EMI Drops DRM, iTunes First to Sign On

"WMA is a highly perceptual codec, thus very "lossy""

actually, every current codec on the market that is lossy is also perceptual, except for the old-school codecs like IMA 4:1, which only performs linear bit reduction. i wouldn't say WMA is "very lossy" either because upon decompression, you still maintain more of the original PCM audio than AAC, and even moreso than a decompressed AC-3 5.1 stream at twice the bandwidth.

"On good equipment a 44khz MP3 with careful compression settings is going to sound cleaner than a 5.1 mix downloadable from online. Most 5.1 content online is “good enough”, but far from an audiophile grade."

two things are wrong with that statement: for one, the standard Fraunhofer MP3 codec only has a response frequency of up to 16KHz (only customized codecs support higher, but most don't go any higher than 20KHz), whereas AC-3 supports full-spectrum 48KHz response frequencies, even down to 384Kbps bitrates for 5.1. the second is that 5.1 internet bitstreams are near non-existant (recompressed DVD Rips just don't count). the only online 5.1 streams i've heard are from Quicktime movie trailers, either in AAC (for HD trailers) or QDesign Music 2, and are nowhere near the same fidelity as high-bitrate MP3, or in some of Microsoft's Windows Media Video HD videoclips, which are, in stark contrast, noticeably better.

"I’m personally teetering on doing a lossless WMA encode of all my CDs "

try Windows Media Audio 10 Pro instead. it features upsampling to >CD sampling rates and higher bit-depths (it supports up to 24-bit, 96KHz 7.1 or 24-bit, 192KHz Stereo). it'll save you a lot of space. i use 24-bit, 88.2KHz in Stereo @ 75% VBR for CD's, and it's noticeably sharper and punchier sounding (thanks to the upconversion) than lossless, and meanwhile saving about 40% of the space required.

XP

@bdkjones

That is as maybe, but the one thing you cannot argue with is that MP3 is the universal constant here. EVERY player plays MP3 files. Until the songs are release in that format you are still pretty much locked into Apple.

Why should I have to upgrade my player? It sounds fine to me, I don't have any pretension to being an audiophile and to be honest wouldn't hear the difference.

Anyways, not going to happen I suspect. Ho hum.

"you obviously haven't heard Windows Media Audio 10 Pro in VBR if you say that."

I have. My prior comments stand. WMA is a highly perceptual codec, thus very "lossy", although advanced perceptual codecs are good at fooling a person into thinking they aren't nearly as lossy.

5.1 codecs discard a lot of signal. As an example, if you get a Dolby 5.1 mix (admittedly an old codec) and flatten it to stereo, then compare that to uncompressed PCM of the original source you'll be stunned at how much the encoder discarded. The modern lower-bandwidth 5.1 codecs are similar but less glaring.

DD+ is much better when talking 5.1… But then again that format isn’t intended for content at Internet bandwidth as the max bandwidth is more than the encoding rate of many DVDs (video + audio).

It is hard to make "format" comparisons as a generalization because formats like AAC/MP3 have multiple encoders available, some not as good as others. WMA is admittedly a really good format, but if they opened it up a bit there could be third parties that had the potential to create some outstanding compressors. More importantly they have a lossless variant. I’m personally teetering on doing a lossless WMA encode of all my CDs to replace my MP3 collection. Granted the perceptual argument becomes moot.

Also, in regards to higher sampling rates... It is ultimately pointless as 99.99% of music will be delivered at CD resolution for quite some time. On good equipment a 44khz MP3 with careful compression settings is going to sound cleaner than a 5.1 mix downloadable from online. Most 5.1 content online is “good enough”, but far from an audiophile grade. Part of this has to do with targeted listening equipment. Very few people are going to be using a PC with digital out attached to a high quality Pre/Pro. Perhaps there are some audiophiles compressing SACDs, but I just don’t see that as being logical.

"None of the newer AAC/WMA encoders have been capable of the LAME MP3 quality level."

you obviously haven't heard Windows Media Audio 10 Pro in VBR if you say that. there are very few codecs that can accurately reproduce 24-bit audio at higher sampling rates (ie. up to 192KHz in stereo, or 96KHz in 5.1) with perceptual algorithms at respectable bitrates, but WMA 10 Pro does an awesome job!

XP

"AAC is a superior format."

It's not. It depends entirely on your criterion. Formats have little bearing on quality. A format is an empty bucket. The encoder chooses what bits go in the bucket.

The benefit of the newer formats is that they sound more musical at *lower* bitrates (<= 128) than do older offerings. However, this is an aural trick (called perceptual encoding) and doesn't necessarily have any bearing with a faithful PCM representation. Older codecs have a cotton-sounding effect when the bitrates came down. The newer codecs alleviate that problem by falsifying a sense of expanded-headroom (tricks with harmonics), but suffer from inherent bit-deprivation and thus don't fully represent the uncompressed PCM data. In many cases the newer encoders are less accurate because the aural tricks can consume more than their fair share of bits and miss sounds represented in competing codecs.

128kbit music with a newer codec will sound fine with inexpensive consumer equipment (bundled phones, etc). As soon as you cross a threshold into high quality listening gear you should (ears being the wildcard) be able to discern many of the acoustical tricks. Sometimes it takes practice.

In the end a person should chose the format that most closely fits their need. Space starved devices would be fine with AAC/WMA, etc. If you have no limitation on space then 256kbit MP3 or high quality VBR (averages >= 180kbit) with the LAME encoder will provide digital archival quality. In blind tests with exceedingly accurate equipment these compression settings yield music indistinguishable from the master (but still exhibit some PCM variation as bits lost during encode are gone forever). None of the newer AAC/WMA encoders have been capable of the LAME MP3 quality level.

The only deciding factor should be space. Licensing burdens are already included in the product thus “open” or “new” is rarely a logical argument since it makes the format choice arbitrary.