Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

Topic: Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr) (Read 2566 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

2002-10-29 22:28:38

    On a recent visit to Circuit City, MP3-decoding was available on a few boomboxes, many portable CD-players, and most DVD-players. Will MP4-decoding (for AAC files, such as the MPEG-4 "movies" made by QuickTime 6 Pro) also be available in the near future in commercial products? Do you have any estimates of when, and whether these might become as common as products with MP3-decoding?
    Will the answers change for players that can decode files that are encoded using AAC-plus-SBR?

    I'm not concerned about getting players immediately, but I'm starting to archive my old audio tapes, and am debating the pros and cons of using MP3 vs AAC vs AAC+SBR, re: quality of music and future availability of players. {It's no good having high-quality files if they can't be played!}

Mike

Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

Reply #1 – 2002-10-29 22:37:23

supposedly the first mpeg-4 compatible dvd player was recently announced (read it on slashdot but forget the link), so its probably safe to say that within the next six months AAC audio will be playable on a new dvd player. As for boomboxes, etc., who knows?

For encoding from tape, quality won't be great no matter what codec you choose. Personally, I'd just encode to mp3 instead of waiting for aac support.

Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

Reply #2 – 2002-10-30 06:42:37

Quote

On a recent visit to Circuit City, MP3-decoding was available on a few boomboxes, many portable CD-players, and most DVD-players. Will MP4-decoding (for AAC files, such as the MPEG-4 "movies" made by QuickTime 6 Pro) also be available in the near future in commercial products? Do you have any estimates of when, and whether these might become as common as products with MP3-decoding?

If you're looking for hardware players for AAC files, take a look at the Wiki on http://www.audiocoding.com and search for the page that refers to this question. So there are already quite a lot of products that support this format, but I don't think that they would recognize *.mp4 as a valid type. The only one I could think of is the portable from Apple that I saw on their website searching for "AAC", but I forgot its name. I don't know if there is a plugin or small application that can do a conversion from *.mp4 back to *.aac, but it shouldn't be a big deal, because the raw bitstream is the same and only the headers change for an audio file. For example the Winamp input plugin in_mp4.dll offers a conversion via Alt+3 (file info) from *.aac to *.mp4, so it shouldn't be too difficult the other way round.

Quote

Will the answers change for players that can decode files that are encoded using AAC-plus-SBR?

The hardware support for AAC+ will probably take some time, because there isn't even a single player for mp3PRO out yet, which uses the same SBR from Coding Technologies. According to their website, this should happen this Christmas, so let's see... Because SBR is using much more hardware ressources than the same format without it, the CPUs in these hardware players must be stronger than before, which is probably the reason for their delay.

Quote

I'm not concerned about getting players immediately, but I'm starting to archive my old audio tapes, and am debating the pros and cons of using MP3 vs AAC vs AAC+SBR, re: quality of music and future availability of players. {It's no good having high-quality files if they can't be played!}

Well, for "normal" AAC files this should have been answered (Philips Expanium is still the only available CD portable, as far as I know), but concerning AAC+ you should specify why you think about it for archiving your tapes, because in the first place this format is meant for really low bitrates that will enable direct "live" listening over transmission lines with a limited bandwidth like digital radio or internet connections via modem/ISDN. So probably there won't be any bitrates available above 64 kbps/stereo, which means that this format will not range in the "transparent quality" that usually is considered for archival purposes.

On the other hand the EBU 2002 comparison test seems to show that it is already good enough for near-CD quality at 48 kbps/stereo, so maybe this is enough for your needs. It will be more than enough for mine for sure, by the way... And let's not forget that all this is speculation, until Coding Technologies hopefully decides to come out with an encoder/decoder software for testing purposes, like they did for promoting mp3PRO.

Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

Reply #3 – 2002-11-01 19:09:51

Thanks for all of the great information about players,...

Floyd says,

Quote

For encoding from tape, quality won't be great no matter what codec you choose. Personally, I'd just encode to mp3 instead of waiting for aac support.

For converting analog-taped music into digitial, I was planning to use LAME at 192 kbps, and when AAC became easily available (in QuickTime 6 Pro; I use a Mac, so Psytel isn't an option) I decided to change to AAC at 160 kbps (or maybe 128). / For quality, either LAME-192 or AAC-160 (or 128) is fine with me, but for "playability" I'm wondering if -- 5 or 10 years in the future -- it might be easier to find players for AAC/mp4, since these formats (not mp3) seem to be more "where things are headed" in the near future.

and Hans says,

Quote

concerning AAC+ you should specify why you think about it for archiving your tapes, because in the first place this format is meant for really low bitrates... So probably there won't be any bitrates available above 64 kbps/stereo, which means that this format will not range in the "transparent quality" that usually is considered for archival purposes.

