Please don't take this the wrong way, but I am curious why there is continued development of MP3 encoding (such as LAME) when AAC is now long-known to yield superior quality for a given bit-rate (all other things being equal)?
I can sort of understand an explanation as being for the heck of it, but given that a superior method exists, why not work on improving even that instead? I'm not technolgically sophisticated enough to comment with any authority at all, so I pose the question.
AAC is, as I learned, better at lower bitrates (96-128 kbit) than mp3. But as bitrates rise, they sound equally good - that is, you won't be able to distinguish them from original, except if killer samples are used.
Each of them has it's own uses, and hardware/software support for mp3 is still more widespread than support for aac. But I would say it's by the margin.
I can sort of understand an explanation as being for the heck of it, but given that a superior method exists, why not work on improving even that instead? I'm not technolgically sophisticated enough to comment with any authority at all, so I pose the question.
I think all commercial development is focused on AAC. MP3 development is mostly just done by the community.
AAC is, as I learned, better at lower bitrates (96-128 kbit) than mp3. But as bitrates rise, they sound equally good - that is, you won't be able to distinguish them from original, except if killer samples are used.
Each of them has it's own uses, and hardware/software support for mp3 is still more widespread than support for aac. But I would say it's by the margin.
Well, there are people who say 256 bit CBR is indistinguishable from the "original" CD, too. But given that there are definite and specific areas of known better algorithms for AAC, I don't know why it would be that as the bit rates go up, MP# starts sounding closer to MP3. Is it just the fact that as bit rates go up everything starts to sound like the "original," or are the AAC algorithms somehow less superior at higher bit rates, and I don't know why that would be so.
As long as there is interest and demand, and as long as there are volunteer developers willing to put-in time, developement will continue. I believe MP3 is still the most popular, most universal format, although if you judge by dollar-sales I think CDs and iTunes AAC outsell MP3.
Looking at the LAME Change Log (http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/doc/html/history.html?revision=HEAD), the last few minor changes are not related to sound quality.
Why do we need both Honda and Toyota? And, why do they continue development when they both make perfectly-acceptable automobiles?
I guess we have them both because there are stylistic dfferences, and there is no generally accepted advantage to one or the other (leaving aside scope of acceptance e in market, hhich AAC sems to be geting more and more). However, here, there's a clear technical advantage to one, and there is at the least no advantage in any area to the other. Further, these are only tools, tools to a good-sounding electronic sing, not final products.
And so, given that one is a frequently inferior subset of the other, and is therefore dominated, there's no good purpose to the inferior one.
Its not really clear to me what you expect to happen. If someone is working on LAME and they want to go work on iTunes, should they quit their day job and go work for Apple? People work on lame because its there and because its useful.
No, but perhaps some people may start to work on FAAC, so it sucks less and actually competes with the popular closed source encoders. Maybe that will happen some day.
Of course, there is also the distinct possibility that will become irrelevant as Opus gains more speed. It already stomps AAC at 64kbps, so it may also be fair to assume it improves when given more bits, like 96kbps, or even 128kbps. I don't think anyone on this forum has posted a listening test including it for higher bitrates, though.
And then there is the possiblity that AAC may even catch up, or some other newcomer may appear to stomp it again. Only time will tell.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I am curious why there is continued development of MP3 encoding (such as LAME) when AAC is now long-known to yield superior quality for a given bit-rate (all other things being equal)?
I can sort of understand an explanation as being for the heck of it, but given that a superior method exists, why not work on improving even that instead? I'm not technolgically sophisticated enough to comment with any authority at all, so I pose the question.
because they want and because aac is not nearly universal as mp3 is?
Some devices do not support AAC. My friend has a new car that only does CD, WMA and MP3. Its nice I can convert his CD's to MP3 with V5 quality that sounds very good.
The difference in quality is too small to justify the disadvantages, namely compatibility. MP3 plays virtually everywhere and giving that up for a minor increase in efficiency simply isn't worth it.
With today's cheap and huge storage capacities also on mobile players many people can use high bitrate with mp3, that is they get excellent quality using mp3. With this background universal usability is the more important point.
Other than for using low to rather moderate bitrate there is no strong practical reason to prefer AAC over mp3. Theoretical advantages don't count for most people.
Some devices do not support AAC.
that's the key issue for me. i think i'm the only person i know who doesn't have an ipod but i'm still important, damn it.
Is it just the fact that as bit rates go up everything starts to sound like the "original," or are the AAC algorithms somehow less superior at higher bit rates, and I don't know why that would be so.
Nope, they are both efficient at high bit rates at achieving transparency, that's all. That is, really, the point of lossy codecs, be it mp3, aac, ogg or whatever else exists.
Because we want to be tortured by id3 tagging forever.
I know this response may make people think I'm stupid, but I'm going to say it anyway. I've been ripping and compressing music to MP3 since the ~1997, so that should give people some insight into how easy it is to get out of touch with reality.
Until today I assumed AAC = Proprietary technology by Apple that I'm not willing to support. I knew MP3 was encumbered by certain patent issues, but I always assumed that MP3 was less evil than AAC. Over the years I've heard others repeat this.
