Interesting information! But, IIRC, aren't all those codecs still covered by patent bullshit? So only companies that are in the patent pool or consortium or whatever can actually use them for reals?
That also applies to mp3, but that hasn't stopped anyone from using it. That said, you can get open source AAC encoders, but you kinda have to jump through hoops such as having to compile the source yourself to get them.
I think the only patent free lossy audio codec out there is Ogg Vorbis, though I could be wrong.
It depends. I have yet to find a conclusive comparison... and my ears are not sophisticated enough to tell the difference anyway. As far as I can determine from a quick search, both AAC and Vorbis are better than AAC, but AAC and Vorbis are pretty much tied unless you have bitrates of 100kbps or less.
I don't like the sound of AAC. At least not for music. Regardless of technicalities, I dislike the way AAC makes music sound. MP3 is fine, Ogg is same-ish but better, and even with tiny files is still better.
I don't like the sound of AAC. At least not for music. Regardless of technicalities, I dislike the way AAC makes music sound.
I'm curious to know in what way you think AAC "sounds" worse than other file formats.
Indeed...
No human can tell the difference in a double blind test. Yet.
What more, even if you had super human ears that could tell the difference, your cheap ear buds probably introduce enough distortion in their own right that it would drown out any subtle differences between the various codecs.
Granted, I'm not saying that you need some sort of $10000 gold-plated, deoxygenated, sprinkled with fairy dust, Randi-woo style headphones in order to hear the difference (if you even can hear it). Just that the average pack-in headphones/earbuds certainly don't hit the price/performance sweet spot, let alone achieve legitimate top performance, ignoring price.
I can totally hear the difference. Find a FLAC or CD, make it into an MP3 and an AAC, the AAC will sound flatter. Of course, different encoders play a huge role into this, but I'm ignoring that. I can't hear the difference between MP3 and Ogg unless higher bitrate.
I haven't tried a blindtest though.. As I can't do this myself; can someone take a short song with a good source (Bluray rip of an anime TV-sized opening for example) and make it into a MP3 and an AAC. Then place both twice in a WAV? A bunch of people could have their guesses, and we'll see how close we got a day later or so.
I can totally hear the difference. Find a FLAC or CD, make it into an MP3 and an AAC, the AAC will sound flatter. Of course, different encoders play a huge role into this, but I'm ignoring that. I can't hear the difference between MP3 and Ogg unless higher bitrate.
I'm real happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but this means absolutely nothing. You're listening based on the (correct) notion that AAC encodes differently than MP3. Even though there is no human-discernable difference, your brain is already geared up to perceive one. Cognitive bias.
As I can't do this myself; can someone take a short song with a good source (Bluray rip of an anime TV-sized opening for example) and make it into a MP3 and an AAC. Then place both twice in a WAV? A bunch of people could have their guesses, and we'll see how close we got a day later or so.
The experimental flaws in this idea are so fucking huge my head hurts.
I used to care about this stuff until I realized one fundamental rule: if it does not work with everything then don't use it. What is the one thing that works with everything? MP3.
I used to care about this stuff until I realized one fundamental rule: if it does not work with everything then don't use it. What is the one thing that works with everything? MP3.
That's a great reason never to upgrade anything.
Personally, I care way more how small the files get while keeping in the "inaudible quality differences" range.
I used to care about this stuff until I realized one fundamental rule: if it does not work with everything then don't use it. What is the one thing that works with everything? MP3.
That's a great reason never to upgrade anything.
Its not that I WANT to have it sound much better, its more along the lines of I want the music to work on multiple devices without having to re-encode my entire library.
I used to care about this stuff until I realized one fundamental rule: if it does not work with everything then don't use it. What is the one thing that works with everything? MP3.
AAC is pretty close to working on everything too -- unless you have ancient hardware. Personally, I still stick to MP3 for my own personal encoding, but that's mostly out of inertia.
And, in fact, to my indescribable astonishment and horror the devilish tin horn now immediately spewed out that mixture of bronchial slime and chewed up gum which the owners of gramophones and the subscribers to radios have agreed to call music, — and behind the muddy slime and waste there truly was recognizable, like and old precious picture beneath its filthy crust, the noble structure of this divine music, the regal construction, the cool, ample breath, the broad, satisfied sound the the strings.
tl;dr "You can still hear the music for the static"
So, the congresspeople who were opposing SOPA and PIPA are still trying to push the OPEN act.
http://keepthewebopen.com/open (tl;dr: If a site is found guilty in a court, then the US government cuts off all their funding from MasterCard and PayPal and the like, so they're forced to shut themselves down because they're not making any money.)
It obviously won't actually stop any piracy from happening. Can we convince the MPAA/RIAA that it will work and that it's enough? Is it worth even trying?
Yeah that's a pretty bullshit act. I mean plenty of pirate sites do it for free anyway so it really doesn't matter if their funding got cut off. All it can do is fuck over a legit site that may have had copyrighted content on it.
Its just the name of it that scares me. It sounds way to much like something its not.
Ok smart people, lets solve this. What solutions, preventative measures, or recourse do we have?
The biggest concern is this:
What happens if my account is incorrectly linked to copyright infringement?
