Old 23rd June 2002, 01:03   #1
weedmonkey
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6
New Audio Format, More Quality, Less Space

For those of you whose lives revolve around music, there's a new audio format called MP4 or AAC (Advanced Audio Code), the next generation of digital music is here. Not only is the AAC format 50% smaller than mp3, it's 128Kbs compression is indentical to that of an uncompressed CD, to listen to some samples, download Quicktime Public Preview 6 and listen to the samples in the AAC Gallery, Enjoy.
weedmonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2002, 01:06   #2
rm'
Banned
 
rm''s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,361
AAC requires a per user royalty, doesn't it? Not something the everyday internet user is willing to pay for.
rm' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2002, 04:03   #3
QHOBBES
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: I H8 Mods
Posts: 1,405
Send a message via AIM to QHOBBES Send a message via Yahoo to QHOBBES
i'd pay for it if it was free (beer) or i had $1,000,000,000
QHOBBES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2002, 20:16   #4
frod
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6
Send a message via AIM to frod
i'm an avid user of musepack myself, which offers superb audio quality at file sizes similar to mp3. i extremely doubt that a 128kbps file at half the size of mp3 is "identical" to uncompressed cd audio. why do i doubt this? because the codec is a lossy codec. many people try to tell me that 128kbps or even 192kbps mp3 is "identical" to cd and there is a huge difference in quality between those two and cd audio. if this codec does the same as mp3 and trims "unneeded" frequencies (mp3 cuts everything below 20Hz and above 22Khz i believe) we can expect to hear a lot of low and high end distortion and the loss of certain harmonics for specific sounds leading to different timbres of sound. which in my opinion is nowhere close to cd audio quality.

at least musepack offers full frequency encoding :). which is primarily why i use it. i can get nearly identical (and i mean pretty damn close) to cd quality at about 225kbps average bitrate which makes me happy considering musepack is equivalent in size to mp3 at the same bitrate (i used to encode everything in 320kbps mp3 :/)
frod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2002, 01:54   #5
Little_Tiger
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22
Send a message via ICQ to Little_Tiger Send a message via Yahoo to Little_Tiger
Any link??

love to see that new format...any link where I can read or get anyrthing??

thanks
LT
Little_Tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2002, 01:58   #6
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
My ears are b0rked so 128k ogg works for me. Best size/quality rating imho. Not as good as MP3 or higher bitrate ogg but I had to listen pretty hard to tell.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2002, 06:08   #7
slacker52
Senior Member
 
slacker52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: hickville
Posts: 396
Send a message via AIM to slacker52
whats the big deal here, i listen to mp3s and as far as im concerned, they sound EXACTLY the same as a cd, am i just not listening hard enough?
slacker52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2002, 10:11   #8
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,309
If I remember correctly, AAC was a free format until it was purchased by Dolby and became commercial stuff.
Not for me, thanks
Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2002, 20:34   #9
DJ AmPs
Major Dude
 
DJ AmPs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: g
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally posted by frod
(mp3 cuts everything below 20Hz and above 22Khz i believe)
Not quite. In any format the frequencies above half the sampling rate are chopped off. The mp3 format removes frequencies on the hearing range and tricks the human ear by removing only frequencies least noticable -- which are those nearest the loudest frequencies. i.e. if 1khz is a relatively high level (in dB) 1.001 and 0.999 khz could be removed without you noticing. Crappy computer speakers usually help hide these artifacts which are most notable in the high frequencies.

If you've ever critically listened to anything under 192k on good studio monitors or an "audiophile" system you know what I'm talking about.

-amps
DJ AmPs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2002, 23:25   #10
apollos
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canterbury & Plymouth
Posts: 4,176
Music is the main thing I do on my PC. I rip to ogg vorbis and it averages out to 455kpbs on the tracks. I love this and feel that 18mb for one track is sure worth it!

When mp4 becomes the next toast and butter should I bother using it or is ogg a good format to keep with.

/me frowns on the more compressed but better quality comment.
I wonder if any media players will be able to support it any time soon!
apollos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2002, 02:32   #11
dollerspark
Major Dude
 
dollerspark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wh!te Tr@sh Hell (AZ)
Posts: 708
Send a message via AIM to dollerspark
It was a big thing when I got into using mp3s...

Then I discovered OGG and started slowly making the switch to that...

Now this?!

Can any audio smartie tell me which is the best to go with?!

"We are fortunate: we are alive; we are powerful; the welfare of our civilization and our species is in our hands. If we do not speak for Earth, who will? If we are not committed to our own survival, who will be?" -Carl Sagan
dollerspark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2002, 08:27   #12
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,309
Quote:
Originally posted by dollerspark
It was a big thing when I got into using mp3s...