I know that the first ipods used AAC, and I think the myth of AAC being Apple's handiwork was born then.
It was only today that I looked up AAC and realized this is not true. If I had known this before I would have started using AAC a long time ago. I wonder how many other people are using MP3 based on this incorrect belief? Maybe that's part of the reason why there is still such a focus on MP3 use and development?
I wonder how many other people are using MP3 based on this incorrect belief? Maybe that's part of the reason why there is still such a focus on MP3 use and development?
You don't think it's just a wee bit insulting to those who focus on MP3 development to suggest they do so out of ignorance?
You don't think it's just a wee bit insulting to those who focus on MP3 development to suggest they do so out of ignorance?
Ahh - I didn't mean it like that. I imagine that there is a focus on MP3 development because so many people encode and use MP3s. However, some of these people (like me) use MP3 based on a faulty assumption about legality, thus driving up interest in, and use of, the MP3 codec. This, in turn, drives up interest in developing the codec.
My comment was made in reference to people who encode their own music, not the developers.
such a focus on MP3 use and development?
How many MP3 codecs are in active development?
I like MP3 because:
I've used it since I started with music on my computer.
It's either MP3 or WMA in my car
I don't do Apple products.
It's 'good enough', if I want excellent, I use lossless.
I for one appreciate the continued development.
How many MP3 codecs are in active development?
Haven't I already established that I'm clueless about codecs and don't have an answer? I was just speaking in a general sense.
I think it is very worthwhile to perfect where possible MP# format. It's universal and has been the focus of so many tweaks and tests that to stop before completion makes no sense. To quit after 10 or 15 years work makes no sense, especially when the tweaks ar gradually helping substantially.
But the quality offered by AAC at 96kbps is extremely impressive so if you have a shuffle of low storage device it has its plce too. Streaming radio and such is important too. Do you want to listen to 64kbps MP3, or high efficiency QT at 64kbps?
The other thing I see as helpful is that if I transcode mp3 to mp3 for my friends car, the artifacts can be pretty apparant, but aac to mp3 is a lot better for portable listening IMO.
Some devices do not support AAC.
that's the key issue for me. i think i'm the only person i know who doesn't have an ipod but i'm still important, damn it.
iPods aren't the only portables with AAC-support.
oh i know that. but you still have relatively few options looking for an AAC player compared to mp3.
But the quality offered by AAC at 96kbps is extremely impressive so if you have a shuffle of low storage device it has its plce too. Streaming radio and such is important too. Do you want to listen to 64kbps MP3, or high efficiency QT at 64kbps?
My friend has a very tiny Apple player, only 2 gig. Is AAC 96 from Itunes good enough so that I can squeeze lots of songs on to the player without worrying about sound quality?
Is AAC 96 from Itunes good enough so that I can squeeze lots of songs on to the player without worrying about sound quality?
Yes. (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html)
oh i know that. but you still have relatively few options looking for an AAC player compared to mp3.
All 3G phones can play AAC and HE AAC so there are quite many AAC players.
that's the key issue for me. i think i'm the only person i know who doesn't have an ipod but i'm still important, damn it.
You're not the only one but my kids both have iPods. My car also plays MP3 and will not play an M4A file even if not protected. The car system will play directly from a thumb drive which I use and need NO music player of any type.
G²
iPods aren't the only portables with AAC-support.
There is NO player that would not support MP3. But, there are a lot of players that would NOT support AAC.
Hence, MP3 is more universal than AAC.
Since quality difference @128kbps is practically none, let alone 192kbps and above, the advantage of using AAC is greatly diminished.
Besides, people that are THAT concerned about quality generally use LOSLESS.
All 3G phones can play AAC and HE AAC so there are quite many AAC players.
3G? and that is relevant because??
assuming you mean smartphones in general, i have no interest in those.
I was once of the mindset many years ago that I wanted to move away from the legacy of MP3 onto something more modern, be it Vorbis or AAC or whatever. I've spent my share of time over the last decade in my professional life porting and optimizing the MP3 codec to various platforms and I was a bit bothered by both the technology and patent issues.
However, in my personal life I tried moving to AAC a few years ago so I could listen to stuff on my PS3 and my iPod while fitting some more songs on them at equivalent quality to what I was getting for MP3. It was hard to find an encoder to work with Foobar (I won't go near the horror show of iTunes). Then I got stuff encoded, and it wouldn't play because the PS3 expected some different container or tag format. Spent some more time messing with it but in the end I just got frustrated and it seemed not worth the bother so I gave up. Maybe I was doing something dumb and things are probably different now but I just can't be bothered to fight it when I have something that already works.
So this is the problem I have with some of the more modern codecs, they come with their own problems. AAC seems to be a bit too flexible in terms of being able to put it in any container which increases compatibility problems. Ogg/Vorbis I have much love for, but I think there was a mistake made there where they let the codebooks be open ended in specification so it's really hard to get hardware with limited resources be able to efficiently decode any codebook that might come along in the future.