I'm sorry for my lack of clarity.
As described above, for taped MUSIC I'll mainly use LAME-192 or (more probably) AAC-160 or AAC-128.
For taped SPEECH (lectures, interviews,...) I'll be using lower bitrates (mp3 at 80 or 64, mp3-Pro at 64, AAC at 64, or AAC+ at 48, or something like that), but it's nice to have these portable (for workouts, car trips,...) to have idea-inspiring things to think about. {Music is always available on the radio, but finding ideas worth listening to is not as easy.}

Quote

The hardware support for AAC+ will probably take some time, because there isn't even a single player for mp3PRO out yet, which uses the same SBR from Coding Technologies.

If "some time" is 1-2 years (rather than "never") that will be fine. Any estimates about when?
And if a player has SBR (for mp3-Pro) and it also has AAC, would it be easy to combine these to decode AAC-with-SBR, or would it be technically or economically difficult?

And does anyone know if AAC+SBR will be available in Mac-software programs (like iTunes and Audion 3) in the near future? Currently iTunes plays AAC (*.mp4) but Audion 3 doesn't.

Quote

there are already quite a lot of products that support this format, but I don't think that they would recognize *.mp4 as a valid type. ..... I don't know if there is a plugin or small application that can do a conversion from *.mp4 back to *.aac, but it shouldn't be a big deal, because the raw bitstream is the same and only the headers change for an audio file.

Wouldn't it be easier to standardize the format (and if mp4 will also be used for movies/... this seems like the most likely choice) or to make players that can recognize both types of headers? Of course, this won't be useful for players that already are manufactured and ready for sale, but is this (making a player recognize either *.mp4 or *.aac) what is being done for players that are now being designed for sale in the future?

Mike

Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

Reply #4 – 2002-11-01 19:21:42

Some players at Circuit City specified the mp3-bitrates they could play, and I think it was something like 64, 96, 128, 192, and 256. (and not 80, 112, 160, 224?) Is this limitation common for portables? for DVD-players?

Is there a technical (or economic) reason for limiting a player to only these bitrates (for mp3 and/or AAC), thus making it useless for files recorded at the other rates?

And what about VBR-decoding in players? (for encoding, I don't think Apple's "QuickTime 6 Pro" offers VBR as an option)

Mike

Players For Aac (and Aac-with-sbr)

Reply #5 – 2002-11-02 07:54:45

Quote from: MikeR,Nov 1 2002 - 08:09 PM

Quote from: Floyd,Oct 29 2002 - 11:37 PM
For encoding from tape, quality won't be great no matter what codec you choose. Personally, I'd just encode to mp3 instead of waiting for aac support.

@Floyd: I think it's a little bit more complicated, because "analog tape" can mean two different things: big-reel recordings on 1/4" tape done with Studer/Revox machines and the like, or analog cassette recordings. The former can have a very high audio quality (all recording studios mastered their productions like this "in the old days", some even do it still), the latter usually sounds worse (but can still have a good quality, if they have been recorded on a decent cassette deck and stored in a non-magnetic and cool environment). Mike didn't tell us yet what kind of analog tapes he wants to archive...

And he doesn't have to wait for AAC support, he's already got it with QuickTime 6 Pro, so it is the better solution to use at least that format and not MP3.

Quote from: MikeR,Nov 1 2002 - 08:09 PM

For quality, either LAME-192 or AAC-160 (or 128) is fine with me, but for "playability" I'm wondering if -- 5 or 10 years in the future -- it might be easier to find players for AAC/mp4, since these formats (not mp3) seem to be more "where things are headed" in the near future.

