than MP3. I'm sorry you hate it for political reasons (I don't use it either; too much DRM baggage and too tied to WMP), but it is a technically superior codec!

Re:quality(wma)quality(mp3); //The truth hurts

[SomeOtherGuy]

I hate to admit it -- but back in the day when I was "limited" to 64 megs of Compact Flash in my player -- I tended to encode to 64K WMA because it did sound better (to me) and produce smaller files. However, I was ashamed and have gone back to MP3 since I have a 20G "portable" nowdays.

Re:quality(wma)quality(mp3); //The truth hurts

[AyeRoxor!]

"I'm sorry you hate it for political reasons"

As easy as it is to read my post and say that, which seems itself like a political knee-jerk, you should be able to see that it's not a political reason. Like you stated, it has DRM-out-the-ass implications, as well as the platform-proprietarity I *explicitly* mentioned. (What does the W stand for, smart guy?)

This also applies to the A in apple's format. These tards (W & A) should stick to making OS's. I and probably many others don't trust something as truly platform-independent when it has the name of an OS in its name.

Re:quality(wma)quality(mp3); //The truth hurts

[Cid Highwind]

What does the W stand for, smart guy? This also applies to the A in apple's format. These tards (W & A) should stick to making OS's.

AAC stands for "Advanced Audio Codec" not Apple-something-something. It's been around a lot longer than iTunes and Quicktime 6, too. There are free encoders and players available, including an xmms plugin, but somehow I doubt the open-source versions will play DRMed files. :(

Does Apple ever tell the truth anymore?

[esanbock]

I mean really, first they call the G4 a supercomputer (it was actually slower than a same-price intel machine). Now this. Shameless.

actually

[asv108]

That is the first sound test that's ever been done on our website. While I do like the quality advantages of OGG, I'm forced to use 320 kbps Mp3's for audiotron compatibility.

Could someone tell me how Unisys got .GIF?

[The Lynxpro]

Seems to me from my history lesson that Compuserve created the .GIF format and didn't start pressuring BBSes and other services for royalties until the late 80s. How did Unisys get their grubby hands on it? Did Compuserve sell the format before AOL acquired them?

Re:Could someone tell me how Unisys got .GIF?

[Anonymous Coward]

.gif was created by compuserve in 1987, but it uses LZW (lempel-ziv-whelch) compression, which was patented by unisys. unisys wanted to charge a license to websites that were creating gifs on the fly, or software apps that used the gif format.

Re:Could someone tell me how Unisys got .GIF?

[ptr2void]

I think Unisys had a patent on the LZW compression algorithm which is used to make GIFs. IMHO the patent has expired, so GIF is "free" again. I'd still prefer PNG for the quality.

Re:"maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[asv108]

We compared all the lossy formats to a wav ripped straight from the CD.

The main reason Apple choose AAC

[Anonymous Coward]

is that besides the very good quality (better than MP3 at 128Kbps), it has a built-in encryption facilities. OGG does not.

Spectrum analysys of perceptual codecs is useless

[svirre]

"Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform."

One of the things a perceptual encoder does is to transform the spectral content in sunch a way that it is cheaper to represent the remainder while not affecting how the result sound to the human ear.

Using spectral analysis to compare the encoders might not show anything other than which encoder is worse in optimizing the spectrum.

The only proper way to test the codecs is to do a rigorous double blind study with the original material as refrence.

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[cei]

I did some test rips in iTunes 4 last night and was suprised to find that AAC ripping at 192 was often twice as fast as LAME -r3mix, which was my old standard for ripping. So not only are they producing a decent sound at a similar size, you get the file faster, which is nice when you're working on a ~1200 disc library.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[AusG4]

OK man, you really do have to READ the reports you are referencing first. To quote:

"Ogg Vorbis files were found to be the closest to the reference file by 25% of online testers (as compared to the uncompressed wave file, which was correctly identified as closest to the reference file by 41% of testers)."

This says two things... firstly, that 3000 people didn't actually say "Ogg at 64kbps and CD is identical". It means that of the test group, only 750 people actually thought so. Compare that to the 1500 that weren't deaf and/or retarded and managed to notice the WAV file.

Also, the test itself is completely skewed and clearly biased.

To quote:

"Note that Ogg Vorbis is a variable bitrate format. You can tell it to create files with a certain average bitrate, though. In the test, c't made sure that the different codecs created files of about the same size to give no format an advantage. "

This is a major problem with the test itself. Any VBR file is going to yield better results then it's CBR counterparts when using the same "base bit rate". The fact that they "tried to create files of the same size" demonstrates total misunderstanding of the concept of CBR vs. VBR and nullifies the their "ogg is better" conclusion. I'm not saying OGG isn't a great encoding scheme... but it's not CD-quality-at-64-kbps-great like you've tried to assert.