With MP3 it doesn't suffer any of these kinds of problems, worst you might find is a decoder that gets tripped up on an exotic tag, but that should all be straightened out after all these years.
What I am most surprised with and impressed with regarding MP3 is the continual improvements to an encoder such as LAME has yielded. I recall trying to encode lower bitrate stuff with LAME many years ago and I wasn't too impressed at all, and Vorbis back then stomped all over it. This coloured my perception of what MP3 was capable of at low bitrates, and why we should be moving on from it. However, recently I've tried to cram as many songs as possible onto what must be a 10 year old 512 megabyte MP3 player my daughter uses, and I was shocked at how well LAME did at bitrates that must have been somewhere around 64-80 kbps. It is quite listenable. Around the same time I also encoded as much as I could fit with AoTuV Vorbis at 64 kbps to my wife's Cowon player that only has about 3 gigabytes storage. I didn't perceive a massive difference in quality between the low bit rate MP3 and Vorbis.
So for me if MP3 is actually keeping up fairly well with modern codecs and is universally playable anywhere, what is the incentive to move on to something else? To me it's the continued effort of the LAME developers that have made this possible and made my life simpler. My hats off to them and please do keep working on it.
3G? and that is relevant because??
Perhaps as a rough marker of the date of phones in question? From about the time of 3G, phones have tended to decode AAC? Even featurephones. Oh, and 3G here is the wireless technology, not the model name of an Apple product, in case that's your problem.
My friend has a very tiny Apple player, only 2 gig.
Does anyone else here find it amusing to hear 2 gig referred to as "very tiny"? Or was that a reference to the physical size?
All 3G phones can play AAC and HE AAC so there are quite many AAC players.
3G? and that is relevant because??
assuming you mean smartphones in general, i have no interest in those.
3GPP standard - playback MPEG-4 video and audio with third-generation mobile phones. MPEG-4 includes AAC and HE AAC. These mobile phones can play 3GP and 3G2 video/audio formats. M4A (the standard container for AAC and HE AAC) is identical format to 3GP and 3G2 and therefore these devices should be capable of playing AAC and HE AAC also in M4A container format.
Mobile phone can be as good AAC audio player as iPod. It can be even possible to wirelessly play the audio via car stereo or home cinema with Bluetooth connection, which is something iPods cant do.
The point is there are millions of M4A / AAC / HE AAC playback enabled devices worldwide.
I've personally moved from MP3 to AAC because of audio quality.
I've personally moved from MP3 to AAC because of audio quality.
And for the mp3s already around? Quality or not, mp3 will stay around until the last person on Earth gives up and transcodes his/her lossies.
Oh, and 3G here is the wireless technology
yes, that was exactly my point.
I would only consider moving away from mp3 if there was a codec that would cut the filesizes significantly (50% or so) at the same quality... anything esle is not worth the effort of converting 1 TB of lossless into a new format. But filesize optimization would be nice, seeing that the capacity of players has not improved at all for the last few years.
I've personally moved from MP3 to AAC because of audio quality.
...and what precisely did you find wrong with MP3?
So for me if MP3 is actually keeping up fairly well with modern codecs and is universally playable anywhere, what is the incentive to move on to something else? To me it's the continued effort of the LAME developers that have made this possible and made my life simpler. My hats off to them and please do keep working on it.
Your experience matches mine. My initial enthusiasm for newer formats faded when it became apparent that in practice improving the quality of typical MP3 files was no longer possible verses what LAME was capable of. At that point newer formats essentially just offered small decreases in file size in exchange for large decreases in compatibility. From my point of view, it is no longer possible to develop a format better then MP3. Since disk space (and now flash space) is so cheap, I really don't see myself moving from MP3 anytime soon, and I've gone back and replaced most of my AAC and Vorbis rips with MP3 files.
That said, AAC is still a neat format, and I continue to be interested in optimizing it for rockbox. I just probably won't bother using it aside from testing my work.
I would only consider moving away from mp3 if there was a codec that would cut the filesizes significantly (50% or so) at the same quality... anything esle is not worth the effort of converting 1 TB of lossless into a new format. But filesize optimization would be nice, seeing that the capacity of players has not improved at all for the last few years.
I've personally moved from MP3 to AAC because of audio quality.
...and what precisely did you find wrong with MP3?
AAC just gives better audio quality with half the bitrate of MP3. Very helpful when transferring my large music collection between my playback devices. From my experience 128 kbit/s Dolby Pulse AAC is about identical sound quality to 320 kbit/s LAME MP3.
As per our forum rules, if you are going to make claims like this you must support them with double blind tests.
AAC just gives better audio quality with half the bitrate of MP3. Very helpful when transferring my large music collection between my playback devices. From my experience 128 kbit/s Dolby Pulse AAC is about identical sound quality to 320 kbit/s LAME MP3.
So you are saying that aac@128kbps = mp3@320kbps? I HIGHLY doubt it.
What happens is that aac@128kbps is "almost" transparent, as it is mp3(lame)@128kbps.
My friend has a very tiny Apple player, only 2 gig.
Does anyone else here find it amusing to hear 2 gig referred to as "very tiny"? Or was that a reference to the physical size?
