Audio files format and the quest for answers

[Codifus]

Hello all,

I have a strong feeling on this issue. 1st, I agree that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there, and if you are going to generate the best MP3s, then you would use the insane setting to create 320 kbps, fixed rate, audio files. I also enjoy well encoded MP3s created by my DAW application, CoolEdit 2000. CoolEdit 2000 is now called Adobe Audition from when Adobe bought Syntrillium software.

AAC is hands down better than MP3. That's because AAC is MP4 with a bit of Apple proprietary coding for DRM thrown in. If you google MP3 AAC, OGG, and WMA, you'll find gobbs of articles showing the merits of AAC. The only reason MP3 is still with is because it is ubiquitous. It made a helluva a big splash.

The consortoum of companies who got together to create MP3, such as Fraunhoffer, Apple, Dolby labs, as well a a few others, set out to create a better MP3: MP4.

If you want to make the best AAC/MP4 files, use iTunes and set your import to AAC at 320 kbps. Actually, import your music as AIFF or WAV using error correction. Afterwards, select those WAVs/AIFFs and convert them to AAC. It's a wonderfully easy process to do in iTunes.

Forgive me if I sound too aggressive in my response. I just think that many users may be translating a dislike of Apple the company to any product they produce, whether that product deserved it or not. Remember how everyone said that iTunes DRMed everything? I kept on, and still keep on, correcting Windows centric users in that iTunes only DRMs music purchased from the itunes store. And recently, since the iTunes store went to 256 kbps downloads, the DRM, if it's still there, is much less restrictive. Better quality music, less lockdown.


Anyhow, sorry for my rant. Moving right along

[SteveW]

The BBC already does use AAC/AAC+ - you just need to go to the iPlayer front page, click the BBC labs link at the bottom right of the screen, then on the next screen click the "I want to become a labs tester" box and when you go back to the main iPlayer page, all your radio streams will now be AAC/AAC+ and will sound rather good.

You sir are a star!!!!
I've just done this, and using airfoil and an airport express to my main system, I'm playing just great sounding radio.
Thank you so much for pointing this gem of a feature out.
When I get a couple of minutes I'll do a direct comparison between iplayer radio and live FM through my Linn Kremlin.

[DaveK]

Attn. Lovejoy,
Hi again Rich,
Just installed iPlayer on my PC running Vista Home Premium - everything seemed to go OK and I have got all the web pages and tabs etc..When I click on TV Stations, choose any and click 'Now Playing' I get the required programme.
However, when I click on Radio Stations, choose any, then 'Now Playing', I get the little rotating thingummy on a small blank screen. Then everything stops and I get the message that Explorer has stopped working, is looking for a solution and then restarts. Clicking again on 'now playing' gets exactly the same response - any ideas?
In short, I get the TV OK but cannot get radio. If it makes any difference, the first thing I did, before exploring any TV or radio stations, was to sign up as a lab tester to get the higher resolution music streams.
Thanks for any help that you may be able to offer.

[Stratmangler]

The BBC already does use AAC/AAC+ - you just need to go to the iPlayer front page, click the BBC labs link at the bottom right of the screen, then on the next screen click the "I want to become a labs tester" box and when you go back to the main iPlayer page, all your radio streams will now be AAC/AAC+ and will sound rather good.

Hi Lovejoy

It may have been your good self who has already mentioned in a previous post about the AAC/AAC+ streams.

I usually access the BBC radio services via my Squeezebox SB3, and use the iPlayer plugin available for Squeezecenter.

When I am at my desktop I sometimes play iPlayer content and I am already registered with the Beeb as a Labs Tester.

Doing a URL sniff whilst using the Lab Rat stuff playing Radio 2 live gives me the bog standard URL feed that I already have in the iPlayer plugin on Squeezecenter.

The feed is this http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r2.asx and it is WMA, not AAC/AAC+ , and comes out at 96kbs.

The listen again service operates at 128kbs , and is also a WMA feed.

If the stream were AAC/AAC+ then it would be more like this http://www.radioparadise.com/musiclinks/rp_128aac-1.m3u , the end bit being the most relevant bit of infomation (ie. m3u).

You are correct in your statement that these iPlayer streams can sound "rather good" (personally I describe it as noticably better than the Real Audio streams used normally, but still nothing to write home about).

The Radio Paradise stream actually is AAC+ , and sounds f*****g incredible, way, way better than anything coming out from Auntie Beeb.

To repeat something I have already stated somewhere on this forum, I just wish that the BBC would stop selling us short and actually give us some properly decent internet radio feeds. I also hope that they sort out the DAB service so that really decent sound quality is possible, 'cos it sounds poor compared to FM broadcast, and the recent declaration of FM switch-off is not necessarily (but probably will be) a bad thing, and sound quality is being eroded, as it has been constantly over the last decade and longer.

Chris

[Stratmangler]

Hello all,

I have a strong feeling on this issue. 1st, I agree that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there, and if you are going to generate the best MP3s, then you would use the insane setting to create 320 kbps, fixed rate, audio files. I also enjoy well encoded MP3s created by my DAW application, CoolEdit 2000. CoolEdit 2000 is now called Adobe Audition from when Adobe bought Syntrillium software.