IMAGE MIRROR HERE

[asv108]

Since my server is apparently dead, I put up an image mirror here.

PNG, GIF and JPEG (slightly off topic)

[Jeppe Salvesen]

PNG has three advantages over GIF - it's lossless, it's true-color and it supports 8-bit alpha channels. Yep - it is theoretically possible to do some _really_ sophisticated web pages with PNGs.

JPEG beats PNG on size/quality for images.

Re:PNG, GIF and JPEG (slightly off topic)

[pHDNgell]

I've also never seen a GIF that couldn't be made into a smaller PNG.

- very few rock bands (e.g., The Who, The Doors)

[Anonymous Coward]

sound better live.

That's because very few bands played their own music in the recording studios. The music was played by studio musicians, the Wrecking Crew being the leading example. The "Beach Boys sound" was really Larry Knechtel. Do you think that Art Garfunkel played the piano in "Bridge Over Troubled Water," or that he invented World Beat?

The Beatles quit touring because they, as musicians, couldn't duplicate what was on their albums. That sound was Billy Preston and Klaus Voorman.

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. What he said.

Re: I do it the other way.

[Thanatiel]

Unless you've got some portable-player research skills way beyond mine, your way should say "I do not buy a portable player."

Actually no. I meant exaclty what I said. "No Ogg => No buy", that is.
I never said I found one. (But I'm pretty sure it's possible to have one. Embedded linux would probably be involved at some point but I disgress. I assume you mean "ready-to-use" )
AFAIK "I do not buy a portable player" differs from "I do not buy a portable player which does not supports Ogg". Unless you assume there is no portable player, ever, which would have to be proven.

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[zilly]

I suggest you re-read the parent...

"shape of the original"

[mnemotronic]

Spectrum analysis was used to see which format did the best job of maintaining the shape of the original waveform

Well, that's one way to do it. Probably the worst way. Critical listening generally doesn't take place with an o-scope or spectrum analyzer display, but via the human ear. Consumer Reports, plus most of the "hi fi" mags, don't seem to understand that. They think that "good measurements" indicate quality reproduction, so they run their square waves through the amplification channel and say "looks good ta me, Vern". Funny thing, but they never try the same test with transducers (i.e. speakers or headphones), simply because they don't want to show how poorly these reproduce the waveform.

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[verloren]

To answer your rhetorical question: No, I wouldn't want the least-filtered signal. I'd want the one the codec was intended for. And the common ones today are intended to compress 44.1KHz or 48Khz.

If you were designing a new car today, wouldn't you want to design it with one that ran on the least-filtered energy source possible? (presumably Solar). Or would you design it for what people would use it with, e.g. gasoline (44.1KHz) or E85 (48Khz)?

Cheers, Paul

Milla Jovovich (was Re:To be fair...)

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. As I am already busy with Milla, no way in hell will you ever get to do so!

actually

[Ender Ryan]

Slightly older versions of IE still barf on some PNGs. I have seen this first-hand with IE 4.x.

FWIW, at my company, we are slowly starting to use PNGs for some things, we've been waiting for people to upgrade past IE 4.x to avoid said barfing.

Is the iPod fixed yet?

[Richard_J_N]

I found that the iPod does a ghastly job of very high bit rate MP3s (anything abouve 256), where the artefacts become very obvious. This is especially so with classical music with high dynamic range, in the quiet bits.

I confirmed this with several different iPods on different computers, and several listeners. I even got a demo in a Mac store - and even the salesman was surprised.
(I have some sound samples, if anyone wants to offer a mirror for them.)

Richard

P.S. My saga ended up after 6 weeks of technical "support" from Apple concluding that:
1)There is a bug in the iPod - the processor is too slow - and it throws away data it cannot decode.
2)Apple *hate* their customers
3)I got a refund.

Re:Is the iPod fixed yet?

[foniksonik]

Have you had a better experience with another brand, playing very high bit rate files? If so please inform the rest of us what our options are.

If all of the portable players suck at high bit rate files... well, what then?

Re:Is the iPod fixed yet?

[Richard_J_N]

I'm afraid not. All I can say is that:

1)The problem isn't the MP3 files themselves (They sound great played back on PC, or even on the iPod via: CD -> [convert] -> MP3 -> [convert back on pc] -> WAV -> [transfer] -> iPod )

2)There is, as yet, no system which will allow me to put my CDs into storage, and only use the digitized version. (I want high capacity, and playback which is at least as good as 320k MP3, played back on a non-crippled decoder.)