I have a 4 gigabyte iPod Nano, which I consider to be pretty small, so I could go with 2 GB as "very tiny".
My old player, a Rio Karma (circa 2004) had 20 GB. My cell phone has 16 GB. Oftentimes, I'm carrying around a USB stick with another 16 gigs on it. My entire music collection now measures over 100 gig.
AAC just gives better audio quality with half the bitrate of MP3. Very helpful when transferring my large music collection between my playback devices. From my experience 128 kbit/s Dolby Pulse AAC is about identical sound quality to 320 kbit/s LAME MP3.
Care to show us some ABX tests you've done to show this?
I have a 4 gigabyte iPod Nano, which I consider to be pretty small, so I could go with 2 GB as "very tiny".
I still remember when an eight inch floppy held 64 kBytes, which was a big improvement on the boxes of punch cards that I used before that.
As per our forum rules, if you are going to make claims like this you must support them with double blind tests.
I am sorry I don't actually claim that 128 AAC is in fact better than 320 MP3 but I don't notice differences so it just works great for me. I guess the actual quality depends of the AAC encoder. I use Dolby Pulse but it has not been in listening tests yet.
jukkap
While your AAC encoder is CBR (or "short windowed ABR") it can't compete with Apple and FhG AAC VBR encoders. As simple as it is. Period.
P.S. Also I have a hard time to hear the difference between old Coding Technologies AAC encoder and your new Dolby Pulse encoder. For my ears it's just the very same encoder with some very tiny retouches. Rebranding the same product is a normal procedure today.
Even 5 ~ 10 yrs ago the difference between aac and a decent mp3 encoder was like 32k : 160 k mp3 would likely sound similar to 128k aac.. The big battle was 128k CBR and mp3 wasn't great but even then you had the space for 160 or even 192
AAC back then wasn't that stable either. Today and in the future maybe AAC could be like MPC quality @ 160 .. 190 VBR with hardware support but again mp3 is also competitive there too. At lower bitrate < 128k AAC has a clear advantage
I am sorry I don't actually claim that 128 AAC is in fact better than 320 MP3 but I don't notice differences so it just works great for me.
Perhaps, but you did say:
AAC just gives better audio quality with half the bitrate of MP3.
This is not compliant with our terms (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974) (specifically #8) which you agreed to follow upon registering here.
Some here are saying that MP3 is "universal." I know of no devices that won't play AAC. My iPods play it. Android plays it. My daughter's Zune plays it. In fact the Zune (and Windows Phone 7) actually plays files purchased from my iTunes account which brings me to this point: if iTunes is the number one distributor/retailer of music (QT AAC @256 Kbps VBR,) how can one logically claim that MP3 is still more universal?
...the answer is it is still more universal for those who do their own encoding. (Probably.) Moreover Amazon, and some other retailers of digital music, sell it in the MP3 format. And yes: there probably are a few players out there that won't support AAC currently. Are any of these players of significant marketshare that the vast majority would have some problem playing back an AAC file purchased from iTunes?
An interesting side-note: every popular device I know of, for playing ripped videos (using Handbrake, etc.,) requires the audio to be mixed down in the AAC format. This includes the XBox 360, Playstation 3, and others. I would hate to have encoded my rips with MP3 audio and then try to find something other than VLC that will play it.
So in reply to the title of the OP's post, I would say development should and will continue because more than enough people want to use MP3 and see it developed to its full potential. These codecs can coexist and do so nicely. No one should be disparaged for preferring one over the other. Choice is good.
I have a question who really has performed ABX test to see if there was an improvement for LAME 3.97/3.98/3.99 for the same bitrate.
AFAIK each new version boosts more bitrate on difficult parts. That makes uncomparable 3.97 -V5 vs 3.98 -V 5.
3.99 -V0 is better than 3.98.4/3.97 -V0 because it has higher bitrate. It's ok as V0 targets to highest quality close to max 320 kbps.
But the question is: were there any substantial improvements while keeping the same bitrate?
I remeber Guruboolez has compared 3.98 and 3.97 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=460922 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=51387&view=findpost&p=460922)
To refresh the minds 3.97 beta 2 was realesed in 2005. 6 years ago.
And also some japanese guy http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111214/1323849399 (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111214/1323849399)
I really like very much LAME project but I can't see clear improvements without increasing bitrate (since 3.97).
I know of no devices that won't play AAC.
The audio unit in my car will not play AAC. It will, however, play MP3.
I know of no devices that won't play AAC.
The audio unit in my car will not play AAC. It will, however, play MP3.
I suspect your head unit is not of recent manufacture(?) If it was, (I believe) not supporting AAC (like music sold in the iTunes music store) would be a glaring flaw and possible commercial suicide.
(I should have worded that differently. If you notice, I did acknowledge the existence of players that don't support AAC in my second paragraph. I meant I have no experience with such players. This is why I followed the sentence you quoted with those player in which I have experienced.)
.....
I really like very much LAME project but I can't see clear improvements without increasing bitrate (since 3.97).
Sure there was improvement.
