Fraunhofer says HD-ACC will make CDs "obsolete"

Those Fraunhofer folks are nothing if not prolific, and it now looks like they're getting a little boastful as well, as evidenced by some comments reps from the group made at CES this week. As MacWorld reports, Fraunhofer IIS is not only saying that its new HD-ACC codec is "better than CD," but that it "makes CDs obsolete." That is apparently due to the codec's lossless compression of 24-bit music content, as opposed to the 16-bit, 44.1 kHz quality now found on CDs. What's more, the HD-AAC encoding process embeds a so-called "core layer" on any device that supports plain old AACs, although you'll obviously need a player with an HD-AAC decoder in order to take advantage of the fully lossless signal. Of course, some formats have a tendency to take off more quickly than others, so we'll just have to wait and see how HD-ACC plays out in the grander scheme of things.

[jonathan @ Jan 8th 2008 1:00PM]

I swear to god..if another company uses "HD" in their advertising i am gonna loose it!! HD this, HD that, sweet mother of god!

hey look at my HD Coke, HD Pepsi, HD cell phone etc etc etc....stupid!!!!

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Jan 8th 2008 1:06PM]

I'd drink some HD Mountain Dew if they made it and bring on the all-nighter!!

[paloooz @ Apr 13th 2008 8:07PM]

Let me hop in my GMC Sierra 2500 HD!

[JohnTitor @ Jan 8th 2008 1:12PM]

haha, what's next EngadgetHD?
wait...

[mmh @ Jan 8th 2008 1:13PM]

And top it all off with a shiny web2.0 ball logo.

[Safety Dancer @ Jan 8th 2008 2:10PM]

Have you seen the HD sun glasses yet?
http://www.seen-on-tv.ws/hd-vision/hdvision.html

24 more colors then REAL LIFE! /sarcasm

agreed btw

[Jimmy @ Jan 10th 2008 11:26AM]

In Quebec we have a company that markets "HD lenses" for your glasses. To make it even more dumb, they show how glasses make your view of a TV look more clear...

[Speddy @ Jan 8th 2008 1:01PM]

A healthy, young person can hear in the range of 20-20,000 Hz. Since most tech-saavy audio folks are neither young, nor healthy, the point is?

[Jeebus @ Jan 8th 2008 1:07PM]

The bit rate has nothing to do with that. The bit rate matters for volume less than 100%, which is almost all the music. And 16 bit just doesn't cut it. 50% volume is only 8 bits, enough to introduce artifacts.

[Mark @ Jan 8th 2008 1:10PM]

Um, 50% volume in a 16-bit file can be represented by 15 bits, not 8.

[Aaron Wanker @ Jan 8th 2008 1:32PM]

That is the average person though.

I work a lot with audio, so I do have to have a good ear. This is where training your ear comes in, this is what the average person doesn't have/do.

I have not taken a test to see what my hearing range is vs a few years ago, but I do know that by taking care of my hearing (staying away from prolonged loud noise [ apprx. 60 and ^ dB I believe], and even very prolonged soft noise [fans, AC units, etc]) it has gotten a lot better at hearing other frequencies and frequency changes… thus I can hear better quality over lower quality. I’m not saying I can hear it all, I don’t know that I would be able to hear the HD-AAC difference or not.

But then again, it also depends upon what your speakers/phones can output.

[Jimmy @ Jan 10th 2008 11:32AM]

16 bits is enough for high level audio, but not for music with much dynamic range like classical music (if the stereo is high enough quality too). In theory, I think that 18-20 bits would be enough.

Then extra sampling frequency is not required because we can hear over 20kHz (we can't), it's because it avoids using brick-wall anti-aliasing filters that modify the phase of the signals we do hear (under 20kHz).

[Drew @ Jan 8th 2008 1:02PM]

HD-ACC or HD-AAC? I'm guessing the logo is the correct one.

[Jeff @ Jan 8th 2008 2:02PM]

AAC - Advanced Audio Encoding.

Get it right, guys! Engadget seems to be alternating abbreviations up there at whim.

[Chris @ Jan 8th 2008 1:02PM]

Are you guys at CES 2003?

[ericdano @ Jan 8th 2008 1:08PM]

ACC or AAC? Proof articles people!

[torqueo @ Jan 8th 2008 1:08PM]

A lossless audio codec? Incredible! What amazing new innovations will Fraunhofer come up with next?

Oh, wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compression_(data)

None of them start with "HD", though!