3)I'm waiting - the current technology just isn't good enough. Hopefully the next iteration will be.

4)Admittedly, I haven't tested the very latest hdd players. So far, though, they're all too heavy.

Also, I want something ogg - capable. Perhaps even a PDA + microdrive.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[fferreres]

But it does prove it didn't sound any better than anything. It "could" sound is not a great technical achievement, is it?

Ok, but what matters is...

[ruyon]

my(and your) ears, IMHO. What sounds the best will be my cup of tea. Fine, isn't it?

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[AlphaOne]

We compared all the lossy formats to a wav ripped straight from the CD.

It doesn't matter!

Spectrum analysis of a perceptual coding system is useless. The whole idea behind perceptual coding is that certain types of sounds mask others, so therefore you can avoid encoding the masked sounds.

The waveforms will always be different... the better the psycoacoustic model the more the waveform will differ for the same PERCEIVED quality.

But that's not the point... does it SOUND the same to the average listener? Does the perceived quality diminish? Does the audio suffer NOTICABLE artifacts that irritate the listener?

No matter what scheme you use, the answer to all of these questions will be "yes" to some people. But how many people say "yes?"

Each person's interpretation of audio is different... some people are tone deaf, others have a very high sensitivity to artifacts, and yet others are somewhere in the middle.

Spectrum analysis tells you nothing about how well a codec encodes for the human ear because the analyzer is FAR more sensitive.

Can anyone suggest a good 'test pattern'

[Anonymous Coward]

Recordings of bird song are good for testing things such as lossy compression. They contain complexly evolving spectra that our brains are good at following, but with energy concentrated quite differently from your average pop/movie sound track clip. If you have sharp ears, this is the sort of thing you can even use to try to justify high sample rates etc. in "non-lossy" (modulo quantization) formats.
Sorry I don't have one lying around to post.

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[Halo1]

I'm not sure what your point it is. The AAC encoder of Quicktime 6.2 Pro, Nero, the stuff Apple uses for its web store (Quicktime as well?) or of any other product may or may not produce equally good or better quality sound than good encoders for other formats at similar bitrates. I don't know which way it is, and neither do you it seems. I was just pointing out that you can't judge a format like this based on the output of one specific encoder.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[asv108]

Perceived quality is useless as a benchmark, the whole point of a lossy compression format is to replicate the orginal uncompressed format in the truest manner while keeping file size to a minimum.

Actually, that's not why gold is used.

[Onan]

I suppose I'm way into TangentLand here, but conductivity is not why gold is used for connectors. Gold is a pretty mediocre conductor; not terrible, but many things (notably silver) are better. The real value is that gold doesn't oxidize, so the connecting surface tends to be cleaner.

So gold _cables_ are actually pretty silly, as I suspect the grandparent was trying to imply. Copper or silver cables with gold connectors actually make a bit of sense.

yeah, right

[micaelus]

oh yeah? then why does .ogg sound like shite?

Do they have watermarks?

[autopr0n]

Try this:
Download song
burn to CD
Rip to MP3
Play MP3 on Mac with iTunes you haven't registered in your own name.

Theoretically, apple could prevent this from happening, I'd be curious to see if it's the case. They could also find out who leaked the file...

Not really?

[autopr0n]

The RIAA have had a site like this for months. 99/track with preview and DRM.

Re:Not really?

[prestidigital]

is that emusic.com?

Re:Not really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where?

Not over 4 minutes

[autopr0n]

see subject. You could take a bunch of FFTs over a few milliseconds and stick them together to retrieve a song (but you would lose low frequency stuff), but you couldn't feed an FFT of a whole song into a converter and hear anything worth listening too.

Re:Not over 4 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

You could if you had a sufficient number of data points in the FFT. But then it would be as big as the time-domain file (and take lots of computation time).

But such a large-window FFT is going to be useless for any kind of visual analysis unless the song is very repetitious. You'd be superimposing all the contrasting sections: loud vs. soft; full orchestration vs. solo; verse, chorus, bridge, and so on.

I can't believe this crap...

[Thargok]

I've been using AAC since QT 6 came out. I have also used Vorbis, and of course MP3 (but ran away from WMA because it is garbage, and have never purposefully encoded with it).

