Skip to main content

Topic: Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC? (Read 43539 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #100
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.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #101
Codec performance comparison by saratoga.

--
too slow again... 
  • Last Edit: 22 December, 2011, 03:13:05 PM by lvqcl

  • Soap
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #102
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.
  • Last Edit: 22 December, 2011, 03:37:22 PM by Soap
Creature of habit.

  • DVDdoug
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #103
...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.

  • apodtele
  • [*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #104
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.

  • Soap
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #105
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?
  • Last Edit: 23 December, 2011, 09:12:34 AM by Soap
Creature of habit.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #106
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.

Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #107
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.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #108
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 . . .

Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #109
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.

  • ron spencer
  • [*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #110
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!!!

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #111
Perhaps V1 is the new V0?

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #112
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.

  • MichaelW
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #113
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.
  • Last Edit: 30 January, 2012, 12:22:29 AM by MichaelW

Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #114
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.

  • adlai
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #115
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.


  • adlai
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #116
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

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #117
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...



  • kiit
  • [*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #118
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)
  • Last Edit: 30 January, 2012, 05:40:19 AM by kiit

  • icstm
  • [*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #119
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...)


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

Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #120
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 clich├ęd Apple-rage on. (That's what I imagine.)
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

  • Manlord
  • [*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #121
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.

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #122
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.

  • Ouroboros
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #123
@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!
  • Last Edit: 30 January, 2012, 12:22:43 PM by Ouroboros

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why Continue MP3 Development Given AAC?
Reply #124
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.