[rickcr42]

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/aes109/page_13.html/

I always considered AAC/Liquid Audio to sound better than MP3 of the "lossy compression" formats.

Seems when compared directly others agree.
So why is it not the dominant format ?

No , none can compete with CD for sheer quality (or CD for vinyl but that is another topic

) but if given a choice this would be mine , along with Dolby Headphone for movies.

BTW-check out that surround sound headphone amp !
I WANT one dammit !

 

[Pepzhez]

I think it's a licensing issue. Dolby Labs hasn't been interested in spreading their codec around. Perhaps they even have exclusive licensing deals with the DVD consortium for all I know.

My tests, however, still show that ATRAC-R is the best lossy codec we have. It still has the edge over both MP3 and AAC.

 

[rickcr42]

what tests would that be ?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

What bitrate and encoder did you use for mp3 and AAC?

 

[Watchdog]

I think generally people consider AAC to be better than mp3, but the encode times are longer as it takes more CPU processing power.

Perhaps if compressed audio were taking off today with many people having P4 processors that AAC or perhaps Ogg Vorbis would become the dominant format. However when compressed audio seemed to gain in popularity many people were listening to it on cheap $10 speakers connected to their computers. With a setup like that no one would appreciate the sound quality advantage AAC has and it would just take longer to encode.

I suppose with mp3 gaining an early foothold something has to be an order of magnitude to surpass it and become the dominant format. It's not enough to just be better, you have to be a lot better and provide a compelling reason for people to ditch their collections of mp3 files.

Personally I hope that Ogg Vorbis becomes the dominant format. I really like the bit rate peeling feature, plus Ogg Vorbis is royalty free. Maybe this will convince hardware manufacturers to incorporate Ogg support. I know if Sony supported Ogg for MD, that I'd encode all my wave files into Ogg format.

 

[MDCT]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pepzhez My tests, however, still show that ATRAC-R is the best lossy codec we have. It still has the edge over both MP3 and AAC.

I've done some blind tests in the past comparing good quality mp3 (~200 Kbps VBR, Lame 3.90 encoder) and ATRAC 4.5 (standard 292 Kbps) and mp3 wins by far. ATRAC is specially bad on pre-echo, but it's also worse than good mp3 on other aspects. AAC is supposed to be better that mp3, since it is his technological sucessor, but I don't have experience with it.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pepzhez My tests, however, still show that ATRAC-R is the best lossy codec we have. It still has the edge over both MP3 and AAC.

My tests and experiences agree with that completely. Good ATRAC (especially Type-R) gives significantly better sound than MP3, Ogg, or AAC.

 

[Squalish]

MP3 is, simply, where it's at. Nearly everything in p2p programs, on the internet, etc is encoded in mp3. All portable flash-based devices use mp3. All jukeboxes use mp3. All mp3-CD player use mp3. Many players do use wav, but its uncompressed, so it doesn't count, and some use WMV and other codecs, but they are nowhere near widespread.

MP3(and napster) started the whole digital music craze, and any format used in a social environment such as p2p software feeds off of what's already there.

AAC has no hope in the shortterm of becoming the dominant format, merely because mp3 has nearly 100% market share for people who trade mp3s. In the longterm, it has little hope of becoming the dominant format, because it does not offer SUBSTANTIAL benefits over mp3, and there isn't enough force behind it(ESPECIALLY if it isn't already backed by major corporations) to make a dent in the percent of people who use mp3.

 

[rickcr42]

MP# is pretty abysmal all things considered but has a foothold that will be hard to break .

superior does notalways mean "Da Winna"

Anyone remember Betamax ?

 

[MacDEF]

Squalish, the one assumption you're making is that most people using MP3s are "trading." Although that may have been a safe assumption a few years ago, I would argue it's no longer necessarily true, for two reasons:

1) The crackdowns on "trading" (read: pirating) music by the RIAA. Agree or disagree with the RIAA, but the fact is that its had an effect.