It's hard to tell what will be the standard in 5-10 years, but I don't think that MP3 will not be playable on hardware players then. This format is more than 10 years old now, and it happened only recently that it became aware to the "Joe Average" guy. AAC has been standardized in 1997, so it also isn't that "fresh" anymore. But I think that within the container format of MPEG-4 it will last for the next decade probably, because that's where almost all big companies (even Dolby) seem to be heading now. For a good overview of all possible things in store, you might take a look at the official FAQs from the MPEG Audio Subgroup, especially the one for MPEG-4:

http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpe.../faq/mpeg4.html

Quote

For taped SPEECH (lectures, interviews,...) I'll be using lower bitrates (mp3 at 80 or 64, mp3-Pro at 64, AAC at 64, or AAC+ at 48, or something like that), but it's nice to have these portable (for workouts, car trips,...) to have idea-inspiring things to think about. {Music is always available on the radio, but finding ideas worth listening to is not as easy.}

For listening environments like a workout or car trip with a portable, you could also choose mp3PRO at 64 kbps or AAC at 80 kbps or AAC+ at 48 kbps (when it's available) for music without missing anything, that's for sure. And for speech you can even go lower than that. The only question that no one can answer for you is if these bitrates are also sufficient in a quite environment on a HiFi stereo setup, because it depends on the quality of your analog tapes and your prefered music and your sensitivity to certain artifacts (which has nothing to do with hearing ability, by the way).

Quote

Quote
The hardware support for AAC+ will probably take some time, because there isn't even a single player for mp3PRO out yet, which uses the same SBR from Coding Technologies.

If "some time" is 1-2 years (rather than "never") that will be fine. Any estimates about when?

I think that could match it quite well, but don't count on me in this...

Quote

And if a player has SBR (for mp3-Pro) and it also has AAC, would it be easy to combine these to decode AAC-with-SBR, or would it be technically or economically difficult?

No, you can't combine those two in that way, because the underlying codec is different, and SBR has be to carefully adopted to each audio format for itself. The good news though is that Coding Technologies works on both formats and is familiar with them, because most of the people in this company come from the FhG Institute for Integrated Circuits, so they should know what they are doing.

Quote

And does anyone know if AAC+SBR will be available in Mac-software programs (like iTunes and Audion 3) in the near future? Currently iTunes plays AAC (*.mp4) but Audion 3 doesn't.

Like I already wrote, you can always tell the companies that you would like to see support for a newer and better format in their software/hardware. And if they are not completely ignorant, they will probably consider it, especially if they already work with related older formats. As far as I know, Audion has integrated mp3PRO this July, so they will probably have an eye on any new developments from that direction on their own.

Quote

Quote
There are already quite a lot of (hardware) products that support this format, but I don't think that they would recognize *.mp4 as a valid type. ..... I don't know if there is a plugin or small application that can do a conversion from *.mp4 back to *.aac, but it shouldn't be a big deal, because the raw bitstream is the same and only the headers change for an audio file.

Wouldn't it be easier to standardize the format (and if mp4 will also be used for movies/... this seems like the most likely choice) or to make players that can recognize both types of headers? Of course, this won't be useful for players that already are manufactured and ready for sale, but is this (making a player recognize either *.mp4 or *.aac) what is being done for players that are now being designed for sale in the future?

As I don't own a portable player, I can only tell you what I've read about them, and the only one capable to recognize *.mp4 at the moment seems to be the one from Apple (is it "iPod" or "iPad"? I don't remember...), while the others only know *.aac until now. But maybe I'm wrong, so someone will hopefully correct me on this. And future hardware players will probably rather support *.mp4, because this is where the standard aims at (see the FAQ I mentioned). So they will be able to decide if there is any audio content inside the MPEG-4 container and play it then. But maybe manufacturers will also take care that *.aac is a valid audio format, too, I don't know...

Software players like Winamp shouldn't have any difficulties with both endings (if you use in_mp4.dll) and can of course be updated more easily than existing hardware players like Philips Expanium.

Quote from: MikeR,Nov 1 2002 - 08:21 PM

Some players at Circuit City specified the mp3-bitrates they could play, and I think it was something like 64, 96, 128, 192, and 256. (and not 80, 112, 160, 224?) Is this limitation common for portables? for DVD-players?

No, not nowadays, because it is like you wrote later on: the MP3 and AAC formats incorporate VBR, so any player that claims to be standard-compliant must be able to play any bitrate between the defined limits. But this had been a problem with old portables, as far as I know.

Quote

And what about VBR-decoding in players? (for encoding, I don't think Apple's "QuickTime 6 Pro" offers VBR as an option)

This might be true, because the FhG evaluation build I wrote about isn't able to use VBR, too. But this shouldn't affect the playability of VBR encodings in existing hardware players. As far as I remember, Philips Expanium players also understand PsyTEL AAC files done with its presets which always use VBR.

Notice