[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

You're still kinda both wrong.  Yes, AAC is standardized.  But so is MP3, right along with it.  They're both 'industry standards', in reality, but you're trying to make it sound like it's THE industry standard.

cuz it is. 'Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format,'.....

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Learn to read. Pointless trying to have a conversation when you can't even understand me.

I've read it. You said AAC is used only cuz of Apple, but that's wrong. it's ISO standard and it's part of the MPEG4 container
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG4
 
mp3 stands for 'MPEG 1, Layer 3'. Please don't say mp3 is industry standard.....
Most popularly used codec does not mean it's industry standard.
 
you know mp4 = MPEG-4, Layer 3. Apple only popularised the .m4a file extension. .m4a and .mp4 = exactly the same thing, that being AAC.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

cuz it is. 'Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format,'.....

They're still BOTH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.  How can you not wrap your brain around this fact?  Yes, it was DESIGNED to be the successor.  And guess what?  It failed to garner the public's interest.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

They're still BOTH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.  How can you not wrap your brain around this fact?  Yes, it was DESIGNED to be the successor.  And guess what?  It failed to garner the public's interest.

That's because of a number of reasons, mainly the 'Napster' effect of the majority of files being .mp3. i.e. back in the days of dialup internet and small hard drive capacities and the start of mass p2p with Napster, mp3 was the only real viable lossy codec for compressed audio / small file size (Vorbis didn't exist, nor did others like MPC, AAC was in it's infancy). If companies could choose, they would choose AAC because of no licensing fees and also it's the new industry standard as it's included and part of the latest MPEG standardisation, that being MPEG-4. If mp3 were still the preferred industry standard, it would be part of the MPEG-4 container standard but it isn't. yes, both are industry standard but however what's the new industry standard......
 
mp3 is an outdated codec in many ways. It was replaced in the MPEG-2 standard gees.....
 
AAC and Vorbis are more accurate, more flexible, and compresses better than mp3. ~192kbps AAC and Vorbis (both are natively VBR) is more accurate and represents more data than 320 kbps CBR / VBR -V0 mp3. Easily proven objectively via spectrograms you can do in 5 minutes. AAC is better than Vorbis tbh (lots of reasons from accuracy to power consumption). Both however are significantly better than mp3.
 
FLAC and AAC are both the leading codecs for lossless and lossy respectively for overall codec quality objectively. Other codecs are better at some aspects than both, but in terms of overall, both triumph over the rest.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

 And guess what?  It failed to garner the public's interest.

Not only did AAC fail to garner my interest, I'm actively avoiding it.  You can count that as negative interest.  I don't want it.  Never wanted it.
 
I went with MP3 way back.  I'm now primarily FLAC but still have some MP3.  I don't want to add AAC to that mix in my library.  That would only serve to complicate my library management.  Right now tag management and library management is easy.  Adding AAC would make that process more complicated.  I'm not going to do that.
 
Maybe that's one reason why AAC failed to succeed MP3.
 
LAME made MP3 good enough.  And they made it gapless capable.  For that they won me.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

That's because of a number of reasons, mainly the 'Napster' effect of the majority of files being .mp3. i.e. back in the days of dialup internet and small hard drive capacities and the start of mass p2p with Napster, mp3 was the only real viable lossy codec for compressed audio / small file size (Vorbis didn't exist, nor did others like MPC, AAC was in it's infancy). If companies could choose, they would choose AAC because of no licensing fees and also it's the new industry standard as it's included and part of the latest MPEG standardisation, that being MPEG-4. If mp3 were still the preferred industry standard, it would be part of the MPEG-4 container standard but it isn't. yes, both are industry standard but however what's the new industry standard......
 
mp3 is an outdated codec in many ways. It was replaced in the MPEG-2 standard gees.....
 
AAC and Vorbis are more accurate, more flexible, and compresses better than mp3. ~192kbps AAC and Vorbis (both are natively VBR) is more accurate and represents more data than 320 kbps CBR / VBR -V0 mp3. Easily proven objectively via spectrograms you can do in 5 minutes. AAC is better than Vorbis tbh (lots of reasons from accuracy to power consumption). Both however are significantly better than mp3.
 