This is perhaps the most problematic part of this plan, as it puts the burden of proof on the Internet subscriber, who must prove that he did not illegally download copyrighted content. As it stands, all a copyright holder has to do is say — but not prove — that infringing activities are taking place in order for an ISP to alert or punish a subscriber with throttling or access disruption. In other words: Users are considered guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public rights advocacy group, notes, “This burden-shift violates our traditional procedural due process norms and is based on the presumed reliability of infringement-detection systems that subscribers haven’t vetted and to which they cannot object.”
If you do find that your account has been incorrectly targeted — or that your Wi-Fi was used by someone else to illegally download copyrighted works — you have only 10 days to challenge the accusation. As Ars Technica reports, there are six “pre-approved” methods for challenging these accusations. (Any method that strays from these six options is not acceptable.) Also, doing so will cost you a $35 “filing fee,” paid to the CCI, which will be refunded if you are found to be in the right. It is currently not clear which lawyers decide who is right and who is wrong in these cases. And it is entirely possible that they will have ties to the copyright industry.
Are there any consequences for copyright holders who wrongly accuse subscribers of infringement?
From a technological standpoint, would setting up a VPN hide you from this? I'm certain there's a way to keep them from pinpointing exactly what your IP is doing, and I figure I should probably learn to do it anyway.
My issue is that a lot of online games and the like will distribute their patches via torrent, so its possible that they could incorrectly ding some kid for playing Diablo.
There's no possible way this holds up in court though, if the burden of proof is on the user to prove that they were legitimate. Right? Right?
Innocent until proven guilty only applies when you have been accused of a crime in a court of law. Your relationship with your ISP is governed by the terms of service. If they breach those terms of service, you can sue for breach of contract. You need to lawyer up for anything else.
If you want to technologically avoid, use encryption and such.
I said this when it happened. Obviously, nobody important listened.
Yep. Question for the forum: Is it even worth it, constantly fighting things like this in America? They're never going to stop trying to fuck us, and we can't rely on our government to actually regulate them. At what point should we throw in the towel and move to a civilized country?
At what point should we throw in the towel and move to a civilized country?
You're implying that such an action is not already long overdue. There's a few laws that Europe needs to copy from the US, but the reverse is a much larger list.
Comments
I think the only patent free lossy audio codec out there is Ogg Vorbis, though I could be wrong.
Granted, I'm not saying that you need some sort of $10000 gold-plated, deoxygenated, sprinkled with fairy dust, Randi-woo style headphones in order to hear the difference (if you even can hear it). Just that the average pack-in headphones/earbuds certainly don't hit the price/performance sweet spot, let alone achieve legitimate top performance, ignoring price.
I haven't tried a blindtest though.. As I can't do this myself; can someone take a short song with a good source (Bluray rip of an anime TV-sized opening for example) and make it into a MP3 and an AAC. Then place both twice in a WAV? A bunch of people could have their guesses, and we'll see how close we got a day later or so.
Personally, I care way more how small the files get while keeping in the "inaudible quality differences" range.
http://keepthewebopen.com/open
(tl;dr: If a site is found guilty in a court, then the US government cuts off all their funding from MasterCard and PayPal and the like, so they're forced to shut themselves down because they're not making any money.)
It obviously won't actually stop any piracy from happening. Can we convince the MPAA/RIAA that it will work and that it's enough? Is it worth even trying?
Its just the name of it that scares me. It sounds way to much like something its not.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57397452-261/riaa-chief-isps-to-start-policing-copyright-by-july-1/
(Not that this will accomplish jack shit.)
Ok smart people, lets solve this. What solutions, preventative measures, or recourse do we have?
The biggest concern is this:
What happens if my account is incorrectly linked to copyright infringement?
This is perhaps the most problematic part of this plan, as it puts the burden of proof on the Internet subscriber, who must prove that he did not illegally download copyrighted content. As it stands, all a copyright holder has to do is say — but not prove — that infringing activities are taking place in order for an ISP to alert or punish a subscriber with throttling or access disruption. In other words: Users are considered guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public rights advocacy group, notes, “This burden-shift violates our traditional procedural due process norms and is based on the presumed reliability of infringement-detection systems that subscribers haven’t vetted and to which they cannot object.”
If you do find that your account has been incorrectly targeted — or that your Wi-Fi was used by someone else to illegally download copyrighted works — you have only 10 days to challenge the accusation. As Ars Technica reports, there are six “pre-approved” methods for challenging these accusations. (Any method that strays from these six options is not acceptable.) Also, doing so will cost you a $35 “filing fee,” paid to the CCI, which will be refunded if you are found to be in the right. It is currently not clear which lawyers decide who is right and who is wrong in these cases. And it is entirely possible that they will have ties to the copyright industry.
Are there any consequences for copyright holders who wrongly accuse subscribers of infringement?
No.
My issue is that a lot of online games and the like will distribute their patches via torrent, so its possible that they could incorrectly ding some kid for playing Diablo.
There's no possible way this holds up in court though, if the burden of proof is on the user to prove that they were legitimate. Right? Right?
If you want to technologically avoid, use encryption and such.