Slashdot Mirror
AAC Chosen For DVD-ROM Section Of DVD Audio Discs
sootman writes "According to a news post at HighFidelityReview.com: 'The DVD Forum has chosen AAC for the DVD-ROM zone of DVD-Audio discs - the inclusion of a low-resolution (lossy) track suitable for solid-state and portable devices has long been championed by DVD-Audio figureheads such as Dolby's John Kellogg as a way of enhancing the value of the format to all listeners, not just those interested in its high-resolution potential. The selection of AAC came after a number of competing formats were proposed; they included MP3, ATRAC and Microsoft's WMA. Additional formats, such as [Ogg Vorbis] for example, were not put forward for consideration.'"
From the article:
... AAC can also deliver multi-channel content."
"High Fidelity Review has learnt that AAC was chosen for a number of reasons, a Forum member told us that it was clear from the outset that it was "...sounded much better than the others," although WMA was not included in the early stages of testing.
"Another positive factor was that AAC is perceived favourably by the music industry because of its associated copyright protection measures and a history of use by legitimate, paid download organisations such as Apple. Conversely, content providers shudder at the very mention of MP3, it is seen as being the root of all evils where piracy activities are concerned. But as reader Mitchell Burt pointed out to us, AAC itself does not provide any rights management functions; the Apple iTunes implementation via their on-line store uses a proprietary DRM package named FairPlay."
I would also suspect that licensing AAC from Apple is an easier process than licensing MP3 would be from Thompson.
libertarianswag.com
Much as I like and appreciate Ogg Vorbis, was there any real expectation of them putting it on the DVD? Many home users probably still have old boxes, have never *heard* of WinAMP, much less consider installing something on their computer, and there is only one or two hardware ogg vorbis players out there.
Though I am a bit surprised that they didn't go with MP3 -- it seems that hardware player compatibility would have been an overriding goal, but who knows.
May we never see th
I've been using it for years since it comes as the standard in my minidisc player. It sounds decent, gets good compression and now the CODEC is even available for use on PCs (which it wasn't when I got my minidisc player). Sure, Ogg sounds better and compresses better, but AAC is nothing to sniff at either.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
The answer is of corse just throw away all your old gear and buy new. Thats what every dvd manufacturer is hoping at least.
Damn Right!!
I know there'll be a lot of hurt looks out there because OGG wasn't chosen, but let's look at this from a different perspective:
It's not WMA.
The competition for this was legitametely between AAC and WMA because those are two proven technologies that happen to include DRM. If the alternative to AAC is WMA, then I'm all in favor of (as if I have a vote) this decision because this is another niche that Microsoft has not filled.
Microsoft's vision of the future paints a picture where every media device is running MS licensed technology. Microsoft knows that operating systems and software are quickly reaching a point where the existing solutions work, meaning that the real money is in things that keep changing. Look at Caterpillar and their dirt movers. When they released their first model, the next 10 years were filled with constant innovation, but they eventually reached a point where the basic design was so solid, your basic earthmover looks the same as it did 20 years ago.
Software is going to reach the same point, and Microsoft knows this and wants to control something that keeps changing, and derivative stories aside, that'll be content.
Cheer this decision, it's another pie that Microsoft's finger has been slapped away from.
The format was useless the second it was finished thanks to the analog out requirements.
Too bad...
Maybe I'm not getting something about DVD-Audio, but why put a sub-cd-quality copy of the music on the disc?
First, is DVD-Audio DRM'ed so you can't rip and encode? Second, if somebody's going to spend the extra $$ to buy a disc with super extra high quality, are they going to care about a lossy stereo encoding?
Karma: Contrapositive
Everything is ripable/copyable/crackable. All it takes is time. I give it one week after release.
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Apple has no monopoly on music formats, music stores, music players, or DRM schemes.
They have a "monopoly" on Fairplay only to the degree anyone has a "monopoly" on anything - Adobe has a "monopoly" on Photoshop, Macromedia has a "monopoly" on Director by these measures.
You're totally speculating whether or not the DVD forum will choose a DRM scheme, and speculating even further that that scheme will be Fairplay, and further that only one software music player in the world will ever play it. Based on all these fantasies, you've decided Apple is evil.
I have very discerning ears and even at the highest bit rates, I can still hear audio artifacts with pretty much any codec.
And I'm sure you've actually done a well-controlled blind test with a significant number of trials, to rule out the possibility that you're just hearing what you want to hear...
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
You're not the only one. Has anybody else noticed that the trend lately has been for making everything smaller and faster, and everybody seems to be ignoring the quality?
This has happened with lossy compression for music; it's happened with cellular technology that only has to be good enough for you to barely make out what the caller is saying; it's happened with parts that are now designed to break way sooner than they ever used to (printers are a fabulous example).
Is there somebody out there who's still making things with serious quality? I want a cellphone that sounds as pristine as a voice call over ISDN. I want lossless compression for my music (yes, I use FLAC) that I'd like to purchase online. I want a printer that lasts like an HP LaserJet 4 that was made this year.