AAC is hands down better than MP3. That's because AAC is MP4 with a bit of Apple proprietary coding for DRM thrown in. If you google MP3 AAC, OGG, and WMA, you'll find gobbs of articles showing the merits of AAC. The only reason MP3 is still with is because it is ubiquitous. It made a helluva a big splash.

The consortoum of companies who got together to create MP3, such as Fraunhoffer, Apple, Dolby labs, as well a a few others, set out to create a better MP3: MP4.

If you want to make the best AAC/MP4 files, use iTunes and set your import to AAC at 320 kbps. Actually, import your music as AIFF or WAV using error correction. Afterwards, select those WAVs/AIFFs and convert them to AAC. It's a wonderfully easy process to do in iTunes.

Forgive me if I sound too aggressive in my response. I just think that many users may be translating a dislike of Apple the company to any product they produce, whether that product deserved it or not. Remember how everyone said that iTunes DRMed everything? I kept on, and still keep on, correcting Windows centric users in that iTunes only DRMs music purchased from the itunes store. And recently, since the iTunes store went to 256 kbps downloads, the DRM, if it's still there, is much less restrictive. Better quality music, less lockdown.


Anyhow, sorry for my rant. Moving right along

I have a very strong dislike of propriatory processing methods. You can't get iTunes to work fully unless you enter personal information such as credit card details as the assumption is that you have bought into the Apple way of doing things. It pisses me off. Why can't you buy ALAC files in the iTunes store - these will sound better than the recently improved bitrate tracks. Why the DRM thing at all - if I bought the bloody thing I want to be able to back it all up and play using different devices, NOT just the machine that did the download or a bloody iPod.

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

Chris

[webby]

What REALLY, REALLY worries me is the future of digital music. At the moment, I can get CDs with their 'full fat' version of the original music and then rip using error correction to a lossless format of my choice, but I can see a future where the need for physical medium gets ditched in favour of downloading, but do we really think anyone will be offering lossless formats?

This is EXACTLY my worry too. Lossless downloads should be offered now! So many people into digital audio only buy the cd's to rip into their computers losslessly. Then what's to stop them selling that cd? Nothing really. Give them the option to download the music losslessly. Oh, and don't charge £7.99 for it. There's no packaging or sleeve notes so why should it cost the same as the physical disc?

[Stratmangler]

This is EXACTLY my worry too. Lossless downloads should be offered now! So many people into digital audio only buy the cd's to rip into their computers losslessly. Then what's to stop them selling that cd? Nothing really. Give them the option to download the music losslessly. Oh, and don't charge £7.99 for it. There's no packaging or sleeve notes so why should it cost the same as the physical disc?

Chris

[Codifus]

I have a very strong dislike of propriatory processing methods. You can't get iTunes to work fully unless you enter personal information such as credit card details as the assumption is that you have bought into the Apple way of doing things. It pisses me off. Why can't you buy ALAC files in the iTunes store - these will sound better than the recently improved bitrate tracks. Why the DRM thing at all - if I bought the bloody thing I want to be able to back it all up and play using different devices, NOT just the machine that did the download or a bloody iPod.

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I'll continue, then

1st off, the only time you ever have to enter credit card info into iTunes is if you purchase music from the iTunes store. Period. Full stop.

In another scenario, let's say you have 500 CDs. You can RIP them all into iTunes in whatever format you choose, MP3, AAC, ALAC, WAV, or AIFF. Whatever. If you never use the store then you never have to put the credit card info.

It would be nice for Apple to offer ALAC downloads, but I don't think it's Apple preventing it. Think RIAA.

DRM does not prevent you from backing up your iTunes. I'm doing it right now using carbon copy cloner.

Also, DRM is flexible in that you can authorize up to 5 itunes applications, anywhere on the internet, to play your DRM files.

If you are not using AAC or ALAC, then you can copy your music to other players such as an iRiver, or Sony. I did that for a time with MP3s. It is clumsy and not very efficient process, but it is do-able. So iTunes prefers an iPod. I could understand Apple's choice if the iPod was the most popular portable music player out and there, very very easy to use, and provides high fidelity output for those of audiophiles who want it. Oh wait, the iPod does that and it is all that

The proprietary aspects of iTunes and the iPod are minmally intrusive in my experience, and Apple does make a great piece of software and hardware. From out of nowhere iTunes has become the defacto music management software of choice. It's free and has a great GUI. And the iPod is a bit popular too

I'll just chill out, and enjoy my Apples, then.

Cheers!

[StanleyB]

Storage method is one thing. Payback method is another. Are any of these other methods better than WAV in terms of reproduction?

[twelvebears]

I agree with David (Codifus) on this point re iTunes.

Yes the iTunes Store is pants, and if you care about real sound quality, you'd steer clear anyway. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that as a music managment tool, (in my case many hundreds of CDs ripped to lossless) iTunes is actually very good.

As far as I am aware, the only iTunes features which are dependant on an iTunes Store account (hence the personal details) are Genius and the artwork download.

Given that Genius is pretty rubbish (there are much better iTunes apps for creating truely 'smart' playlist) and that it's advisable not to leave the artwork to iTunes anyway because it sticks in a library and doesn't actually embed it into the ID3 tag, just ignore iTunes Store completely.