As for the original...HOW CAN YOU DO A SPECTRUM ANALYSIS WHEN YOU RE-ENCODE THE AUDIO TO WAV!!!!! DO IT FOR ALL OF THEM OR NONE OF THEM!!!!!! *tosses results out the window*

-And I know that is because there is no good aac decoder for windows...and "Mac OS has no good software" But still you might as well have re-encoded from a 32 kbit mp3 file for those results

Anyway, it is like this...

Mp3 - Decent old, fairly free
Vorbis - Buggy, fairly new, but older than AAC, free
WMA - You will get better quality singing the song yourself, free if you sell your soul to M$
AAC - New sexy, room for codec improvements in MPEG-4 standard. Good quality at 128 kbit.

(Score: 5, Insightful; Informative; Heartfelt, Funny; Two Thumbs Up; 5 Stars;)

Have a nice day

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[Apotsy]

...the whole point of a lossy compression format is to replicate the orginal uncompressed format in the truest manner while keeping file size to a minimum.

Where "truest" means "truest as far as the listener can tell". In other words, perceived quality.

So then we agree...

[Warlock7]

AAC is superior to MP3. Simple enough. Outside of that, I don't care too much about your analysis, it seems a bit skewed. Difficult to determine which file is which, too.

tree falling in the woods

[sacrilicious]

[accurate sound and clear music] are not at all the same thing.

I'm interpreting this to mean that "clear music" fans object when the sound coming from a speaker has differences from the sound coming directly from a band, whereas the "accurate sound" fans take satisfaction from seeing the recorded waveform being recreated accurately by the speakers.

A few years back, Consumer Reports did an interesting set of listening tests. The usual blinds, of course...[sound engineers and musicians] differed radically in their rankings

In typical media format studies, participants are not invited to compare the output to a live recording. Neither are they given access to electrical equipment to observe waveforms. The question posed is along the lines of "what format sounds best to you", or "what format sounds the most like this thoroughly uncompressed initial sample". I'm having trouble imagining how such questions could lead to a "clear music" approval coupled with an "accurate sound" objection, or vise versa. Any speculation?

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[pod]

That only 41% chose the WAV as the best says to me one of two things:
- the listeners don't know what the hell they're doing
- all the formats are pretty damn good
If the compressed formats are able to fool or confuse over 50% of the testers, then we're probably just splitting hairs here.

Ogg, not OGG

[Adam Dunn]

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that it's Ogg, not OGG. Evidence can be found here [vorbis.com]. I think this is much more important than bickering over calling it Ogg versus Vorbis versus FLAC versus Theora versus Tarkin versus Speex versus Tremor.

Re:Ogg, not OGG

[Ziviyr]

Ogg is the container, Vorbis in the main Xiph audio codec. If you're evil enough you can make Ogg-MP3 or Ogg-WMA. Ogg only implies Vorbis due to common association.

Tremor isn't a codec at all, its a Vorbis playback engine.

You made more nits than you picked. :-)

Re:Ogg, not OGG

[Adam Dunn]

"Ogg is the container, Vorbis in the main Xiph audio codec." --I'm glad to know that you missed my point all together.

"Tremor isn't a codec at all, its a Vorbis playback engine." -- I sincerely apologize for making this mistake. I was on a typing frenzy. Yes, most of us *should* know that Tremor is an integer based playback engine, versus the standard Vorbis decoder, which is floating point, and can't be run on processors without floating point capabilities.

Oh, and to take apart my own post, I don't think Tarkin even has any code yet, so the inclusion of that name is debatable.

Winamp 2.91

[Compact Dick]

does have a media library. From the 2.90 changelog:

• added library (complete with media database, shoutcast listing, playlist editing, CD listing, mass tag editting, plugin API for portable devices, and more!)

Read the complete changelog and view some screenshots. Development of Winamp3 has been halted and Justin Frankel now plans to merge the best of wa2 and wa3 into the upcoming wa5 series, to be released around mid-year.

Sound Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

When listening to any normal stereo, including bose and b&o, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of the reproduced signal, as it is well known that both bose and b&o systems are engineered with psycho acoustics in mind.

Secondly, if you read the manual accomapnying your soundcard, it is highly probable that the total harmonic distortion rating is so high that it greatly increases dificulty of distinguishing the formats.
It is as much a question of quality of cables, soundcard, speakers, etc. as it is of the codec.

Personaly I mainly use DVD Audio and SACD discs, which are like night and day compared to any other format. What one simply has to acknowledge is that downloaded music is enternatinment, it is not music for the sake of art, or the experience of music, and that there are very many measures one can take to improve sound quality when it is output from a pc in the first place before the codec is the absolute limit.