Trumpet for instance was real bad when using VBR up to 3.97. 3.98 improved significantly on it. Same goes for the 'sandpaper noise' issue. Just to talk about problem samples I care about. IIRC eig improved too.
Improvements like these don't necessarily bring average bitrate up. AFAIK average bitrate for the various -V levels did not significantly vary from version to version before 3.99. For 3.99 it's by design, but even then for -V levels around -V3/-V2 average bitrate is very close to that of 3.98.
Of course individual birate of specific tracks can vary significantly reflecting changes in the psy model.
I know of no devices that won't play AAC.
I know plenty. Neither of my DVD players, which are 5-10 years old, play AAC. (One of them plays OGG Vorbis, tho, which is kinda interesting.)
My Nokia phone does play AAC, but not gaplessly. The program I use for playing music gaplessly on it doesn't support AAC.
Many PMPs I see don't play AAC, even new ones. For example the Phillips MP3 players (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/mp3-and-mp4-players/32317/dec/_MP3_PLAYERS_SU_GB_CONSUMER_true?showStaticDecision=true) and MP4 players (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/mp3-and-mp4-players/32317/dec/_PORTABLE_VIDEO_PLAYERS_SU_GB_CONSUMER_true?showStaticDecision=true) only play MP3, WAV, WMA, FLAC, APE, according to the specs.
I don't have any hard numbers, but I'd say quite a significant number of devices currently in existence don't support AAC, but pretty much all of them support MP3. You have to take into account devices released some years ago as well, they are still relevant.
On sound quality.. I only did some limited testing myself.. while I think AAC does sound better at 128kbps (which makes it very attractive for some uses), I'm not sure there's an audible advantage over MP3 at 200kbps (or V2 bitrates), which is kinda the standard bitrate used for music nowadays.
Many PMPs I see don't play AAC, even new ones. For example the Phillips MP3 players (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/mp3-and-mp4-players/32317/dec/_MP3_PLAYERS_SU_GB_CONSUMER_true?showStaticDecision=true) and MP4 players (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/mp3-and-mp4-players/32317/dec/_PORTABLE_VIDEO_PLAYERS_SU_GB_CONSUMER_true?showStaticDecision=true) only play MP3, WAV, WMA, FLAC, APE, according to the specs.
Sheesh, how could Philips
brand a PMP as MP4, if it doesn't play AAC (it does play MP4 vids)? That verges on misleading advertising.
On MP3 development, my sense from reading the tests is that while LAME hasn't improved much in the last few years, other MP3 codecs have caught up a lot of ground. Specifically, IIRC, the iTunes MP3 codec used to do badly, but in the last comparative test did well.
Sure there was improvement.
Not without rising the bitrate.
Trumpet for instance was real bad when using VBR up to 3.97. 3.98 improved significantly on it. Same goes for the 'sandpaper noise' issue. Just to talk about problem samples I care about. IIRC eig improved too.
Trumpet (sample14 from last public test):
3.97 V0 VBR NEW - 226 kbps
3.98.4 V0 - 258 kbps
3.99.3 -
287 kbpseig sample:
3.98.4 V0 - 249 kbps.
3.99 V0 -
295 kbpsAverage bitrate of V0 has gone way up for 3.99 on my set of albums.
Improvements like these don't necessarily bring average bitrate up.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=772362 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=91372&view=findpost&p=772362)
The bitrate has gone up and I failed to find at least one post where You or any other person have submit results for 3.98.4 -V0 and 3.99 -V0.x (like -V 0.25 - 0.5 or so) for the same average bitrate on large collection of albums.
Until now I have found only the results (
>15 samples) of Japanese guy. And conclusion is pretty clear: NO improvement for V2 (LAME 3.99 vs 3.98.4).
Well, there has also been a very nasty mess in the patent arena for AAC that could yet dwarf the mess for MP3 issues.
It is interesting, a 1992 paper by Johnston and Ferierra (sp?) in the ICASSP has, effectively, the guts of AAC (MPEG-2 kind) inside of it, except for the issue of TNS (which is indeed a valuable addition) and the non-uniform quantizer, which is ok for low rates, but a major, disastrous inefficiency for higher rates.
Funny how long it's been, almost 20 years.
Sure there was improvement.
Not without rising the bitrate.
....
I was talking about quality improvements and average bitrate of 3.98 vs. 3.97 at this point. Does your experience differ from mine?
As for 3.99 I think I was the first to give an average bitrate table for various -V levels and for 3.99 and 3.98. As I wrote above 3.99 behavior is diffeent here by design.
Can You provide the results where You have compared different version of LAME with setting those provide the equal bitrate on quite/enough big set of albums?
Because we're talking about some of your findings/post/topic (?) and I can't find them.
Thank You.
Cell phones in Japan used to support AAC in 3gp/3g2 format, but not MP3. Probably there were none supporting pure MP3... I don't know. They were selling heavily DRM-ed music for phones since 2002 or so, at very high price. Apparently they needed some container format for that purpose.
Panasonic Blu-ray recorder (DIGA) and Nintendo DS-i also comes in mind as such.
