RealNetworks backs MP3

Harlequin writes "These three articles from Yahoo center around RealNetwork's decision to support the MP3 format. In an interview between Rob Glaser (founder of RealNetworks) and ZDNet, Rob discusses what mp3s mean to RealNetworks and the industry. MP3 -- it has to change or die is a brief mainstream article about downloadable music and it's future. This article concerns the new product, RealJukebox, that was just released. Of course there's no mention of a Linux port... "

Comments

128 kbit/s is not good enough; here's why

[David Jao]

This discussion has nothing to do with RealNetworks, but once you bring up the thread, I have to reply :-)

First off, 128 kbit/s encoding is good enough for a lot of applications. I just think that it's not good enough for music that you want to own. I don't claim that 128 kbit/s encoded music is easy to distinguish from the original. It isn't. But it is possible to distinguish the two. See this paper for results of professional listening tests. MP3 at 128 kbit/s consistently scored at the "perceptible differences" level.

Of course, I realize that professional listening tests is quite different from you listening to music in your home. If you think the differences don't matter, then fine. But please at least experience the differences firsthand before judging whether they matter or not. I have personally done several A/B listening tests with music that I actually listen to, and I've decided that the difference does matter to me.

So go out, find some music that you're intimately familiar with, encode it at various bitrates, and do A/B listening tests. Hear out the differences and see if they matter to you. If not, then feel free to go out and say that the differences don't matter. But please don't say the differences don't matter because you can't hear them, because that's just admitting your ears aren't good enough to back up your opinion.

Finally, Robin Whittle's comparison of mp3, aac, and vqf discusses all the issues with digital audio and compression, and hits all the correct answers. It's a must read if you care at all about your digital or compressed music.

The Real Question -- why use SDMI?

[CodeShark]

At least Rob Glaser has a clue about the answer to the question "why MP3?". He even offered a useful analogy (VCR's and video stores, etc.) for how MP3 might actually grow the music industry past the control of the few distribution giants we now are stuck with. So while I disagree with him on a couple points, I am glad he is speaking in defense of MP3 rather than the M$ FUD product (which I refuse to mention by name). Thus I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt before we subject him to the Flames of Slash.

That said, here's where I think he's wrong:

1. ZDNN: Glaser: I think the way it's going to play out is that for major label music, the secured system [SDMI] will be the preferred method of distribution, and for unsigned artists the MP3 phenomenon will continue to snowball, and they will continue to exist side by side.

I disagree. Because of the record companies' heavy handed but mostly failing attempts to squash MP-3 as a format, IMHO we aren't likely to ever be willing to embrace their proprietary and heavily controlled version of digital audio no matter what. So I expect SDMI to die the same kind of death by consumer choice as DIVX. IIRC, alot of the major movie labels initially backed DIVX then backed away *very quietly* when consumers effectively told them to go to hell by purchasing much larger quantities of DVD players, etc.

Secondarily, Glaser says that "In the short term, the most prominent way that'll happen is people will be listening to music on Jukebox, and they'll hear something they want, and they'll be able to click their mouse and go to one of the great sound stores, and get what they want when they want it." Nice idea, plus a built in plug for Real's own product.

Trouble is, it won't work in the long term. Short term, it's like saying "you can listen the song on AM radio so long as you come to the record store to buy the CD." Even if the "record store" is only a mouse click away, why would I be interested? Assume I have an SDMI encoded piece of music playing through a 64 bit sound card (which converts the digital information into analog electrical waves) -- into another PC (or Mac, etc.) with the appropriage analog to digital card, running an Open Source MP-3 encoder. **-Poof-** no encoding.

My points are: why would a knowledgable consumer bother with SDMI in the first place? Why would an artist want to give control to the record companies when they can negotiate and work with the MP-3 sites themselves and cut the record companies out of the picture?

How can MP3 ever 'die' ?