Most decent amplifiers also have linear interpolation systems to improove sound, which also greatly improove sound from compact discs and other low resolution sounces, another way to improve the psychological experience.

Ultimately what it boils down to is that both MP3, OGG Vorbis, AAC, etc. etc. will do the job more than good enough for the average home user, and the targeted customer for any of these services. And if you have paid the money for a system that allows you to push these codecs to their limits (not happening anywhere below $5000 for amps and speakers only) you probably wont mind paying full price for your music either...

Re:They chose AAC because it's already in QuickTim

[evilviper]

How about getting over the problem of each single track costing $1???

I don't know about anyone else here, but paying as much for the AACs as the CD version, is not something I'm going to do. Might just as well make DVDs downloadable for the same price that they go for in stores... It just doesn't make sense to pay same/more money for less.

AAC: Music Format

[Anonymous Coward]

AAC is a format that sells more Apple hardware products, period.

Apple's choice of music format AAC (MPEG4) over Vorbis, MP3, etc.. has nothing whatsoever to do with music quality (note waveform drop above 15kMhz).

Vorbis, MP3, etc... aren't Sales enablers, Sales drivers or very defensible technology platforms.

Music as mere *commodity*. Apple wants to own the layers above the commodity, context and distribution. Apple will differentiate on top of the commodity with innovative products and services. Only 2% of the buying public are audiophiles. The 80% quality of AAC is good enough for consumers.

They'll own your ears!
-r

Well, so, 192k MP3 or 192k AAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an enormous music collection, for my standards anyway. The 30GB iPod is the first big enough to hold it. They are 95%+ all ripped from my own CDs, so re-ripping them into AAC is not to much of a big deal. But although I consider myself an audiophile, for the sake of file space I have ripped them all at 192k MP3s using iTunes. When I want to listen to them in their beauty, I just use the original CD. But my question is, will a 192k AAC file really be better quality than a 192k MP3 file? Yes I can hear anomalies in 192k MP3 files on certain songs, especially Michael Jackson's weird electronic sounds on "Invincible."

What's the verdict here? Should I re-rip them all?

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[Jucius Maximus]

"I'm sure most Slashdot readers will be familiar with the Nyquist limit and understand the complete inability to represent information above the limit, but how many are familiar with the degradations that occur near the Nyquist limit when you have non-infinite signal lengths?"

You're expecting too much ;-) I think that most slashdot readers have not taken a signal processing course. I've taken one (so far) and I do know about the nyquist limit, the sinc function, but I have not heard about the degradations near the limit!

" So again, I re-pose the rhetorical question: given the task of creating a new codec rather than rewriting an old one, wouldn't you want to use the least-filtered signal possible as a source, especially when the extant filtering is non-linear, and be able to select by design which parts to encode and which parts to ignore? I sure would."

Yes, (in principle) I would want to use the least filtered signal, but I'd be more interested in having commonly available digital formats that sample at 100+ KHz before I started worrying about lossy compression codecs. Does digital studio equipment even sample that high?

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[h4x0r-3l337]

the whole point of a lossy compression format is to replicate the orginal uncompressed format in the truest manner

No, the point is to get something that SOUNDS like the original, not to get a waveform that LOOKS like the original. If you can't even understand that, why the hell are you running a website that is supposed to INFORM people?

Re: whats all this, WMA stuff???

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever - in my own listening, WMA rings (has audible artifacts) which sound different but are equally annoying as those produced by MP3 of similar bitrate. (I am talking about 128k, 160k type stuff - what most tone deaf people think sounds good enough, but doesn't really.) It's pretty clear to me that the people at Microsoft who claim WMA sounds better than MP3 have gone to too many rock concerts and completely trashed their ears - or something.

I used to think 192k MP3 was transparent to CD but I started to hear artifacts in such files and so I don't believe it anymore. At 256k, I personally can't tell the difference between CD and MP3. (I'm not saying that nobody can - but I can't.) Hopefully storage capacity of portable players will get large enough that we can trash all this lossy compression stuff and use something like FLAC instead.

Anyway - back to listening tests: at 128k and even 160k, MP3 and WMA don't sound very good at all. I didn't try any higher bitrates with WMA - what would be the point? Might as well just use MP3 if you don't get better compression - plus MP3 is "non proprietary".

I haven't done much listening with the Ogg Vorbis stuff, so I can't comment on that one.

I have listened to stuff done 128k with the Fraunhofer AAC codec. (In other words, what Liquid uses - what Fraunhofer used to distribute as an AAC eval package.) A quality AAC CODEC sounds a lot better than MP3 at equal bitrates, that's for sure! For 128k AAC, it was hard to tell any difference compared to the CD.

