IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
saratoga
post Dec 22 2011, 21:10
Post #101





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 22 2011, 13:00) *
The virtue of MP3 is its simplicity compared to WMA or AAC.
It is much easier to implement a hardware player for MP3.
This is how it beats all the competition while providing very good quality.
The file size does not matter because the storage is cheap compared to the
actual playback implementation.

(This is also why JPEG will always be more popular than JPEG_2000)


MP3 is more computarionally complex then WMA, and somewhat more so then aac. In practice mp3 will often give better battery life, but that's only because WMA and aac are often less carefully optimized.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Dec 22 2011, 21:11
Post #102





Group: Developer
Posts: 3362
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Codec performance comparison by saratoga.

--
too slow again... emot-v.gif

This post has been edited by lvqcl: Dec 22 2011, 21:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Dec 22 2011, 21:35
Post #103





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (kwanbis @ Dec 22 2011, 15:02) *
QUOTE (Soap @ Dec 22 2011, 19:43) *
And dare I ask what the distinction is?
I don't mean to be douchy with the repeated questions, but there really is no hardware/software player distinction anymore.
It's all, to a great extent, software.

Well, all is 1s and 0s, so ... but, the computers have basically no limit, while on a hw player you have to consider at least battery consumption.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....&pid=713417
Then MP3 is likely not the right choice.


EDIT:
Crap - THIRD in line?
Sorry, didn't intend to gang bang.


This post has been edited by Soap: Dec 22 2011, 21:37


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post Dec 23 2011, 00:30
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



QUOTE (fukdup @ Dec 21 2011, 17:58) *
...and just because an .mp3 file get's a hit on google search, doesnt mean it's pirated material.the index whole websites including the text inside them as well you know, just like this page, and i dont see any free downloads of copyright .mp3's here.


Good point!... I just checked something - There are less than 2,800 topics with less than 22,000 replies in the HydrogenAudio AAC forums compared to about 7,000 topics and 63,000 replies in the MP3 forums. Of course, that's over the life of HydrogenAudio and might not reflect current interest, but it does seem to indicate that MP3 is more popular.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
apodtele
post Dec 23 2011, 12:23
Post #105





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95199



http://www.vlsi.fi/en/support/productstatus.html

Ask them why they do not offer AAC-only or WMA-only chip. There is an MP3-only decoder in production.
It's strange that you brought up the software performance as a counter-argument to hardware solutions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Dec 23 2011, 15:12
Post #106





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 23 2011, 06:23) *
It's strange that you brought up the software performance as a counter-argument to hardware solutions.

Because those parts aren't normally found in the wild today (or even yesterday)?
Because the overwhelming vast majority of non-PC systems do software decoding?

This post has been edited by Soap: Dec 23 2011, 15:12


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Dec 23 2011, 21:40
Post #107





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 23 2011, 06:23) *
http://www.vlsi.fi/en/support/productstatus.html

Ask them why they do not offer AAC-only or WMA-only chip. There is an MP3-only decoder in production.
It's strange that you brought up the software performance as a counter-argument to hardware solutions.


Thats a CPU with a ROM containing various decoder software. I'm sure if you asked them when placing a large order they could provide ROMs with whatever codecs you wanted removed. Or you could just delete the software you don't want using the instructions on that page.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RobertoDomenico
post Jan 30 2012, 03:01
Post #108





Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95208



Has 3.99 V0 pushed the bitrate so high that one might as well just use 320 now and not suffer any of the VBR problems some devices have.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 30 2012, 03:29
Post #109





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (RobertoDomenico @ Jan 29 2012, 21:01) *
Has 3.99 V0 pushed the bitrate so high that one might as well just use 320 now and not suffer any of the VBR problems some devices have.


What device this day in age has trouble with VBR? Hell, my ten year old 32MB player could do VBR just fine . . .
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RobertoDomenico
post Jan 30 2012, 03:46
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95208



My iPod 4G has issues sometimes, iTunes has issues with very long tracks and i have a Toshiba Blu Ray player that seems to cut the tracks of early. When using lame CBR on all these devices they play perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ron spencer
post Jan 30 2012, 03:53
Post #111





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2-February 05
Member No.: 19539



QUOTE (RobertoDomenico @ Jan 29 2012, 20:46) *
My iPod 4G has issues sometimes, iTunes has issues with very long tracks and i have a Toshiba Blu Ray player that seems to cut the tracks of early. When using lame CBR on all these devices they play perfectly.



LOL...leave it to Apple!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jan 30 2012, 04:05
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 3394
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



Perhaps V1 is the new V0?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 30 2012, 04:33
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



I've used lots of iPods, and never had an issue with VBR files. iPods have extremely robust software so I think its more likely you simply have a corrupted MP3 file that also happens to be VBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MichaelW
post Jan 30 2012, 06:19
Post #114





Group: Members
Posts: 631
Joined: 15-March 07
Member No.: 41501



QUOTE (RobertoDomenico @ Jan 30 2012, 15:46) *
My iPod 4G has issues sometimes, iTunes has issues with very long tracks


Is it perhaps that the iPod also has problems with long tracks? In a moment of madness, I experimented with putting ALAC tracks on my iPod Classic. With really long tracks (20 minutes and longer) there'd be hesitations and stutters, which I guess were because the track wouldn't fit in the buffer or some such. Went back to sensible bit-rate lossy, no more problems, whether LAME VBR or AAC encoded by iTunes.

