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.'"
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 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.
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
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.