However, what I have found with MP3 is that artifacts are very dependent on source material. And despite what some people say, artifacts are just as likely - maybe even more likely - with pop music compared to classical, etc. In fact, the combination of electric guitar and drums is notorious for producing coding artifacts - at least with MP3. I don't know what combinations will cause artifacts in AAC but there probably are some. My listening with AAC is not anywhere near as extensive as for MP3, so I am not comfortable making the claim that 128k AAC is CD transparent. I do know that if you lower the bitrate even to 112, you start to hear some artifacts with AAC. This leads me to believe that at 128k, AAC is just on the edge of being CD transparent. I would assume that AAC around 160k to be pretty safe.

Apple didn't use OGG because

[Anonymous Coward]

they are afraid of open source ....

Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha

[mrklin]

With statements like this: "The test was as blind as possible" and "If they couldn't hear a difference they were supposed to rank randomly" (how about indistinguishable as a choice!), I don't think I would trust infoanarchy or c't.

ogg or mp3

[lightningscorcho]

i always go with ogg or mp3
in general, i think its kind of like VINYL VS. CD
(ogg vs typical mp3)-- with vinyl, i can PUMP it really loud and have no distortion at all, and it will sound GREAT, not to mention when its really quiet it sounds good too.. but with my cd its good when its just mid-range, nothing to loud, nothing to quiet--
with ogg and a typical 128kbps mp3, its very similar, ogg = less distortion
while if you increase the bitrate of the mp3 to something close to 260 or 320kbps, i never really see much of a difference

by the way, I have only come across one portable OGG player-- are there any others??

sort of

[Ender Ryan]

You have to use Active X -- or whateverthefuck -- to display PNGs with alpha-transparency in IE, and only IE >= 5.5. It also has show-stopping limitations is many situations. I have used this hack on my company's website before, and it is indeed ugly.

I forget what limitations are inherent in this kludge, there's a few pages out there about it that can be found with some googling.

In short, it's definately suitable for everyday usage.

Once

[Anonymous Coward]

Once I took Acid and listened to oggs. In the finest clarity of thought it all made sense. The music was seamless and engulfing. The clear psychedelic light made me realize that ogg vorbis is the way of the future.

Solution (somewhat)

[megabyte405]

Just a little info for ya (if you use windows, I use win2k and am not afraid to admit it, though it's mostly for the program I'm about to mention.)

AnalogX <a href="http://analogx.com">link</a> makes a DSP plugin for Winamp called Ozone (There's also a professional DirectX mastering version). It simulates the desirable qualities of analog /tube amp audio. For a bit of info on how it helps the sound, take for example, my dad's opinion. He was in the music industry for many years in the days of analog, and does not use any form of digital compressed audio (or at least didn't at the time when he made this judgement.) I'm using a SoundBlaster live, on win2k, winamp 2.81 or something thereabouts (the plugin runs on Winamp3 too), nice speakers (4 point digital surround Cambridge SoundWorks 2000Digital). Playing a simple mp3 or ogg file of something that's not completely "pop" saturated (DMB, and James Taylor if I remember correctly) my dad remarked upon hearing the sound before and after turning on this plugin how much richer, warmer, and fuller the sound sounded. In anything related to music, I trust his advice, but even I, the relatively untrained ear (as untrained as one could be being the son of a music major, who built a "media center" that played digital audio through his dad's old-school 70's vintage amp and speakers), could recognize how much better it sounded. It's nearly the only reason I stay using Win2k at home. (got the debian and slackware trio-boot, but miss this plug-in in XMMS. Anyone want to make a wrapper? :-) I realize you can't put back sound that you've lost in compression, but this comes darn near close, especially with a nice Ogg (Santana anyone?)

Oh, and by the way, no relation to the company, except the happy recepient of a birthday present purchased at full price from their online store. :-)

(sorry for the rambling post, too, please forgive, and be gentle on the "win user" bad karma, as well)

Apple's Mistake

[PudriK]

Apple should have had a Windows version ready for release within a month. By the end of the year there will probably be two or three services which copy this model, and Apple will have lost it's chance to collect from the other 95% of computer users.

I know technically it is a lot more complicated, since they do not have control of the OS, but it would have been worth the effort. This service will not help them sell iPods, only Macs. For many people a Mac is too expensive. Or they may not be in the market for a new computer yet--they just bought their Dell last year.