This post has been edited by MichaelW: Jan 30 2012, 06:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RobertoDomenico
post Jan 30 2012, 06:37
Post #115





Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 16-November 11
Member No.: 95208



My iPod Touch 4G plays everything perfectly except some lame VBR. I must say they are not the VBR that i have created, all the ones i create from my ALAC files with XLD seem to play fine. For me V0 files end up being almost as big as 320 these days so i just go with 320 CBR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
adlai
post Jan 30 2012, 06:39
Post #116





Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 29-November 03
Member No.: 10090



IIRC, AAC is better at CBR than MP3. MP3 seems to rely heavily on vbr, which has varied support, while AAC has a vbr of sorts by default.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
adlai
post Jan 30 2012, 06:40
Post #117





Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 29-November 03
Member No.: 10090



also, last I checked nero aac hasn't had an update in close to three/four years.

and when I paid attention last the itunes aac engine would have new builds at a fairly decent rate. It has definitely been updated multiple times since 2009
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 30 2012, 06:54
Post #118





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (RobertoDomenico @ Jan 30 2012, 00:37) *
My iPod Touch 4G plays everything perfectly except some lame VBR.


Since lame VBR is probably pretty close to an outright majority of mp3s floating around, I think its a pretty safe bet someone besides you would have noticed if this was really the case. After all, Apple has sold a few ipod touches by now...


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kiit
post Jan 30 2012, 11:37
Post #119





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 9-October 03
From: Washington D.C.
Member No.: 9229



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Dec 20 2011, 20:02) *
I was only wondering if it was possible. If it supports the iPod then it would have AAC playback capabilities and I wouldn't understand why it wasn't possible with the USB stick.

Based on replies from you and Soap, I understand that some manufacturers of car stereos don't support AAC. That's just stupid (IMO) when the majority of legally-purchased music is obtained through iTunes. It's even stupider (IMO) that they seem to think more people would be concerned about WMA playback.

As for me, I just use AAC for my lossy-encoding needs. I've nothing against MP3...it has some clear advantages. I just like the uniformity in my iTunes library and have to use it when encoding video as well.

Every device I own (and that's quite a few if I count kids and phones) supports it. I have an older Alpine stereo in my car. It supports AAC and has an iPod interface. Perhaps if my circumstances and usage were different, I'd be using MP3 instead. It would certainly be "just as good" as I only encode at "iTunes Plus" bitrates or 160 Kbps for video.


I am so happy you love your magical music store and its 'special' format. But your reasoning for why everyone else in the world should agree with you and pay to license these codecs so every device you meet for the rest of your life supports one specific Music Shop is more than a bit harsh. You found your solution, thats wonderful, I truly am happy for you and your magical Apple Itunes trip, just please stop trying to push me and everyone else into AAC.

You're new to all this, we can tell, show a little respect please? I guess I should stop coming, maybe I get insulted too easily. This whole thread seems an insult to some pretty smart people. (My opinion)

This post has been edited by kiit: Jan 30 2012, 11:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Jan 30 2012, 12:04
Post #120





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (saratoga @ Dec 22 2011, 20:10) *
QUOTE (apodtele @ Dec 22 2011, 13:00) *
The virtue of MP3 is its simplicity compared to WMA or AAC.
It is much easier to implement a hardware player for MP3.
This is how it beats all the competition while providing very good quality.
The file size does not matter because the storage is cheap compared to the
actual playback implementation.

(This is also why JPEG will always be more popular than JPEG_2000)


MP3 is more computarionally complex then WMA, and somewhat more so then aac. In practice mp3 will often give better battery life, but that's only because WMA and aac are often less carefully optimized.
Interesting how fact and use get split like that (VHS and betamax...)


QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 30 2012, 02:29) *
QUOTE (RobertoDomenico @ Jan 29 2012, 21:01) *
Has 3.99 V0 pushed the bitrate so high that one might as well just use 320 now and not suffer any of the VBR problems some devices have.


What device this day in age has trouble with VBR? Hell, my ten year old 32MB player could do VBR just fine . . .
Yes, My Zen Xtra is still going strong, it plays VBR fine, but I don't think it plays AAC
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Jan 30 2012, 14:54
Post #121





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (kiit @ Jan 30 2012, 04:37) *
I am so happy you love your magical music store and its 'special' format. But your reasoning for why everyone else in the world should agree with you and pay to license these codecs so every device you meet for the rest of your life supports one specific Music Shop is more than a bit harsh. You found your solution, thats wonderful, I truly am happy for you and your magical Apple Itunes trip, just please stop trying to push me and everyone else into AAC.