[darkstar @ Jan 8th 2008 1:09PM]

i am sticking to mp3 till the day i die. i still cant tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and cd.

[Chris Lees @ Jan 8th 2008 1:39PM]

If you can't tell the difference, get a better sound system or get your hearing checked.

[darkstar @ Jan 8th 2008 1:48PM]

it must be nice being rich. im sure you have so many friends with your money and sarcasm :)

[Jon @ Jan 8th 2008 2:03PM]

Then you should have stayed with cassettes mate.

[Rob @ Jan 8th 2008 2:34PM]

Mp3 files are bad, specially when encoded at around 128k. I usually do mine at 192k. And even then, I can still hear the compression. Headphones are very good at masking mp3 shortcomings. However, listening to the file on regular speakers, you can tell. I always listen to the high hat and crashes coming out from the drums track. If those two sound clear, then you have a good transfer.

To those people coming here and bitch and write "lucky you because you're rich" or "not everyone is as rich as you" please stop it. Who says you have to own the gear in order to know if it's good or not? Don't you go to the stores, talk to people, have any friends who may own it??? Don't you have a job??? If bitching is all you're going to post, please just don't post anything at all.

[thethirdmoose @ Jan 8th 2008 5:48PM]

I, for one, can tell the difference between 128kbps and 192+ kbps on laptop speakers, ipod earbuds, and $20 headphones

[Evan @ Jan 8th 2008 1:13PM]

SACD and DVD-Audio discs also offered superior audio quality than CD, but they failed to make CDs "obsolete". So what makes them think that better audio quality will lead to success?

[mmh @ Jan 8th 2008 1:16PM]

They've got "HD" in their name.

[Wwhat @ Jan 8th 2008 1:37PM]

It's compressed yet lossless, and 24bit, so you can make it downloadable (or sell it on flash) and so you don't need to buy disks to get full quality but you can download and have even better quality than CD's.

I guess that for some obscure reason official companies think they can't sell FLAC (or APE) encoded files..

[Rob @ Jan 8th 2008 2:41PM]

Unless I misunderstood the article, this sounds like a codec for audio files and not discs. Just like our MP3 files are not sold at Best Buy or Circuit City. So, the may be targeting downloading services like iTunes and Napster. If it's better than MP3, then it'd be worth checking out.

[madgamer @ Jan 8th 2008 1:24PM]

I wonder what kind of file size you end up with when using their compression for 24bit vs 16bit?

[Wwhat @ Jan 8th 2008 1:39PM]

That is the most important question yeah, and I doubt it's much better than FLAC or APE, but who knows.

[bradwjensen @ Jan 8th 2008 5:36PM]

I believe FLAC supports up to 32Bit compression already..
And it's patent free and open source..

I wish Record Companies would just sell discs with FLAC files on them, an make new CD players which can read the FLAC files on the CD's.. Then u can just drag the files to your music library on the computer and and them to your 160GB iPod, or encode them to whatever you want.

And you wouldn't HAVE to tag music ever again!!!

[Paul @ Jan 8th 2008 1:27PM]

My vote is for Blu Ray CD's to win this format war :)

[mike @ Jan 8th 2008 6:37PM]

Theoretically you could put an AAC encoded data onto a blu ray disc, though there wouldn't be any player for that available I'm sure. That would be a good thing to look into. Better than WMA on DVD, which is apparently the latest in cross formatting optical media.

[Can @ Jan 8th 2008 1:29PM]

I hope this IS something good, and I hope WMP fully supports it when it becomes a standard (if it ever does).

I haven't seen a good codec except MP3 and WMA. If the quality is good, file is also big, or it's not supported with players & hardware. If the file is small, then the quality is very bad, and again, it's not supported much.

I just don't understand people who accept 64kbps in WMA or 128kbps in MP3 as "good" quality and cannot tell any difference with a higher bitrate.
I just cannot listen to low bitrate music, I just don't enjoy it. I hope this codec will change my thoughts. So what exactly are we waiting for?

[Wwhat @ Jan 8th 2008 1:40PM]

Most people can't even tell youtube music/video is mono sound..

[bcollinstex @ Jan 8th 2008 1:46PM]

Probably cheap audio equipment.

[ChromeSushi @ Jan 8th 2008 3:38PM]

You can't understand how not everyone has the exact same hearing? Can you not understand people who need glasses either?

[Can @ Jan 8th 2008 4:45PM]

It's not the same thing.
If someone really has hearing problems, then they would use hearing aid, just like using glasses when there's a sight problem with eyes.