Releasing the store with Windows support, while maintaining the AAC format and restriction to iPods, could have meant millions of iPod sales to current PC users. Sad to see such an obvious lost opportunity.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[asv108]

That is the whole point of the graph, the changes in the compressed waveform dictate SOUND changes. If you can't understand that, I suggest you look at the article once again.

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[Doomdark]

To answer your rhetorical question: No, I wouldn't want the least-filtered signal. I'd want the one the codec was intended for. And the common ones today are intended to compress 44.1KHz or 48Khz.

It really depends on your goals. For highest quality output (or at least compromise aiming more at quality than ultra-high compression), there's no denyning one would prefer least-filtered signal. That's just a basic fact; to minimize quantization errors start with signal that has least to begin with. Compression can only add to loss of (physical) quality, not recover.

For getting best compression it may be a different story... and I'd like to hear specific optimizations that are done based on couple of "well-known" sampiling frequencies that you imply there are? (honestly it'd be interesting, and I'm not claiming there can't be any... I'm just not familiar with any).

You may need to work on your analogy though... it's bit hard to see any relevant relationship with your example and signal processing in question.

found an OGG vs. MP3 vs. WMA vs. RA comparison

[Russellkhan]

While googling for the name of a magazine I haven't picked up in years in order to refer to it in my previous posting, I ran into this comaprison of OGG vs. MP3 vs. WMA vs. RA. I thought it seemed relevant an might be interesting to some of you guys.

codecbitstream

[benwaggoner]

And in fact the QuickTime AAC encoder got a LOT better in QuickTime 6.1. It added a broader range of sample rates that could be used at a given data rates, and both faster (but lower quality) and slower (but higher quality) modes.

A study like this is comparing codecs, not bitstreams. While a good MP3 encoder will certainly beat a poor AAC encoder, the more powerful tools availble in the AAC bitstream will enable it to provide better compression efficiency with encoders of equal quality.

Apple used resampling to 32khz

[keeruq]

I guess you guys saw, but just chose to ignore the fact that QuickTime by default does automatic resampling. And in the case of this comparasion it was resampled to 32khz, which OGG wasnt. What is the point of comparing frequencies that is gone from Apples encoding?

MP3 quality

[edxwelch]

These graphs seem to show that MP3s recorded at 128 kB cut off everything above 15 kHz. This would mean that they sound more "muffled" than the orgional

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[verloren]

Yeah, it was the best analogy I could come up with at the time!

I agree that if you're starting from scratch, and you know that you'll generally be dealing with the original source, then get the original source! The problem is that they are using an existing codec which (as far as I know) didn't make that assumption.

My understanding is that some simplifications are made based on the assumed input format. An example might be with cut-offs. Most codecs cut off all frequencies above some limit, generally between 16khz and 20khz depending on several factors. As a general rule based on how people here this is a reasonable thing to do, but it's even more valid given that CDs don't carry significant information much above these levels anyway. But the original source may have harmonics above there that a good codec, knowing they are available, might try to retain.
(I won't bother with what I think is the valid argument that if I can't hear values above Xkhz, some harmonic above that doesn't affect the 'feel' of the music - this is just an example!)

Sorry I can't provide any more justification - try www.hydrogenaudio.org for more info!

Cheers, Paul

Re:Ripping from the source a disadvantage? Huh?

[pz]

I've taken one [signal processing course] (so far) and I do know about the nyquist limit, the sinc function, but I have not heard about the degradations near the limit!

You can easily see what happens if you assume a finite-time signal of, say, 4 cycles of a sinewave. Sampling at the Nyquist limit the exact phase relation between sample points and signal peaks can be adjusted so that the sampled values show anything between zero signal and full amplitude. (This much is also true for infinite length signals.) Adjusting the sinusoid so that the frequency is far below (say 1/10th) the Nyquist limit (or, equivalently, adjusting the sampling frequency upwards), you get many samples per sinusoid cycle, and the exact phase relation between waveform and sampling clock is relatively unimportant (also true for infinite signals).

Between these two extremes, the difference between infinite-time and finite-time signals becomes apparent. Say the signal is only slightly below the Nyquist limit for a given sampling frequency. If the signal is infinite-time, then some sample, somewhere, will hit the peak amplitude of the signal, constraining the reconstruction and making it accurate. If the signal is finite-time, then there is no guarantee that any of the finite number of samples will fall on the signal peak. The exact phase relationship between signal and sampling times is again important, but becomes less so as the sinusoid frequency drops away from the Nyquist limit and the chance of sampling at the cycle peak increases. The worst part about sampling near the Nyquist limit is that the errors introduced have uniform distributions (since without any prior knowledge, there's a uniform chance any given phase relation between signal and sample clock) which make them relatively difficult to model as compared to something with a Gaussian distribution.