You're new to all this, we can tell, show a little respect please? I guess I should stop coming, maybe I get insulted too easily. This whole thread seems an insult to some pretty smart people. (My opinion)


"Show a little respect please?" Are you kidding me? There was no tone of disrespect in that 40 day-old post. What provoked your little tirade of condescending indignation? ("...your magical music store and its 'special format...your magical Apple Itunes trip...(y)ou're new to all this...smart people...yap,yap.)

Please demonstrate where I was "reasoning for why everyone else in the world should agree with" me or where I was "trying to push" you "and everyone else into AAC."

I give far less than a crap if you are all dramatic about iTunes and hate Apple...or whatever your problem is. I was only a voice of moderation, as any self-proclaimed "smart" person could plainly see from the text you quoted. My post from well over a month ago that stated I can see good reasons to use either format. I presented valid reasons why I use AAC for audio and video. (Go ahead, smart-guy: try playing videos encoded with MP3 audio on an X-Box, Zune, or PS3. Let me know how that works out. None of those are Apple products.) I also made pretty good use of "IMO" in that post as well.

If some here are so stupid and beneath you, wouldn't it appear wiser (as you believe yourself) if you didn't feel some pressing need to respond to old posts with your predisposition to rage about Apple products and people who use them...imagining crap that isn't even there?

As I stated before: iTunes is the number one retailer of music. Period. Sounds like you can't deal with that, by just being content with your own product-choices, and are looking for people to take out your clichéd Apple-rage on. (That's what I imagine.)


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Manlord
post Jan 30 2012, 15:29
Post #122





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 2-April 10
Member No.: 79529



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Jan 30 2012, 14:54) *
If some here are so stupid and beneath you, wouldn't it appear wiser (as you believe yourself) if you didn't feel some pressing need to respond to old posts with your predisposition to rage about Apple products and people who use them...imagining crap that isn't even there?


Its the third time (in two posts) you use the word stupid to describe people/opinions that aren't the same as yours. And no, IMO saying in my opinion doesn't change much these things, because we are always writing opinions. So I agree with kiit, "show a little respect" is into account.
And besides of having a more elaborated answer than yours, his is not an attack against Apple (which seems to irritate you like something personal) is an attack against making the world orbitate around an Apple's decission.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jan 30 2012, 17:45
Post #123





Group: Members
Posts: 3394
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (Manlord @ Jan 30 2012, 10:29) *
Its the third time (in two posts) you use the word stupid to describe people/opinions that aren't the same as yours.

On the contrary, if you read Engelsstaub's response carefully you will find that he is merely categorizing (rightly or wrongly) kiit's attitude toward members of HA.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Jan 30 2012, 18:22
Post #124





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



@Manlord. Hmmm. You seem a little sensitive, and your understanding of English a little perverse. Engelsstaub didn't call anyone stupid in his last post, he was suggesting that kiit perceives him (Engelsstaub) as stupid, and then poses the question about why kiit would bother to respond to someone he perceives as stupid.

Engelsstaub's first post did use stupid (twice) to describe the slightly illogical stance taken by car stereo manufacturers with respect to native AAC support. Personally I'd have described it as "short sighted", but given that I have no idea about Engelsstaub's first language or cultural background I made that small allowance and slight linguistic substitution, and moved on.

I fail to see how using phrases like "your magical music store and its 'special' format" counts as "having a more elaborated answer than yours". If anything it seems slightly less well elaborated..... and I'd struggle to put the dismissive phrasing down to cultural and linguistic differences.

Anyway, back on topic. FWIW, I can see both sides of the original debate. According to the statistics most purchased tracks are from iTunes, and therefore AAC, so not supporting them natively seems illogical, especially when the far less popular WMA is supported. However, I suspect that the AAC decoder license fees are an issue, whereas I'd expect Microsoft to make WMA decoder licenses available on extremely attractive terms in order to try to promote their format.

I'd also suggest that part of the answer is probably a simple question of manufacturers deciding to support playback from personal audio players (predominantly iPods), rather than further developing native playback from CD-RW/SD/USB, on the basis that the most popular way of carrying audio to your car is no longer on a CD or even on a USB / SD card, but on your personal media player. In other words, they are gambling on the CD and the compressed audio data CD/USB/SD becoming yesterday's technology in your car, and are only supporting it as legacy in the same way that they continued to support cassettes long after the CD was available and accepted. On that basis, like DCC, DAT and MD in cars, the AAC car audio player is likely to be a technology that didn't ever achieve mainstream acceptance. As for connecting other audio devices to cars, manufacturers will continue to provide an aux jack input until there is an agreed and universally implemented Android equivalent of the iPod interface.

Edit: too slow!

This post has been edited by Ouroboros: Jan 30 2012, 18:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 30 2012, 19:31
Post #125





Group: Members
Posts: 4923
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



Yeah it doesn't really make sense to add AAC support to a car stereo. You have to pay to do it, and at the same time no one will ever use it since iPods play audio over AUX or Apple's proprietary digital interface, not over MSC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 18:48