In Japan, AAC is the codec of digital broadcasting. Therefore, every video device must support AAC anyway.
Having said that, MP3 seems still much more popular in Japan, too ... at least as a codec for music.
I know of no devices that won't play AAC.
The audio unit in my car will not play AAC. It will, however, play MP3.
I suspect your head unit is not of recent manufacture(?) If it was, (I believe) not supporting AAC (like music sold in the iTunes music store) would be a glaring flaw and possible commercial suicide.
My new (2012) car will play only MP3 and WMA.
And I don't think they are going out of business just yet.
My new (2012) car will play only MP3 and WMA.
And I don't think they are going out of business just yet.
Can you connect an iPod to your car's stereo?
My new (2012) car will play only MP3 and WMA.
And I don't think they are going out of business just yet.
2009 Toyota. MP3 / WMA.
Can you connect an iPod to your car's stereo?
only through the line-in jack or via an optional > $100 adapter/
My new (2012) car will play only MP3 and WMA.
And I don't think they are going out of business just yet.
Can you connect an iPod to your car's stereo?
Why would I want an iPod in my car?
USB stick work well. With MP3
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.
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.
Most people who purchase music from iTunes use ipods. Since you have to pay to include AAC support in hardware devices, a lot of companies simply don't bother.
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.
Yes, AAC is fine if you stick with the Apple ecosystem.
I've nothing against MP3...it has some clear advantages.
...like being more universal.
Yes, AAC is fine if you stick with the Apple ecosystem.
I thought one of the things established in this thread was that AAC is NOT an Apple proprietary format. But obviously, in some eyes, it is for ever tainted by being the format chosen for iTunes.
(Don't bother, I know you didn't SAY that, and I know MP3 is more universal, but it would be nice to keep the AAC = Apple = DRM = teh ebbil set of associations out of it.)
Pretending Apple never came into play, you don't think DRM is fair game in this discussion?
After all, it was presented as a reason why some devices don't support mp3.
and have to use it when encoding video as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Audio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Audio)
AAC is not mentioned there, so what devices are you talking about? I presume something from Apple? Furthermore you mentioned Handbrake earlier which uses the outdated FAAC encoder (the PC version at least) and probably is worse than LAME.
...so what devices are you talking about? I presume something from Apple? Furthermore you mentioned Handbrake earlier which uses the outdated FAAC encoder (the PC version at least) and probably is worse than LAME.
Me, earlier in this same thread: "An interesting side-note: every popular device I know of, for playing ripped videos (using Handbrake, etc.,) requires the audio to be mixed down in the AAC format. This includes the XBox 360, Playstation 3, and others. I would hate to have encoded my rips with MP3 audio and then try to find something other than VLC that will play it."
Core Audio/Mac OS...not FAAC. None of the devices I listed or implied were made by Apple except the iPod. XBox is Microsoft (so is my daughter's Zune HD, which will not play a video encoded with MP3 audio either.) PS3 is Sony.
Can You provide the results where You have compared different version of LAME ...
average bitrate comparison 3.98 vs. 3.99 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=91372&view=findpost&p=772356).
I mean the comparison of different versions of LAME in quality terms with setting those provide the equal bitrate on quite/enough big set of albums.
My question still stands: were there any substantial improvements of LAME while keeping the same bitrate in last 5 years (3.97/3.98/3.99)?
Please, direct link to the proof.
When coupling with H264, usually AAC is used (since it is the defacto, standard MPEG4 audio codec).
Youtube videos are currently H264+AAC or WebM(VP8+Vorbis). Everybody uses H264+AAC for video. Therefore, it's a must-have in the recent video devices.
In fact, Adobe flash was using H263+MP3 in the past. However, since they have adopted H264+AAC, it has become popular choice very rapidly. It's probably because H264 is efficient enough to deprecate older video codecs.
Of course AAC itself has good points from technical point of view. It has multichannel support, and efficient at lower bitrate. Therefore, much suited for video streaming, where the bandwidth is limited.
However, (personally) I regard the adoption of AAC in the video world is mainly a by-product of H264.
I am sorry I don't actually claim that 128 AAC is in fact better than 320 MP3 but I don't notice differences so it just works great for me.
Perhaps, but you did say:
AAC just gives better audio quality with half the bitrate of MP3.
This is not compliant with our terms (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974) (specifically #8) which you agreed to follow upon registering here.
I am sorry I phrased my own experience of the AAC-MP3 comparison wrong. I apologize for breaking the law.
I used to use LAME -Q 2 and -b 320 and I am now satisified with the quality of the AAC bitrate (128) I've chosen.
jukkap
While your AAC encoder is CBR (or "short windowed ABR") it can't compete with Apple and FhG AAC VBR encoders. As simple as it is. Period.
P.S. Also I have a hard time to hear the difference between old Coding Technologies AAC encoder and your new Dolby Pulse encoder. For my ears it's just the very same encoder with some very tiny retouches. Rebranding the same product is a normal procedure today.
I am sorry if this is little bit out of topic. It's not my encoder it is Dolby's.