[mattbee]

I'm deeply suspicious of a writer's cluefulness when they describe an open standard like MP3 'dying'. As it stands, MP3 is being used by hoardes of geeks worldwide to wire up their own jukeboxes, and they don't really care whether anyone is making any money out of it. The technology is there, doing a job and doing it well. Just because a particular entrepreneur decides he can't do such-and-such with it because of its file size / compression time / whatever else doesn't mean that it's DEAD. It just means that one particular person can't find a way of making money from it! As hard drive space + fast processors get cheaper, the same technology is going to be more feasible for more applications, commercial or otherwise; but until a better audio compression standard comes along, MP3 is still blaring out of my hi-fi...

(and much the same argument goes for using Linux really; it might not be any use to a particular person right now, but the same person coming back in a year might find the situation a little different...)

Getting sick of the hype

[hasse]

All this hype is really starting to annoy me. First it was Linux, now it's MP3. All this clueless mainstream coverage. Why would MP3 die if it doesn't change? Who cares? It's like some people forget the fact that mpeg is a compression standard, and not another hyped computer/multimedia company. If MP3 "dies", it would be the result of a new, better (non proprietal) format was introduced. Why else would people stop using something that works like a charm, for free? And finally, Real is probably going to make a profit on this move. Even if it's late to jump on the mp3 hype, a lot of non computer proficient people will probably love this product.

Glaser interview good read

[ken@audiosurge.com]

The interview with Rob Glaser is good but too short. I agree with him that the MP3 format is the best possible vehicle for unsigned bands to get their music head. I'm not so sure about the his prediction for DMI. A much longer and more informative interview with him is here:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_display/0 ,3440,2242732,00.html
It's from a couple of weeks ago though.

Read the Fine Print

[ResQMe]

Go to Real's web site, and the press release (http://www.real.com/company/pressroom/pr/99/rj_la unch.html) note that the JukeBox will only encode at 96Kbps.

So, what you have is a player that will play any MP3 format, will play Real streaming content, Real's commercial format, and will do basic radio-quality MP3 encoding. Pretty useful.

If Real can succeed in becoming the default MP3 player for a lot of people, they stand to endear themselves to the music industry. Any CD that gets ripped at 96K instead of 192K is one less headache for copyright holders. It also would provide a boost to Real's streaming formats, and in turn to their proprietary formats. The latter is the new market that they want to develop.

The music industry seem to understand that they can't kill MP3 entirely; instead, the focus is on cooexisting and creating a medium that they can sell. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject suggested that the industry's approach would be to make it easier to purchase a downloadable file than to find an equal-quality pirate version of a particular work.

By making a player/ripper that the music industry can live with, and which will be useful to a very wide audience, Real seems to have found a good compromise. They know that people will use MP3 anyway, so they want to make sure they use it on Real players.

Of course, to appreciate the strategy, you have to have to let go of the hacker point of view a bit. Remember that in the mass market that the music industry is aiming for, most folks out there just want something that works easily, while quality and flexibility are secondary for most consumers. Real's solution is aimed at the Windows/iMac consumer, the people who go out to CompUSA on a Saturday afternoon and pile a computer, printer, and monitor on top of a shopping cart.

a cd ripper? what a novel concept...

[Morpheous]

It is ridiculous that Real comes out with such an un-sensational product and receives all this hype. There are so many great FREE products out there that will do the same thing... Every article I've read treats Real as if they have come up with this fabulous new idea. It's a shame that other developers with better products don't get this kind of press. Unfortunately, their support of MP3 is not notable because they are not "major players" in the MP3 battle. Wake up, people - the major story here is that so many people have embraced MP3, and that there is already a large assortment of software devoted to dealing with this format. MP3 is here to stay; I don't care what anyone says. If RIAA and the rest are so concerned about piracy, they should be working hard to ban CD burners, VCRS, tape decks, minidisc recorders, etc... I don;t know what it is about MP3 that is so evil... The potential for Internet distribution, I guess. As people get access to higher bandwidth, you can bet they'll be clamoring to add copyright protection to existing standards for video. A CNET article mentions that Real is considering adding a trace to the song, to show who "ripped" it, but "that involves privacy issues." But in this day and age where we are giving away our freedom and privacy, I'm sure those issues will be overcome.