Somebody please tell me I'm just looking in the wrong places...
Dan
And what then. All music from now on will require iTunes to play, and a license from Apple?
I think you missed a key part of the thread above. AAC is not an Apple format. Even if the DVD Forum does specify that DRM will be used, it won't necessarily be Apple's DRM. So far, Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay to anyone else.
It seems to me that they're adding compressed files into the DVD-Audio standard so that we'll be able to copy them to our portable digital music devices - which is a good thing! It wouldn't make sense to implement a DRM system which would be incompatable with 80% of the portable digital music hardware out there.
seriouslyexcited.net
Much as I would like to see more widespread acceptance of Ogg I can see why it doesn't get considered in these sort of situations.
Imagine all the other formats have big organisations backing them. Each will have skilled sales people, glossy presentations showing the features and benefits of their format and resources to plant "incentives" to the right people. Presentation is important.
Contrast and compare with Vorbis. The team have enough resources to code, but what about the money, sales reps, glossy presentations? No chance.
I am sure Vorbis really does sound better than other codecs but I think the final choice is based on a numnber of factors, sound quality only being one of them.
Also there is the question of DRM. That was probably a requirement, not just icing on the cake. That would certainly exclude Ogg Vorbis from the start.
I'd rather not buy the CD at all. It hurts their sales figures all the same.
No, returning hurts more, since it costs the store money to have things returned. They will be less likely to carry things that are returned frequently.
The whole format (along with SACD) offers consumers nothing except a more expensive alternative with "stronger" DRM. As people realise this, there's no chance of it catching on.
DVD-Audio players are required to have analog outputs only, which for multi channel music means you have to run 6 RCA cables (!) from your DVD-A player to your receiver (plus the digital audio and video cables you need for playing DVD videos). And the "superior sound quality" of both DVD-A and SACD is well outside the range of human hearing. At least AAC, DTS, and CD's can be sent to your receiver digitally. (A few companies offer player-receiver pairs that use a proprietary firewire type link to cut down on the cables, but all of a sudden you're in the $5,000+ range and you suddenly become locked out of switching players or receivers to a different brand.)
Whereas if you by a DTS audio disc, for example, you don't need any new equipment, the signals are sent to the receiver in digital form, and you have full multichannel audio. But those don't seem to be getting much support from the publishers. Meanwhile most people (myself included) are likely to be content with DPLII and its cousins like CS2, Logic 7 and the like that do quite a good job rendering stereo sources into multichannel.
"I'd say it's encoded, but not compressed."
:) All digital music "samples" the analog source. A music CD is only 16-bit (I'm not counting the 20-bit gold plated ones - Rykodisc?) for the most part, and 24-bit audio is the *gold* standard for getting near the fidelity of vinyl with a quality turn table and speakers without the drawbacks associated with analog.
And I'd say its compressed.
I'd say we all need some good DSP usage on files such as MP3s, WMAs, AAC, and OGG files to reinsert the "lost layers" on the fly during playback...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I'd say the fact that compressors are still being utilized is indicative that 98dB is simply not enough for the way all music is currently being engineered
I call BS, for several reasons:
First of all, audiologists have demonstrated an illusion of "louder == better" in double-blind tests on human listeners. A record that's 3 dB louder than the competition's may "sound better" to the listener even though the rest of the mastering process may have introduced more noise. Apparently, the record labels may be trying to get the record to sound "better" on already-heavily-compressed commercial FM radio (which is just one big fat advertisement for major label albums, but that's another rant for another day), and they're willing to clip the shit out of drum hits to achieve this.
Second, adult ears have greatly reduced response to frequencies above 16 kHz. I'm 23 years old, and I tested myself not to have any ABXable response above 17500 Hz. There exist noise-shaped dithering techniques that push virtually all dither noise above 16 kHz, extending the dynamic range in the most audible 2000-4000 Hz band above 120 dB.
Finally, room noise fills in a lot of the gaps. With an amplifier's volume set such that -90 dBFS is just below room noise, prolonged exposure to full-scale CD causes hearing loss. In fact, because of several reasons including the fact that the brain itself makes noise, human ears can't hear below 0 dB SPL even in the quietest of conditions. (In fact, that's part of how 0 dB SPL was defined.)
I'm all for 32-bit mixing and 32-bit early stages of mastering. I'm also all for advanced dithering techniques that give the feeling of a 20-bit master in a 16-bit literal word length. In fact, there exist several examples of great-sounding CDs mastered without hypercompression. Even for the most inept of audio engineers, most of the expensive (i.e. better than Audacity or Cool Edit) audio packages can maintain 32 bits up until final mastering and make the most of 16 bits (that is, noise shaping) when exporting to Red Book-spec audio.
Well, maybe that's what people who don't work professionally with digital media mean by it, but that's kind of like calling Explorer "The Internet."
My video compression blog