There was an unofficial 48kbps HE AAC v1 listening test where Dolby Pulse was better than CT. There also was FhG and Nero but I cannot further discuss about the results as it is confidential information.
According to Dolby; the Dolby Pulse is completely new encoder (not rebranded CT as you said). I guess the audio quality improvements are mostly hearable with HE AAC v1 and HE AAC v2.
We would need a neutral ABX listening test for actual results.
I guess the VBR improves the audio quality further when higher bitrate / AAC LC is used. I've discussed with Dolby R&D and I have a feeling there is a chance for VBR enabled Dolby Pulse.
I used to use LAME -Q 2 and -b 320 and I am now satisified with the quality of the AAC bitrate (128) I've chosen.
Ok so you find AAC 128Kbps transparent at 128Kbps, but you are also inferring that you found Lame not transparent below -Q 2 or -b 320....this is the cause of contention.
According to Dolby; the Dolby Pulse is ...
According to company A; the products of company A are ...
Ok so you find AAC 128Kbps transparent at 128Kbps, but you are also inferring that you found Lame not transparent below -Q 2 or -b 320....this is the cause of contention.
He implies, you infer.
Thanks, you have learned that to me now
Thanks, you have learned that to me now
No problem
I see what he did there…
Yes, AAC is fine if you stick with the Apple ecosystem.
I thought one of the things established in this thread was that AAC is NOT an Apple proprietary format. But obviously, in some eyes, it is for ever tainted by being the format chosen for iTunes.
On the contrary, I meant it as a compliment to Apple. They seem to be one of the only companies that has managed to get a truly robust AAC implementation across a large number of hardware devices that works as well as it should. With an iPod I am quite sure that any AAC-LC file I am likely to make or find will play, have its tags properly parsed, etc. Outside of Apple products, AAC support tends to be incomplete or even outright buggy (Sandisk i'm looking at you...). Even in the software I've worked on for rockbox we are just now beginning to approach Apple's level of robustness for AAC support after many years of trying.
(Don't bother, I know you didn't SAY that, and I know MP3 is more universal, but it would be nice to keep the AAC = Apple = DRM = teh ebbil set of associations out of it.)
Ironically, your extreme sensitivity to this topic is the only reason it was brought up. No one here thinks AAC belongs to Apple, just that in practice their products tend to be among the few worth using it with (as a music file format at least). Perhaps you should assume people here know at least a little about audio.
...Even in the software I've worked on for rockbox we are just now beginning to approach Apple's level of robustness for AAC support after many years of trying.
I, for one, appreciate your efforts. I don't
currently use Rockbox, but I may have need to in the near future. It's good to know that you all take AAC support seriously. I know plenty of people use Rockbox and, like I've said before, it's great to have options.
i would think this means it's got a much more widespread usage.
i know what aac is, but most people i know, if i asked them would not.the average 10 year old knows what an mp3 is, but i doubt many will know of any other types of codec.
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.
edit typo....
On the contrary, I meant it as a compliment to Apple. They seem to be one of the only companies that has managed to get a truly robust AAC implementation across a large number of hardware devices that works as well as it should. With an iPod I am quite sure that any AAC-LC file I am likely to make or find will play, have its tags properly parsed, etc. Outside of Apple products, AAC support tends to be incomplete or even outright buggy (Sandisk i'm looking at you...). Even in the software I've worked on for rockbox we are just now beginning to approach Apple's level of robustness for AAC support after many years of trying.
SNIP
Ironically, your extreme sensitivity to this topic is the only reason it was brought up. No one here thinks AAC belongs to Apple, just that in practice their products tend to be among the few worth using it with (as a music file format at least). Perhaps you should assume people here know at least a little about audio.
My apologies: I completely misunderstood your point, though I thought it odd, given rockbox's support for AAC. OTOH, I thought post #13 in this discussion tends towards the AAC = Apple mode, though not of course explicitly, and it is an attitude that's around, even here (yes, some people here have forgotten more about audio than I will ever learn, but not everybody).
BTW, I really liked rockbox on my iRiver H120, which I only traded from when I needed a bigger drive.
Glad to see my earlier comment went appreciated.
I'll take my practicalities over here and let you geeks duke it out.
On the contrary, I meant it as a compliment to Apple. They seem to be one of the only companies that has managed to get a truly robust AAC implementation across a large number of hardware devices that works as well as it should. With an iPod I am quite sure that any AAC-LC file I am likely to make or find will play, have its tags properly parsed, etc. Outside of Apple products, AAC support tends to be incomplete or even outright buggy (Sandisk i'm looking at you...). Even in the software I've worked on for rockbox we are just now beginning to approach Apple's level of robustness for AAC support after many years of trying.
I find this surprising, especially since, given the experience of MP3, it ought to have been possible to iron out difficulties of implementation. What is it about AAC that makes it so hard to implement? (I mean, Apple are normally quite good about getting things
right, but that's normally about knowing what to leave out rather than any special technical competence; technically, I've come to expect good community projects to be the equal of commercial stuff.) Is that part of why AAC is still less widespread than MP3, especially, it seems, in car audio?
of commercial stuff.) Is that part of why AAC is still less widespread than MP3, especially, it seems, in car audio?
