The future of audio compression?

[Industrial One]

What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current state-
of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about compression
no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays download in less
than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries? On the other hand,
5.1 audio consumes a lot of space, but that's why we got AAC with all
its cool extensions that retains the same quality at the same bitrates
that MP3 requires for stereo files. And bandwidth keeps getting better
and better at a slow but steady pace, so will there be any demand for
transparency at bitrates lower than 128 kbps? AAC was built 'cuz
mobile audio players had space limited to like 32 megs back then, so
I'm guessing there would need to be a better justification for effort
on a new format than "well because nowadays the best comp can store up
to 400,000 songs, and I wanna store 400,001." There are justifications
for new VIDEO formats for obvious reasons.

But if there was to be a new format, what would it be? MP5 would
probably be the most suitable name, though it's possible that homofags
from ISO might throw in some bull**** like "SAAC" (Super advanced
audio coding) as they did with AAC when it should've been called MP4
and ONLY MP4. Anyway, would it just be an extension like MP4 was from
MP3 with only tweaks to the same general technique? I'm thinking no,
'cuz AAC is really struggling to make its advantage over MP3 DEAD
OBVIOUS instead of "subjective" with add-ons like SBR and Parametric
Stereo. It looks to me the frourier and MDCT techniques have been
exhausted by now and won't get better, so MP5 will likely need a
completely redefined method that will beat the **** out of every
existing format. The thing that comes to my mind is some kind of
smart, procedural coding that looks at high-level elements of the
audio (being able to seperate different instrument and voice staffs,
summarize their characteristics and replace the audio with side
information about how they flow.) Say you got a recorded 3 hour speech
by Obama, the codec stores information about the traits of his voice
in the header, and converts the actual words into text. Upon playback,
the decoder converts the text into audio with voice characteristics as
specified in the header. At the lowest bitrates, his speech would have
his voice, but sound really robotic and lack intonation, e.g. if he
laughs, he will laugh the same way every time (negating the length)
because it's stored in the file as "hahahaha" and not enough info in
the header to convey the original tone since we're using a low
bitrate. Way more permissible loss than the audio sounding like a
rhino shat in the mic like MP3 sounds at 32 kbps. And with music, same
thing, any loss will not be bit-by-bit low-level loss like current
encoders but difference on the exact tone of the notes, the intensity
of the cymbals and drums, etc. much like a sequenced MIDI version of a
song.

I wonder what the new default bitrate would be? I predict 16 kbps to
be advertized as comparable quality to 128 kbps MP3 (MP3 will never
die), and 32-64 being the new transparency point in audio. Finally HQ
streaming be possible on dial-up, or am I just tripping balls?

What about you mofos? What do y'all think?

[Eeyore]

Industrial One wrote:

> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current state-
> of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about compression
> no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays download in less
> than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?

I think that memory and HDs will get so big and inexpensive the we'll go
back to uncompressed audio ( thankfully ). I doubt existing codecs can be
much improved.

Graham

[Geoff]

Eeyore wrote:
> Industrial One wrote:
>
>> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
>> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
>> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
>> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?
>
> I think that memory and HDs will get so big and inexpensive the we'll
> go back to uncompressed audio ( thankfully ). I doubt existing codecs
> can be much improved.

They already are. People still seem more impressed at the comcept of getting
10 million songs that sound like crap on their ipod that 1 million that
sound pretty bloody good.

geoff

[Eeyore]

geoff wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Industrial One wrote:
> >
> >> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
> >> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
> >> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
> >> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?
> >
> > I think that memory and HDs will get so big and inexpensive the we'll
> > go back to uncompressed audio ( thankfully ). I doubt existing codecs
> > can be much improved.
>
> They already are. People still seem more impressed at the comcept of getting
> 10 million songs that sound like crap on their ipod that 1 million that
> sound pretty bloody good.

What amuses me is if they've bothered to calculate how long it would take to
listen to them all !

Graham

[Ben Bradley]

in comp.compression,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro, On Fri, 13 Mar 2009
02:56:49 +0000, Eeyore > wrote:

>
>
>geoff wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > Industrial One wrote:
>> >
>> >> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
>> >> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
>> >> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
>> >> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?

There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:

Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
...
> in comp.compression,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro, On Fri, 13 Mar 2009
> 02:56:49 +0000, Eeyore > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> > Industrial One wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
>>> >> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
>>> >> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
>>> >> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?
>
> There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
> college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
> and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:
>
> Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205
>


Doesn't surprise me at all, as the same thing happened when CD came out and
lots of people, especially the younger ones still preferred vinyl, as that
was what they were familiar with. Ditto with the big expansion of radio into
FM in the UK in the '70s. Many people, in this case mostly older ones, said
they preferred AM as it sounded "more mellow" and FM was screechy.

I myself find that when I listen to other loudspeakers, for some 10-15
minutes they sound "wrong" until I get used to them. Then I can use them
perfectly happily, to have the same reaction when I return to my normal
equipment.

Sadly, for many of not most people now, especially younger ones, MP3,
especially low bit-rate MP3 is the norm, and anything else will sound
"wrong".