2) More importantly, because "MP3" (I use that term as a lazy way of saying "compressed music") has become so popular, it's no longer just the übergeeks who are using it. Anyone who buys a computer today has the ability to convert their own music collection to MP3 (or whatever the encoder might be). For these people, what encoding format is used is largely irrelevant. The only important thing is that their computer can play it and, for those who buy a portable player, that their portable player can play it.

There are millions of people who use MP3s who don't "trade" music -- they use MP3s as a way to listen to their own music. I argue that these people are making up an ever-growing proportion of the population of people listening to compressed music. These people -- those who don't "trade" music -- are also those most likely to buy new music, and to buy the latest gadgets (because "compatibility with file-sharing programs" isn't important).

When you look at all of these factors, alternative formats actually have a better chance of making inroads vs. traditional MP3 today than they did a few years ago (when compatibility was primary), and I think you'll see a significant increase in the market share of alternative encoders/formats over the next couple years.

 

[Squalish]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF 2) More importantly, because "MP3" (I use that term as a lazy way of saying "compressed music") has become so popular, it's no longer just the übergeeks who are using it. Anyone who buys a computer today has the ability to convert their own music collection to MP3 (or whatever the encoder might be). For these people, what encoding format is used is largely irrelevant. The only important thing is that their computer can play it and, for those who buy a portable player, that their portable player can play it.

I would argue that the technically literate(including audiophiles and "übergeeks") are the only ones that CARE that their music collection was encoded in a certain format. MP3 has gone pretty much mainstream, and the majority of the populace has shown that they are satisfied with 128k/s Xing mp3s. Compatibility, which you say is important to them, is against alternative formats, obviously. For those who don't particularly care what format they use, and aren't worried about compatibility, they usually don't know that there ARE any alternative formats. Yes, there is a subset of people who use their hard drive as another place to store their completely legal music collection, but unlike those who use P2p software and geeks like us who discuss these topics, they aren't involved in the propagation of the format. AAC would need fans who tell their friends to use it, not just passive users, to beat MP3. As long as there aren't huge benefits to using AAC(a slightly higher data:quality ratio is NOT sexy enough) there won't be many people who influence the mainstream to use it.

The second assumption that I made was that a new format would need to be SIGNIFICANTLY better for it to make headway. I stand by this. If a format comes along that does the same quality as a 128k/s mp3 at less than half the bitrate(I believe the only thing that claims that was a bulletin for the Motion Pictures Expert Group on what would be put into the finalized version of mpeg4) then it will blow my arguments out of the water. If it is only moderately better than what came before, and what came before has a large majority market share, then it will probably fail. History is littered with standards that were somewhat better than their competitors, had market penetration equal to their successful competitors, and failed. I will refrain from naming them because that would be far too offtopic(and far too much research as to their specific virtues) for me.

 

[HD-5000]

Just a quick question involving MP3, would you guys consider 160k/s compression good sound quality?

 

[HD-5000]

Also, would quality 160k/s or higher MP3's on let's say, the output of the iPod be comparable in sound quality to...let's say a component CD player (Denon DCM-370)? I'd really wish that MP3's on an iPod would sound as or almost as good as a component type so I can take my entire library wherever I go.. *drool*

 

[00940]

I would go for 256kps VBR at least, it should be about the same size and the quality won't be as good but near enough to enjoy fully your music.

btw, a significant part of the full albums "available" on the web are now in .ogg.

 

[Onix]

Quote:

Originally posted by rickcr42 Anyone remember Betamax ?

I still have a bunch of them tapes. The problem with formats is not that there are many, but the fact that they can change very easily. Most player will only play MP3's, and if something better or different becomes the norm in the future, the user would have to shell out some moolah in order to get a new piece of hardaware. Of course, there are upgradable players and precisely for that they seem to be the best choice available. In any case, all compressed formats are useful just for storage and difussion of music or audio material, but a better choice would be having a better platform for uncompressed material, like DVD's with a bunch of wav files. But of course, convenience will allways be the choice for most people, sacrificing quality for portability.