Slashdot Mirror
MP3 Format Still Gathering Momentum
PoliTech sends us over to Billboard.com for a detailed article about the coming tipping point in the music business in favor of MP3. The two biggest drivers pushing Warner and Sony BMG toward MP3 are an upcoming massive Amazon-Pepsi download giveaway and a positive move by the usually maligned Wal-Mart (according to sources): "...Wal-Mart [alerted] Warner Music Group and Sony BMG that it will pull their music files in the Windows Media Audio format from walmart.com some time between mid-December and mid-January, if the labels haven't yet provided the music in MP3 format."
There is nothing they are going to do that convinces me sound isn't free. I have been to over 75 concerts if they want my money I am more than willing to pay to see a band worth it.
Unfortunately, No, the mean straight mp3s. Because mp3s are now like .doc files apparently. Even though there are alternatives that are superior, and yes, cheaper, people still want mp3s the way they want Microsoft Office.
5) Despite the fact that the MP3 technology is over a decade old, encoders are still getting better. You only have to look at the progress LAME has made (particularly the 3.90 and 3.97 'milestone' releases) in not just surpassing the quality of other once-popular MP3 encoders such as Fraunhofer and Xing but in some more recent listening tests even equalling its successor, at ~128kbps VBR, let alone the more high quality VBR presets (V0/V2) that many people rip in and that most pirated releases are released in via the scene.
WMA is just a codec, and plays just fine on my Ubuntu machine. I'm pretty sure there's nothing that MS can do to take that away from me (technically, at least). While this is generally true, WMA and WMVs both are excellent vectors for dreaded DRM setups. Note that not all WMAs and WMVs carry it, but I prefer to stick with a format that is never really DRM'd in the first place, even if I have the same song, for example, in a non-blocked format or encapsulation. But you are indeed right about all that in your post. I just prefer to go by formats not designed by a company already somewhat infamous for trying to control my computer usage. (Microsoft is big on DRM and Trusted Computing, both of which rape the end user in the long run.) This is one of the big reasons why I'll never touch Windows Media Player or iTunes with a long pole. I must give Apple credit, however. They've been making some progress by stripping some DRM from iTunes, but not enough for my tastes. Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
This is an interesting problem, because the companies have to choose between interoperability and customer choice. The *only* way to guarantee that a file will play on a digital music player is to sell it in MP3. One point of moving away from DRM is to end the format war. However, if an average consumer buys an AAC or OGG file and finds that it won't play on their MP3 player (car stereo, set-top-box, digital picture frame, whatever) they're going to be pissed and the format war will continue to rage on.
So I get the desire for Ogg, but to get to a market where format is not an issue, the music companies have to mandate MP3.
So, you are saying that we can start including WMA codec in all of linux's everywhere without any issues from any countries legal entities? And I as a developer of a commercial radio/TV/Stereo running linux will have absolutely NO issue getting a license from MS for a reasonable Price? What do you mean no. But you said that I was spouting falsehoods. Or are you STILL not grasping at how much MS controls on this issue?
Keep in mind that those who control MP3 have no issues with licensing on commercial Linux/BSD. But MS has other ideas in mind. This really is about freedom. And yes, my post stated that I prefer Ogg, but I will settle for MP3 for the reasons that I just stated. Hopefully, you will re-consider your statements
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because the audio quality is good enough for the vast majority of people and file size isn't an issue for most people, either. There's just no compelling reason to force an entire industry to move to a better format. MP3 is not a broken format. There is no good reason to replace it.
At times it may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good. -- Margaret Meade
A) WMA does have better audio quality than MP3, by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times. And this is a good thing as all decoding chips in portable music players all have WMA support, unless it is crippled like the iPod. So you can throw your songs in WMA at 64 or 128 and have almost twice the fidelity of an MP3, especially when you add in better variable bit rate support, etc.
Proof please? I've never seen this substantiated. Also, how do you quantify "better audio quality" numerically?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Ahem, seems like a short history lesson is in order.. *Pulls out a slide rule and a stern expression*..
MP3 has several things on it's side that have been successful for other products in historical situations:
1. all things being equal, the sexier sounding name wins. And "empeethree" has a simplistic, yet technical sound to it. Whereas AAC and WMA can be thrown right out the window. Ogg has some appeal, but nowhere near the sexiness of mp3.
2. Recognition.. whenever a brand has become synonymous with the whole technology they have had the advantage of immediate recognition, this is a major marketing advantage (free publicity anyone?). A lot of who use WMA will still talk about their "MP3 songs".
3. Now.. as to being "inferior" technically. You need only to look at things like DC and AC, VHS and Betamax or Amiga and PC (oh boy, am I gonna get it for that last one) to see that the technically superior solution is not always the one that ends up on top.
However, while the wide proliferation of MP3 *SEEMS* to guarantee it's future based on similar historical events, there is always one historical factor that could change it all: A new technology that offers a decisive advantage over MP3 and manages to capture a fanatical core fanbase. Such pieces of technology have many times overtaken rivals with near total market dominance (does anyone remember Atari, 3Dfx, or Altavista?).
But until something earthshattering comes forth, I see cool runnings for the old, venerable, MP3.
And when you think about it, Ogg Vorbis is the codec equivalent of Esperanto. Everyone can understand the reason to use it, but hardly anyone actually does. If you do use it, you will end up being incompatible with the rest of the world because they just found it easier to use the established codec/language.
Codecs aren't necessarily like languages. I don't bother learning Esperanto because there's no one I can talk to with it; I'd probably have better success learning Klingon. However, a music codec is just a way for me to store music on my computer and portable music player. Why should I care about compatibility? I don't download my music from online music stores (because I refuse to purchase lossy-compressed music in a codec not of my choosing), I don't pirate my music (because I like having the original CDs), and I don't share my music with my friends (none of my friends like my music anyway). So it's just as easy for me to rip my CDs to Ogg as MP3; I just had to make sure I got a portable player which supports Ogg, which I did.
Similarly, I'm also one of the rare people who uses a Dvorak keyboard. I really don't care if every other keyboard out there is QWERTY; I prefer Dvorak. Of course, I can type on either (just like I can still play MP3s on my portable player or my computer), so I don't have problems interoperating, but people who try to use my computer at home usually find themselves totally unable to type. Their problem, not mine.
Yeah, but .wav/PCM is better than either of them...FLAC if you need compressed.
I'm worried that all of this is leading to a time where you can only find the inferior lossy formats of music!?!?
I'd still rather get a CD, and rip it to lossless for home audio, and then to lossy for portables or the car...two of the worst listening environments there are.....
Doesn't anybody appreciate fidelity any longer?
It isn't like bandwidth is that big of a roadblock any longer...why not offer selections in a lossless format online if you must purchase online?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........