But I don't understand the situation where someone does NOT have hearing problems but can't "recognize" the difference between high quality and low quality audio either.

[OddManOut @ Jan 8th 2008 11:01PM]

"But I don't understand the situation where someone does NOT have hearing problems but can't "recognize" the difference between high quality and low quality audio either."

Simple, it's not an actual hearing problem, it's an attitude problem. Probably these people simply don't CARE enough to discriminate between the two.

Example: I once had a friend who was a minor audiophile. Always wanted to have the best receiver or disc changer or speakers, best car stereo or whatever. And he used to ridicule me when I said I didn't notice any real difference between MP3's and CDs (actually I could tell the difference if the MP3s were 128kb or lower, 192kb and above is when I get kinda foggy on it...).

However...

When you get down to it, this guy actually had TERRIBLE hearing. I could set the TV to a comfortable level, for me, and he'd say it was so quiet I might as well turn on the subtitles. When he would adjust it so he could hear dialog, it would be annoyingly loud to me. He would nigh constantly misunderstand what people said, if it was spoken in low tones or if there was moderate background noise. But he could identify (and ridicule) him some mean MP3s...oh yeah!

I rather suspect that his hearing was damaged by his predilection to turn stuff up really loud, which is something many people do but that I pretty much didn't during the tenure of out friendship. But, in recent years I've discovered that music can take on a whole new depth when you 'crank it' and if it's played on higher quality gear (though I still refrain from doing so as I don't what to damage my hearing). But so what ? I rarely ever just sit and listen to music. I usually just put it on in the background at home or at work, and play it in the car (where it has to contend with engine and road noise), so I'm not super concerned with having the highest possible audio fidelity, thus it's not so much that I "can't" tell the difference as it is that I usually just "don't".

[andyg8180 @ Jan 8th 2008 1:39PM]

whats a CD?

[VeganFreak @ Jan 8th 2008 1:51PM]

and this is different from 24-bit .wav files how? geez if you really want to go all out, go with a 128-bit .wav file, which exists btw.

[Chris @ Jan 8th 2008 3:14PM]

128 bit wavs? Really? Care to provide a link?
A few moments with a calculator and wikipedia to look up some suitable numbers reveals that 128-bit precision lets you measure the distance light travels IN A YEAR to a precision of 1,000,000,000,000th the diameter of a Helium atom. No way anybody's sampling audio to that resolution.
Maybe you're confusing resolution and sample rate? 128kHz I could accept, but absolutely not 128-bit.

[mike @ Jan 8th 2008 7:03PM]

VeganFreak: You are such a moron.
Nice response Chris. + Vote for you.

[VeganFreak @ Jan 9th 2008 5:46AM]

forgive me for talking about formats so experimental, that they're not, as of now, known to the public. anyways thanks for the nice reply Mike!

[Chris @ Jan 9th 2008 2:32PM]

128KHz is a sensible, believable, achievable upgrade.
A 128-bit ADC just isn't, for many reasons.
The highest precision audio ADC listed on Analog Devices website is 24-bit. Being generous, if somebody could make an ADC with 1,000,000 times more resolution than that, it would still only be 44-bit (2^20 == 1,048,576).
You (VeganFreak) are going to need to introduce a bit of science or a link to an article to convince us that this super-experimental technology exists.

[VeganFreak @ Jan 9th 2008 8:59PM]

the only proof that i can provide is the fact that ProTools supports it. and if you want proof of that, i'm sorry to say that i cannot back it up. i'm sure some audio engineers would back me up though.

[Chris @ Jan 10th 2008 8:29AM]

Nope. 24-bit @ 192KHz is the best spec I can find for anything on digidesign.com

Stop and look at the numbers involved. 128-bit resolution is just so ridiculously, impossibly, pointlessly high. If such a thing did exist, it would be able to detect the sound of a gnat farting 10 miles away.

[VeganFreak @ Jan 10th 2008 5:23PM]

well, fl studio supports 32-bit, so thats higher right there. and to my knowledge it supports 192Khz.

[Chris @ Jan 11th 2008 3:10AM]

The software might do 32 (inevitable since it's a more CPU friendly size) - I was talking about hardware to capture the sound in the first place. Without that, there's little point.

[VeganFreak @ Jan 11th 2008 8:24AM]

i dunno, i'm starting to doubt myself. =[

[Valgas @ Jan 8th 2008 1:53PM]

Can we just have one, two or three discs formats on the market? Please?