From a purely signal processing point of view, a decent rule of thumb is that you want at least 5 sample points per cycle of the highest frequency you want to accurately reproduce. More is better.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[h4x0r-3l337]

It doesn't matter AT ALL how different it LOOKS (whether in time or frequency domain). What matters is how different it SOUNDS. I am more convinced than ever that you have no business running a supposedly informative website about audio. You're a know-nothing fraud.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[asv108]

Coming from a moron like yourself, I will take that as a complement :)

Music? That'll be Linn, Naim etc then....

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few audio manufacturers out there who DO care for the music, and have little time for relying on graphs to tell the picture. If the most brilliantly engineered piece of technology doesn't sound right, it doesn't make it to market.

I guess Linn/Naim are the Apple(s) of the audio world, interested in projecting music, and the feel and emotion that go with it. So it's bollocks to trying to engineer sound waves according to some theoretical ideal, and wondering why it sounds crap.

I bought a Linn Sondek turntable in the early 80's and it's still going strong, sounds wonderful and upgrades are always available to bring it up to current manufacturing spec. You only need buy a Linn/Naim or similar system once, but because of this they are not cheap.

Linn

Naim Audio

Incidentally, Linn is based in Scotland and Naim in England.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you remove critical comments from your website says enough. Yes people, this guy does a bogus review, and will delete any comments that say so...

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[asv108]

What comments have I removed? There are plenty of crtical comments on that thread.

change your threshold!

[asv108]

If you change your threshold -1 on the comments display, that should show all the comments. If you want to moderate for yourself, get a user account and mod away..

I want to know.. legally

[dave1212]

see, my big issue is that I can't stand to listen to anything less then 320 kbps (mp3), if not an 8- or 16-bit /22/44.1 KHz aiffs or wavs..

I really don't like the sound of the high-bitrate oggs, which is very unfortunate, since I very much want to support the format.

The worst part is, (other than ripping my own AACs from my DVDs/CDs and my own music) I can't hear what these supposedly-ripped-from-masters AACs sound like! You see, I live in the Great White North.

So if and when the service comes to Canada, I will be sure to check it out.
..hopefully they'll have higher bitrates available at that time.

The silver lining? I purchased a happy new 7200 rpm 80GB drive yesterday to replace my 30GB and complement my 60GB, with the purchase of a Firewire enclosure looming in the very near future for the drive without a home. Ahh.. room to breathe.

Last word? I don't want to search for AACs or mp4s on any file sharing programs, as I very much want to pay for good (sounding) music. If it must be compressed for the retail cost (argued for a loong time by the labels, I'm sure) to not soar to what we now see as stupid prices, then I pray that the available bitrate goes up and the service becomes available to a few more countries.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[EllisDees]

> That is the whole point of the graph, the changes in the compressed waveform dictate SOUND changes

And that doesn't matter *at all* unless your ears can hear those changes.

Re:maintaining the shape of the original waveform

[AlphaOne]

That is the whole point of the graph, the changes in the compressed waveform dictate SOUND changes. If you can't understand that, I suggest you look at the article once again.

*sigh* I guess you can lead a horse to water...

All the graph is showing us is where the highest level of frequency loss is.

If you take a five minute WAV, for example, and run it through a spectrum analyzer, it's going to show you the average sound level, in dB, over five minutes from a lower limit of frequency X to an upper limit of frequency Y.

If you analyze a the same sample, but encoded with a psychoacoustic scheme, that same graph is only going to show you what frequencies the encoder dropped most often as a consequence of its psychoacoustic model.

So, in essence, all your graph is showing is the preference of the model for one frequency over another.

If you notice in your graphs, all three encoding systems drop off above about 15kHz. This is because 10kHz - 20kHz are the most easily "masked" frequencies to the human ear.

But this doesn't tell us the absolutely most important part of a psychoacoustic encoding scheme (and ask anyone who works on them if you don't believe me): does it sound good? does it remove what people won't hear and keep what people will?

MOD THIS UP

[masri]

Very interesting solution, thanks for writing. I'm considering this as well, since I love the instant gratification thing, but the DRM is just aggravating. It's just good enough that it would be acceptible to most consumers, but not for the more savvy user.

Industry support...

[Anonymous Coward]

Macromedias fireworks use PNG as its standard image format.
Perhaps it will face a future like Beta-Max - widely used by pro's - but nowhere near consumers.