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Bradley > wrote:
>02:56:49 +0000, Eeyore > wrote:
>>geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> > Industrial One wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
>>> >> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
>>> >> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
>>> >> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?
>
> There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
>college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
>and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:
>
>Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205

Of course, because this is what they are used to listening to. The problem
is that we have a generation or more of people who have never heard live
acoustic music and have no idea what 'realism' is. And if you don't have
that touchstone, you can't really evaluate anything.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trixter]

On Mar 12, 7:33*am, Industrial One > wrote:
> 5.1 audio consumes a lot of space, but that's why we got AAC with all
> its cool extensions that retains the same quality at the same bitrates
> that MP3 requires for stereo files.

Not sure what 5.1 soundtracks you've looked at, but they definitely
don't fit into the same bitrates as MP3. The only comparable target
might be a 320kbps 2.0 mp3 compared to a 384kbps 5.1 ac3, but the
quality of the 5.1 soundtrack audibly suffers at that rate if there
isn't enough material shared amongst channels.

> I predict 16 kbps to
> be advertized as comparable quality to 128 kbps MP3 (MP3 will never
> die), and 32-64 being the new transparency point in audio. Finally HQ
> streaming be possible on dial-up, or am I just tripping balls?

I vote for "tripping balls".

[Eli the Bearded]

In comp.compression, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Ben Bradley > wrote:
>> There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
>> college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
>> and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:
> Of course, because this is what they are used to listening to.

I don't think that's self-evident. People have been upgrading to audio
formats for how long? And in many cases it was because a lot of people
thought the new format sounded better.

> The problem is that we have a generation or more of people who have
> never heard live acoustic music and have no idea what 'realism' is.
> And if you don't have that touchstone, you can't really evaluate
> anything.

Maybe, but it could just be a passing fad, like people convincing
themselves bell-bottoms look good.

Elijah
------
not everyone has the tastes of an audio engineer

[[email protected]]

On Mar 13, 2:18*pm, Eli the Bearded > wrote:
> In comp.compression, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> > Ben Bradley > wrote:
> >> * *There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
> >> college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
> >> and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:
> > Of course, because this is what they are used to listening to.
>
> I don't think that's self-evident. People have been upgrading to audio
> formats for how long? And in many cases it was because a lot of people
> thought the new format sounded better.

And in many cases, it wasn't. It was because
the new media provided for convenience, or
reduced price, or because some media moguls
decided that there future revenues lay in the
direction of forcing people to scrap their current
format and replace it with a new one, etc..

> not everyone has the tastes of an audio engineer

Not everyone has taste.

[Industrial One]

On Mar 13, 5:19 pm, Trixter > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:33 am, Industrial One > wrote:
>
> > 5.1 audio consumes a lot of space, but that's why we got AAC with all
> > its cool extensions that retains the same quality at the same bitrates
> > that MP3 requires for stereo files.
>
> Not sure what 5.1 soundtracks you've looked at, but they definitely
> don't fit into the same bitrates as MP3. The only comparable target
> might be a 320kbps 2.0 mp3 compared to a 384kbps 5.1 ac3, but the
> quality of the 5.1 soundtrack audibly suffers at that rate if there
> isn't enough material shared amongst channels.

I said AAC, not AC3 (precisely why they should've stuck to MP4. God
damn geeks love to complicate ****, man). Surround sound with HE-AAC
at 192 kbps is comparable to MP3 at the same rate for stereo, but it's
better to use 256-320 'cuz SBR tends to screw cymbals and any sharp
audio.

> > I predict 16 kbps to
> > be advertized as comparable quality to 128 kbps MP3 (MP3 will never
> > die), and 32-64 being the new transparency point in audio. Finally HQ
> > streaming be possible on dial-up, or am I just tripping balls?
>
> I vote for "tripping balls".

:/

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Ben Bradley > wrote:
> in comp.compression,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro, On Fri, 13 Mar 2009
> 02:56:49 +0000, Eeyore > wrote:

> >
> >
> >geoff wrote:
> >
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> > Industrial One wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
> >> >> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
> >> >> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
> >> >> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?

> There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
> college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
> and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:

> Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205


I wouldn't take that test too seriously.


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70272&hl=


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Ben Bradley > wrote:
> >02:56:49 +0000, Eeyore > wrote:
> >>geoff wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> > Industrial One wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current
> >>> >> state- of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about
> >>> >> compression no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays
> >>> >> download in less than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries?
> >
> > There's a recent story on Slashdut. A professor has done tests of
> >college students with MP3 of various bitrates vs. uncompressed audio,
> >and most students nowadays PREFER the 128k MP3 sound:
> >
> >Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format
> >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205
>
> Of course, because this is what they are used to listening to. The problem
> is that we have a generation or more of people who have never heard live
> acoustic music and have no idea what 'realism' is. And if you don't have
> that touchstone, you can't really evaluate anything.

Never mind they've deafened themselves with constant listening via earbuds.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Eli the Bearded" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think that's self-evident. People have been upgrading to audio
> formats for how long? And in many cases it was because a lot of people
> thought the new format sounded better.