Just to steal a bit from this:
MP3, I think we all can accept, is going to be implemented in any digital-format-playing device due to its prevalence.
Microsoft very actively
encouraged (for a very wide variety of definitions of the term) hardware makers to add WMA support to their devices. I believe there is little doubt why (since the death of most DRM WMA music services) that is why there are more hardware devices (car head units / DVD players / DAPs) which play WMA than actual WMA files in the wild.
Is anyone doing the same for AAC?
Also Microsoft fully supports standards LC-AAC/HE-AAC(SBR and PS) and H.264 (including hardware acceleration) starting from Windows 7 and its entertaitment devices.
And it does very well.
It's not only Apple supports AAC but aslo Microsoft and many others as well
Now it's very rare to see one mobile phone (smartphone etc) that doesn't support AAC.
Big majority of people buy just one device that is phone, player, photocam, videocam. So the phrase "I don't care about mobile phones " doesn't convince a lot.
Perhaps the one who started the topic wanted to say, why keeping effort in a MP3 codec that's almost fully developed -and not moving to a codec yet in progress-? I mean, is worth investing time in LAME considering the improvements that can be made nowadays?
Why not starting/improving an open source AAC project instead? With the potential of the people working on LAME, I think we could get great results. AND countering the AAC=Apple effect at the same time.
Effort-reward < that's the correct concept.
Personally, I prefer and do have my entire music collection as MP3. Some FLAC backups, which were never played. I entirely appreciate the work done on LAME project, but if a genius appeared and said, "what would you prefer to this manpower?" I think I would say AAC. (a bit childlish but illustrative example).
However, if FAAC project were active, or some other FOSS work were good enough today, I would say nothing about this.
I think there's some truth in "AAC=Apple" belief. There are things not defined in the ISO standard such as tags and handling of priming frames, and now iTunes style is being regarded as de-facto.
Some hardware player are even known to refuse mpeg4 brand other than M4A (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=91161&).
In fact, I don't think current scheme (iTunSMPB) is an ideal solution, since MP4 container can contain multiple audio tracks, while iTuneSMPB being a container-global tag. They are useful only when it contains one audio track. Surely it's enough for iTunes. They even use special M4A brand to explicitly declare the usage of the container.
However, MP4 can be generally more than that. Since AAC encoder delay is usually much bigger than LAME encoder, it notably result in video/audio out of sync without some handling of priming frames.
Apple introduced a new scheme to handling priming frames in the recent QuickTime file format spec (http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/QuickTime/QTFF/QTFFAppenG/QTFFAppenG.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40000939-CH2-SW1), but I don't know if anyone is using it. Anyway, it's not spec of MP4, but QuickTime file format.
I see MP4 container is usually not well supported. Even softwares didn't support many things such as edts/elst(edit list) until very recently. In fact, even now, they are not fully supported. Only one exception being QuickTime, but even QuickTime is not perfect as a MP4 implementation.
people working on LAME
According to the LAME changelog, LAME 3.98 and 3.99 were tuned mostly by
robert. (or even only by
robert, I'm not sure).
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)
The virtue of MP3 is its simplicity compared to WMA or AAC.
It is much easier to implement a hardware player for MP3.
Dare I ask what you believe a "hardware player" is?
Dare I ask what you believe a "hardware player" is?
He probably mean not a software player.
Dare I ask what you believe a "hardware player" is?
He probably mean not a software player.
And dare I ask what the distinction is?
EDIT:
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.
The file size does not matter because the storage is cheap compared to the actual playback implementation.
As long as people still buy 8GB players, files size does in fact matter; though I suppose it will always matter for those who want instant access to a large* collection stored locally.
(*) subjective: may be 300 albums for one person, 15,000 albums for another and is ever-growing.
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.
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.
Codec performance comparison (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82125) by saratoga.
--
too slow again...
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 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82125&mode=threaded&pid=713417)
Then MP3 is likely not the right choice.
EDIT:
Crap - THIRD in line?
Sorry, didn't intend to gang bang.
...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.
http://www.vlsi.fi/en/support/productstatus.html (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.
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?
http://www.vlsi.fi/en/support/productstatus.html (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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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!!!
Perhaps V1 is the new V0?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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)
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
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.)
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.
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.
@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!
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.
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.
If it's a matter of licensing, I grudgingly concede that I "get it." Your point is also valid regarding those that use iPods. FWIW, Saratoga, if it had been you that vaguely implied that I was stupid I think my response would have been a bit less harsh. You have actually made some pretty outstanding contributions here. I'm pretty much always op-ed because I'm not focused enough on any one hobby/interest to be very proficient at or knowledgeable of any. I don't know most of the things that many here do and that's why I hang out. I try not to get involved in pissing contests over trivial matters anymore, as I have admittedly been a jerk in the past. (greynol rightly binned most of that BS.)
...maybe I need to try even harder still.
@Ouroboros: I had one of those MD decks in my car up until about four years ago! (I'm pretty stubborn and slow to let go of some things.)