If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om... This ACC format is actually MPEG 4, aka "MP4". For what it's worth (not much, I know) I find the use of the contraction "MP4" misleading. "MP3" is really MPEG Layer 3 compression, and using "MP4" implies incorrectly that there's a "Layer 4" compression being used to compress audio for AAC, WMA and related formats, when there's not. Also, no one uses ".mp4" as a file extension, whereas ".mp3" is quite common. Google agrees with me, showing 15 times as many instances of "MPEG4" and "MPEG-4" as "MP4". I suppose the subtlety of the distinction is lost on many people, but hey, what's Usenet for if not to make subtle distinctions? These formats are known as lossy compression methods. (Except for AIFF, which is raw data, and I don't know about WAV.) WAV is a generic format in that it actually comprises multiple audio formats, each using its own codec. The WAV file header tells the software what kind of encoding is actually used. But it is almost always either completely uncompressed (the most common usage) or compressed using a lossless format (usually some form of PCM). The only lossy method of compression used with WAV that I'm aware of is simply reducing the sample size, which IMHO is more properly classified as "downsampling" rather than "compression". They save space by throwing away information that either can be inferred, isn't necessary, or can be represented more compactly. Actually, in the above statement only the "isn't necessary" applies to lossy compression specifically. Compression techniques in general ALL rely on encoding the information so that the original information can be inferred from a more compact representation, whether lossy or not. There is some necessary, but small, loss in fidelity of the sound. However, this loss is small enough that unless you have top of the line equipment, very good hearing, and a trained ear, you won't miss it. And the engineers working on lossy compression algorithms believe that eventually, they will have mapped out human perceptual response well enough that even with good hearing and a trained ear, you still won't miss the information tossed out. That's the whole point of how lossy algorithms like MP3 and MPEG4 work. They identify portions of the audio signal that are not perceived by the human ear anyway, and eliminate them. By eliminating some the information content of the signal, they reduce the amount of information that needs to be compressed, which reduces the total size of the compressed signal. Examples of things that are eliminated are frequencies considered outside the range of hearing (or near the edge of the range of hearing), and portions of the signal that are significantly quieter than other portions and so which aren't normally perceived anyway. Of course, they also allow a sliding scale of what gets tossed out. At the lower bitrates, portions of the audio signal detectable by the human ear also get tossed out. But prioritization is used to try to ensure that even in those cases, it's still the least significant portions of the signal. In the usual use where there is normal amplifiers, speakers or headphones, background noise, etc. then even a trained ear can't really hear the difference. Well, that really depends on the bitrate. It's certainly true that at 192Kbps and greater for MP3, and 128Kpbs and greater for AAC, WMA and other forms of MPEG4, the difference is nearly imperceptible. But I assure you that even some random tone-deaf schmoe would be able to notice the loss in quality when playing back 32Kpbs MP3 (for example). At some point, it gets so bad, anyone can tell. Pete |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
In article bAzSb.59680$U%5.346880@attbi_s03, Jay Honeck
wrote: Thanks for the primer, Malcolm. This is neat stuff, and it's good to hear from a "power user"... And with iMovie, you can cut/paste and mix you favorite tracks and export them back to iTunes. Just like the old Dr Demento tunes! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-01-30 13:54:53 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
said: Also, no one uses ".mp4" as a file extension, whereas ".mp3" is quite common. FWIW, Mac OS X & iTunes use ".m4p" for AAC tracks with DRM, as you would buy from the iTunes Music Store. Tracks that have been ripped from CD and encoded to AAC by iTunes have the extension ".m4a". -- Larry Fransson Seattle, WA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Routine Aviation Career | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 0 | September 26th 04 12:33 AM |
Flying with music? | caroline | Aerobatics | 0 | September 18th 04 03:13 AM |
World War II Flying 'Ace' Salutes Racial Progress, By Gerry J. Gilmore | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 03:33 AM |
Downloading Flying Music? | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 59 | February 4th 04 06:08 AM |
PIREP: Grand Canyon Caverns (L37) | Tony Cox | Piloting | 4 | November 2nd 03 12:54 PM |