That certainly applies to formats like SACD where the marketing was more
important than the recordings.
However most people used formats like cassette and MP3 simply because they
are convenient.
Once accustomed to a certain sound however, many do prefer to stick with it
for whatever reason. The continued preference by some for vinyl, valves etc.
despite paying a higher cost for lower quality, makes those people convince
themselves there is a technical reason despite the fact there is not.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

On Mar 12, 7:33 am, Industrial One > wrote:
> I predict 16 kbps to
> be advertized as comparable quality to 128 kbps MP3 (MP3 will never
> die), and 32-64 being the new transparency point in audio.

With bandwidth and data storage increasing rapidly for most people, have you
stopped to ask WHY?
I predict 128-256kbs MP3/WMA/AAC etc may improve, but see no demand for any
thing lower.

MrT.

[Nick Delonas[_2_]]

In article >,
says...

> Never mind they've deafened themselves with constant listening via earbuds.

Yeah, and it's a damned shame.

[Geoff]

Serge Auckland wrote:

>
>
> Doesn't surprise me at all, as the same thing happened when CD came
> out and lots of people, especially the younger ones still preferred
> vinyl, as that was what they were familiar with.

Yeah, and people miss cassette tape hiss.

But tape and vinyl to CD was an improvement. CD to MP3 is a step backwards.

With the size of cheap memory these days there is no reason not to have at
least CD quality LPCM on devices. Then all that needs to be dealt with are
the crappy horrible little low-voltage headphone amplidiers.


geoff

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Serge Auckland wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't surprise me at all, as the same thing happened when CD came
>> out and lots of people, especially the younger ones still preferred
>> vinyl, as that was what they were familiar with.
>
> Yeah, and people miss cassette tape hiss.
>
> But tape and vinyl to CD was an improvement. CD to MP3 is a step
> backwards.
>
> With the size of cheap memory these days there is no reason not to have at
> least CD quality LPCM on devices. Then all that needs to be dealt with
> are the crappy horrible little low-voltage headphone amplidiers.
>
>
> geoff
>
If anyone could be bothered. iPods and MP3 players including the crappy
horrible little headphones seem perfectly acceptable to the vast majority
who in earlier generations were happy with walkman cassettes (with Dolby
switched out on replay as it sounded better) and before that Dansette
record players and AM transistor radios.

It's only audio casualties like us that could care, and there ain't enough
of us.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Industrial One]

About justification, what about 22.1 audio that will come with
ultrahigh-definition video on HVDs? I'm listening to a .MOD right now,
vocals and everything, 16 channels and only 20 kbps.

[Jim Leonard]

On Mar 22, 8:18*pm, Industrial One > wrote:
> About justification, what about 22.1 audio that will come with
> ultrahigh-definition video on HVDs? I'm listening to a .MOD right now,
> vocals and everything, 16 channels and only 20 kbps.

That's not a fair comparison. That's like comparing a MIDI file to
a .WAV and asking why .WAV can't be that small. They're completely
different methods of producing audio.

[zutroi]

Industrial One wrote:
> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current state-
> of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about compression
> no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays download in less
> than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries? On the other hand,

Jesus, I wish. I'm in Australia and I'd have a hard time getting a FLAC
down in that time :-) We suck!

[Sean[_5_]]

zutroi wrote:
> Industrial One wrote:
>> What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current state-
>> of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about compression
>> no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays download in less
>> than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries? On the other hand,
>
> Jesus, I wish. I'm in Australia and I'd have a hard time getting a FLAC
> down in that time :-) We suck!

Now now. You guys are on fire half the year. That has to count for
something.

[Industrial One]

On Mar 14, 1:13 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:33 am, Industrial One > wrote:
>
> > I predict 16 kbps to
> > be advertized as comparable quality to 128 kbps MP3 (MP3 will never
> > die), and 32-64 being the new transparency point in audio.
>
> With bandwidth and data storage increasing rapidly for most people, have you
> stopped to ask WHY?
> I predict 128-256kbs MP3/WMA/AAC etc may improve, but see no demand for any
> thing lower.
>
> MrT.

Mr. T, why do you keep replying to my posts?? Did I miss some
important event during my 6-month absence from rec.audio, such as you
coming out of the closet or something?

On Mar 23, 3:44 pm, Jim Leonard > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:18 pm, Industrial One > wrote:
>
> > About justification, what about 22.1 audio that will come with
> > ultrahigh-definition video on HVDs? I'm listening to a .MOD right now,
> > vocals and everything, 16 channels and only 20 kbps.
>
> That's not a fair comparison. That's like comparing a MIDI file to
> a .WAV and asking why .WAV can't be that small. They're completely
> different methods of producing audio.

MIDI has no vocals ;)

On Jun 7, 6:48 am, zutroi > wrote:
> Industrial One wrote:
> > What do you guys think? Will there be a successor to the current state-
> > of-the-art AAC codec, or do people not give a damn about compression
> > no more since FLACs and high-bitrate MP3s nowadays download in less
> > than a minute even in ****ty 3rd world countries? On the other hand,
>
> Jesus, I wish. I'm in Australia and I'd have a hard time getting a FLAC
> down in that time :-) We suck!

So do yourself a favor and move outta that desert ********.