FLAC and AAC are both the leading codecs for lossless and lossy respectively for overall codec quality objectively. Other codecs are better at some aspects than both, but in terms of overall, both triumph over the rest.

All I read was blahblahblah.  If most people can't find a difference between 320/V0 MP3s and lossless files, who cares if there's an updated 'better' format?  Accessibility of MP3, plus their relative performance compared to lossless makes them king.  If you want to use AAC/Vorbis, go ahead.  But don't bother pushing it when it offers little to no visible gain, and, as Ham Sandwich mentioned, only adds complications.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

All I read was blahblahblah.  If most people can't find a difference between 320/V0 MP3s and lossless files, who cares if there's an updated 'better' format?  Accessibility of MP3, plus their relative performance compared to lossless makes them king.  If you want to use AAC/Vorbis, go ahead.  But don't bother pushing it when it offers little to no visible gain, and, as Ham Sandwich mentioned, only adds complications.

lol that also known as 'you got defeated in an argument'. And if you read it, AAC and Vorbis compresses better and is more accurate than mp3 (and yes, I can prove it in 5 minutes if you want.).  Also you were arguing that mp3 was the industry standard..Don't try and change the argument here cuz I explained every point and thus you got defeated in it..... Nice red herring and argument by dismissal though.
 
it's better from a computer science standpoint and that's what matters in making industry standards and practices. The massive gain is since it compresses better is a smaller filesize for the same / often better quality = important in hard/flash drive capacity of portable DAPs and PMPs i.e. I can cram more songs in my device of the same / better quality. Simple logic is that if ISO felt that mp3 was an adequate up to date codec, they would of kept using it in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 containers but they replaced it with AAC.
 
As you know in this world, the most used doesn't mean it's industry standard nor the best. e.g. there's many more ibuds than anything other earbud product but would you mix tracks with ibuds?
 
Either stop trolling or tbh, clue up on your computer science. Also stick to your intital argument. You know, critical thinking basics.

 

[nullstring]

nevermind.

 

[maarek99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If mp3 were still the preferred industry standard, it would be part of the MPEG-4 container standard but it isn't. yes, both are industry standard but however what's the new industry standard.
 
 
 
mp3 is an outdated codec in many ways. It was replaced in the MPEG-2 standard gees.....
 

Mp3 is an industry standard. There is a reason why every prosumer camera records mpeg1 layer2 format and not AAC at 384kbps. Guess what it is? And AVCHD devices use Dolby, not AAC. So where's your "industry standard"? How many INDUSTRY - ie. production - hardware utilise AAC? MP2 is still the most DOMINANT standard for broadcast audio. In the future it will be something else offcourse but you obviously have no experience about the "industry" except what you read in wiki.
 
 

 

[maarek99]

 
Quote:

 Simple logic is that if ISO felt that mp3 was an adequate up to date codec, they would of kept using it in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 containers but they replaced it with AAC.

 
Clear your facts. Mp2 has been used in mpeg-2 for forever. Mpeg2-AAC is not backwards compatible so mentioning it is kinda moot. You could basically use any audio codec if you want break up compatibility. "Replaced" my ass. Wake me up when your "replaced" AAC audios start showing up in dvd-standard mpeg2-files. Embedding mp3 into mpeg-4 containers has also been norm for forever.
 
Also ask yourself why AAC is not even a part of Bluray specs. They support mpeg-4 anyway. And AC3 which isn't even in the ISO specs (Sony basically laughs them out)
 
You are seriously telling us that a codec that is not used in DVDs, blurays or production audio equipment is "industry standard" because it's used in portable players. Seriously now?

 

[Currawong]

I'm pretty sure industry choices of codecs have nothing to do with the reasons you guys are arguing about.  I'm also sure this thread has gone off topic.
 
Back ON topic, there is a thread where someone made a couple of files, one with 128k VBR LAME and one the original WAV, asking people to listen and test which is which.  The 128k VBR LAME was surprisingly good, far better than the old distorted mess 128k CBR used to be. Considering all the years they've been working on improving VBR encoding, V0 vs. lossless would be an interesting challenge to differentiate, as has already been suggested.