Then I discovered OGG and started slowly making the switch to that...

Now this?!

Can any audio smartie tell me which is the best to go with?!
MP3 is still the standard and Ogg development is going strong. I'd stick to one of these two for now but that's just my opinion.
Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2002, 12:04   #13
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,910
vorbis owns j00!!!!
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2002, 21:36   #14
One Last Breath
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: i live in a shoe
Posts: 7
Send a message via AIM to One Last Breath
mp3 til i die...

i'll be sportin the mp3s until i die, 192kbs style...
One Last Breath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2002, 21:47   #15
deadrabbit
Major Dude
 
deadrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: VT, US
Posts: 612
oggs! now if only winamp3 could read the tags right . . .
deadrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2002, 22:20   #16
dylman
Forum King
 
dylman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawarden
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally posted by Inatlantis
Music is the main thing I do on my PC. I rip to ogg vorbis and it averages out to 455kpbs on the tracks. I love this and feel that 18mb for one track is sure worth it!
I hope you have a very good soundcard and very good speakers

There's no need to tell me when I'm right;
I operate on that principle exclusively and with absolute certainty
dylman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2002, 20:30   #17
StreetWalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 182
what characterics are affected at less than 192khz

Quote:
Originally posted by DJ AmPs


Not quite. In any format the frequencies above half the sampling rate are chopped off. The mp3 format removes frequencies on the hearing range and tricks the human ear by removing only frequencies least noticable -- which are those nearest the loudest frequencies. i.e. if 1khz is a relatively high level (in dB) 1.001 and 0.999 khz could be removed without you noticing. Crappy computer speakers usually help hide these artifacts which are most notable in the high frequencies.

If you've ever critically listened to anything under 192k on good studio monitors or an "audiophile" system you know what I'm talking about.

-amps
Since 44.1khz sampling rate is more than twice the highest frequency in the audio, I think all the audible frequencies can be reproduced.

Can you tell me what characteristics in the audio is being lost using sampling rates less than 192khz? Is it the percusive sound (with fast rise times) or sonic quality that you lose?

Steve
StreetWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2002, 20:49   #18
Gumpster
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1
MP3PRO

Check out the next generation mp3. MP3PRO

http://www.thomson-multimedia.com/gb/00/mp3.htm

Half the file size of 128k mp3 at 64k mp3 bit rate with equal or higher quality
Gumpster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2002, 22:29   #19
dylman
Forum King
 
dylman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawarden
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally posted by Gumpster
Check out the next generation mp3. MP3PRO

http://www.thomson-multimedia.com/gb/00/mp3.htm

Half the file size of 128k mp3 at 64k mp3 bit rate with equal or higher quality
Have you compared them for yourself? With decent hardware and not sub-standard PC speakers? And of course you have the ABX tests to back this up. And you obviously have (at the very least) links to independent reviews to back up your claims.

edit: I don't want to sound too harsh, sorry... It's just that mp3pro is a bit shit, really.

There's no need to tell me when I'm right;
I operate on that principle exclusively and with absolute certainty

Last edited by dylman; 7th July 2002 at 22:46.
dylman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2002, 02:12   #20
slacker52
Senior Member
 
slacker52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: hickville
Posts: 396
Send a message via AIM to slacker52
whats the big deal here, i listen to mp3s and cds\wma\wav ect, as far as im concerned, they sound EXACTLY the same, am i just not listening hard enough?
slacker52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2002, 07:05   #21
liquidmotion
Smokes Two Joints
Beta Team
 
liquidmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SFBA
Posts: 3,680
Send a message via ICQ to liquidmotion
so, what's the conclusion? is AAC/MP4 better than mp3?

For a good time: shup | stashbox | my homepage
liquidmotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2002, 09:17   #22
Diabolica
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3
If you want to hear some tests of aac, then you'll need the new Quicktime 6 player. Then browse Apple under the quicktime and you'll find an Audio Gallery that has some aac files, Apple style. Also, search for a website called Rarewares and they have aac encoding software. I believe aac will take center stage once we can get SACD and/or DVD audio into CDROM/CDRW/DVDROM drives. Once we are able to rip multichannel audio, it'll take one of these advanced formats to compress it whilst maintaining the multichannel music. mp3 is aging and we need to move away from it.
Diabolica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2002, 18:50   #23
sub1zero
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally posted by liquidmotion
so, what's the conclusion? is AAC/MP4 better than mp3?
pretty much even WMA is better than mp3
sub1zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump