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.'"

20 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. *crickets* by jpellino · · Score: 5, Funny

    the sound of all those people who told apple they were nuts for choosing it...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  2. Re:Great... more lock in to Apple by Morgahastu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lock in? AAC is an open standard and was NOT created by Apple. Of all the next generation audio formats (that aren't open source) it's the most open.

    We should be happy.

  3. Much as I like Ogg Vorbis... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:No Ogg? Uh-oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, you'll probably hear more whining from the four people who know what Ogg is.

    Ogg is not an acronym, so don't uppercase it all.

    Ogg is not an audio codec, so don't compare it to AAC.

    You are probably thinking of the Vorbis audio codec.

  5. Re:The main reasons: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    But Apple doesn't own AAC and you don't license it from them. It's licensed from these guys:
    http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4a ac/stan dard.html

  6. Summary by jdreed1024 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I offer you a brief threaded summary of this discussion:

    -AAC sucks, they should have gone with Ogg

    -You're just saying that because Ogg is l33t
    -They should have gone with MP3
    -No, MP3 sucks because of $foo
    -$foo is irrelevant because of $bar
    -WMA isn't so bad, it should have won
    -Troll!!!
    -Great, more Apple lock-in
    -It's not Apple lock-in, it's an ISO standard
    -No it's not -Yes it is
    -Apple's dead anyway
    -When I was a kid, DVD-ROM tracks where in uLaw raw format and we liked it.

    -I don't have a DVD player, you insensitive clod.

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  7. It's better then WMA by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:No Ogg? Uh-oh... by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ogg is not an acronym, so don't uppercase it all.

    uppercase is not a verb, so don't verb it.

    --
    My user number is prime. Is yours?
  9. Re:There is DRM with AAC by romanval · · Score: 5, Informative

    On my mac my unprotected AAC's outnumber my purchased iTunes songs by 100:1.

    How? By ripping my existing CD collection.. duh.

  10. Re:Copying the iPod by Sparks23 · · Score: 5, Informative

    AAC ('Advanced Audio Coding') is the MPEG-4 audio standard, a.k.a. ISO 14496-3 -- it's hardly obscure or non-standard.

    Several of the digital and satellite radio systems use AAC, and a number of software music players support it; Apple's use of AAC to hold higher-quality-than-MP3 digital audio on the iTunes Music Store and for playback on the iPod is just the most-visible example of it.

    You can check http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/ documents/w2670.html out for the ISO 14496-3 draft, if you're curious, or just search for ISO 14496-3 on Google. :)

    --
    --Rachel
  11. Re:No Ogg? Uh-oh... by Charles+Dart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Verb is a noun so don't verb... uh...don't verbalize....verbate....uh...just don't do it!

  12. Re:AAC is pretty decent by Valar · · Score: 5, Funny

    so you're the guy who bought the minidisc player...

  13. Re:No Ogg? Uh-oh... by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 5, Funny

    In English, verbing nouns is perfectly cromulent.

  14. Re:Foaming Ogg Vorbis freaks! by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  15. AC-3 is used on DVDs, *NOT* AAC by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are only three recognized formats for audio on DVDs. On PAL DVDs, the compressed format is MPEG-1 Layer 2. On both PAL and NTSC DVDs, PCM (uncompressed digital audio) is used. On NTSC DVDs, the compressed format is Dolby Digital AC-3. The "AAC" you refer to is not the AAC that is sometimes referred to in the MPEG-2 specification; however, MPEG-2 for DVDs is a restricted subset of that specification. In fact, I get paid to show folks how to do this every day, since it's my work.

    There's a great FAQ as to the formats for DVD audio.

    However, the AAC standard referred to in the article is part of the MPEG-4 standard, and the MPEG-4 AAC does incorporate the formal MPEG-2 specification's AAC as one part of its capabilities.

  16. Correction to your correction by bigdavex · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's true in a practical sense for North Americans, but MPEG audio is valid under the DVD specification.

    If the video is NTSC, a DVD must contain either AC-3 or LPCM. It may also contain MPEG-1, MPEG-2, DTS, or SDDS audio.

    See also the DVD FAQ.

    --
    -Dave
  17. DVD-A is dead for more than just that by LeninZhiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:DVD-A is dead for more than just that by ikewillis · · Score: 5, Interesting
      And the "superior sound quality" of both DVD-A and SACD is well outside the range of human hearing.

      Okay, before we talk frequency response let's talk sample precision. The biggest limitation of 16-bit samples is an effective 98dB of dynamic range. Today's audio engineers aren't making effective use of the CD's dynamic range, and the reality is that compressors are still being utilized despite the CD being the supposed answer to this problem, which was of course much more pronounced in the days of vinyl. 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, not just for orchestral recordings but for rock and other genres as well. The two solutions to this problem are a better audio engineering process (i.e. better training for audio engineers), or updating the technology to resolve the issue. I'll tell you now... the former is simply not going to happen, and I see the latter as the only practical solution.

      A 24-bit system offers 146 dB of dynamic range. While this seems like something which would only appeal to audiophiles who insist on absolute perfection in their orchestral recordings, the truth is that audiophiles tend to prefer vinyl even though any vinyl, even a 78 RPM record (which has a dynamic range of ~75dB) will actually have worse dynamic range than a CD due to compromises made in the vinyl engineering/cutting process. So who then benefits from greater dynamic range? The answer is everyone... 146 dB of dynamic range is more than enough to eliminate an audio engineer's need to use compressors except in the case of the extraordinarly inept. While yes, 98 dB should've been enough as well, today's audio engineers are simply failing to make use of it properly. It's sad that a technological problem is needed to address the ineptitude of today's audio engineers, but the ultimate argument is that it's ridiculous to impose unnecessary constraints on audio engineering if better technology is capable of removing them.

      This is all covered quite well in this article. And here is another article which provides support for a simple claim: uncompressed recordings sound better.

      In terms of frequency response, yes, human hearing extends only to 20kHz, and the Red Book stipulates that the glass masters of all CDs should be produced by passing the final cut through a 20kHz lowpass filter (the theoretical maximum frequency response of a CD is ~22kHz). What this process ignores, however, is that higher frequencies, while inaudible, are still tangible. While this area hasn't been extensively studied and is much harder to quantify, the tangibility of a live performance versus a recorded one is one of the key distinguishing characteristics, and while most of this tangibility typically comes from the bass side of things and not the treble, simply approaching the audio engineering process from an entirely psychoacoustic perspective will leave you with sound drastically different from the live performance regardless...

  18. Re:Codec cracking by StarDrifter · · Score: 5, Informative
    what stops someone from writing a "fake" audio card driver that does nothing but dump audio into a wav file?

    Microsoft's solution to this is called Secure Audio Path. It requires that the sound card drivers be signed by Microsoft if you want to play protected content. And they would presumably refuse to sign any driver which did as you suggested.

  19. Re:No Ogg? Uh-oh... by billimad · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Nouns verb...oh nevermind.