Fraunhofer says HD-ACC will make CDs "obsolete"
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 8th 2008 12:57PM
posted January 8th 2008 12:57PM
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.
My wife and I was having this dicussion the other day. But in our lives, CDs are already obsolete. I always thought PMP's and hard drive based car audio systems would make the cd obsolete.
So how about I encode a song in mp3 at 128kbps. Then I decode it and subtract from the original file. I compress the rezidue with zip. I can "distribute" the mp3 to "older devices" and "archive" the mp3+zip on my hard drive.
I call this "AtanasHD" standard. :)
Naw, how about you upload that diff zip to your blog and post a link so dark star can discover that he needs his ears checked.
I've read about a couple of blind mp3 hearing tests, one by Maximum PC, with at least some people who thought they had trained ears, and no one could consistently tell the difference between somewhat higher variable bit rate mp3's (I think at least 160 kbps) and lossless audio files. So I think the recommendation was to use 192 vbr mp3's and don't worry about it. I know I can't tell the difference between a 192 vbr mp3 and the cd it came from using decent headphones through a good stereo.
And when a new codec comes out in the future with better compression and sound quality, are you going to re-encode those crappy files to the new one? And what about when mp3 is not supported anymore by the new col poratble players because its a mega old compression scheme? RIGTH.. we already have a 160GB iPod - so pretty soon we wont even need to use anything but lossless codecs. I already rip all my CD's to FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) which already has all the features of this new codec but its Free and Not Patented. Which mp3 and 'im sure this new codec is not - since its made from the same people as mp3 was.
@ Krumm
That made me think also... what rate are the studios recording at? I'm sure it's pretty high, but also, what are they distributing at? Because if you already have a 128kbps mp3 and convert it to AAC, then you still really only have a 128kbps file, because you can't put back what isn't there. So maybe more people would be able to tell the difference in audio quality, if companies did release on a higher quality format.
I really hope this doesn't make CDs obsolete.
Nothing can beat buying a CD and adding it to your collection, and not just adding to your hard drive...
First off...this article doesn't fully explain things. The sampling rate referred to (44.1 kHz, 16 bit)is what is currently used to master CD's. Please don't confuse this with the bit rate at which you encode your MP3's at. When a CD is created, the music is digitally encoded from a lossless source (DAT, analog, etc). At 41.1 kHz it already losing information, but until now it has been acceptable because most of the information lost is outside most humans' hearing range. When you encode your MP3's, you're re-sampling this digitized information, losing even more information. That's why 128k or lower sample rates generally sound bad.
However, Fraunhofer's new codec samples at 24 bit (up to 192 kHz). What this does is capture most of the analog information, making it effectively lossless. By sampling at a higher bit rate you give yourself and the electronics more headroom to process the data through filters and compressors. Also, sampling at a higher bit rate affects the spacial image of the music...in other words the perceived sound stage. The higher bit rate can "detect" shorter time differences between the left and right channels than 44.1 kHz can, and this difference is notable by the human ear and can affect perceived sound quality.
When a CD is created, it done so at 44.1 kHz. Using this new codec would require a new medium to deliver it, thus making CD's obsolete in their traditional sense.
Alright, so then will they start recording in HD-AAC, so that there is no quality lost?
I wasn't totally correct before. Not all recording is done via analog. I, myself, recently purchased a 24-bit 4 to 1 input to Firewire box that I will use to record my girlfriend singing and playing her keyboard. I did this knowing that eventually the industry will probably trend toward this, and then I have at least captured as much information as I can...even if it some of it gets tossed before the final product. This will be a gradual change, I would expect, for the industry.
Achiles heel of digital music isn't the resolution it is recorded in but is the manner in which the music was originally mastered. There are only few good sounding 16 bit redbook recording out there because majority of sound engineers make great stride to make CDs sound good mainly when played on boomboxes.
So, using higher res format to store the file will somewhat improve the audio quality, but mastering the audio properly from the start will make much much more difference. Upsampling 16bit crap to 24bit crap isn't going to do much.
The problems with 16bits 44.1khz is this format is almost perfect. Barely a normal persona can find the difference between a spectrum from 16bits and 24bits.
Of course, market will need consumers and the best way to obtain is to publish a (usually useless) new feature :hey... 48khz is better that 44.1khz!.. or 102khz (dolphin frequency), 16bits is uncool, 24bits is fine... but why don't jump on 32 or 64bits instead?.
For the notes, Britney spears sound the same on 16 or 24bits, just bear with it. :-P
HD-AAC may be better than CD, but Napster made them "obsolete" years ago.
I was under the impression that CD's were already obsolete...
Well, not for Engadget it seems...
Mr. Fraunhofer, the kids don't care about quality anymore.
Why doesn't it support a higher sampling rate, like 96kHz, so as to more closely duplicate the original, analog sound? A CD's 44.1kHz can only emulate a smooth (natural) sine wave so well, and some DAT's actually record at 96kHz. This is why vinyl, to this day, still sounds much warmer and natural than a digital CD.
Yep with all the clicks, pops, static and rumble which you can never totally remove from vinyl playback.
MP3 are cool but we had a lot of fun with them is time for a higher quality format to take place.
At least so we can go deaf in style.
Flac
Hey, i liked tommys explanation, thanks for a thought out post. regardless of what you all think about CDs and the obsolesance, i believe that this is a good thing, i also believe a standard is a good thing as well. so if it does take off i hope that we can all enjoy it and look back on CDs as fondly as many look on records which still have good sound quality.
im all for it, then again im an audiophile ...
and to whomever said that headphones cant display artifacts in sound as well as speakers, hasnt the vaguest idea what hes talking about.
I will only support such a format if its DESIGNED as CD was to NOT have ANY DRM. if the Standard permits DRM I have no interest in it.
Sounds good on the surface. I'm always for greater quality and the closer we get the true lossless encoding the better. Of course, if the studios would stop crapping up the sound by increasing the volume all the better too.
However, I don't care about how good it is. I don't care if it can deliver headshots in Halo, or actual head on the couch. I don't care if it can generate a Whopper every 4 hours from THIN AIR.
I'll take a crappy 128K MP3 all day long over a format that has DRM in it.
Now that is what I am interested in. For me personally, it is DRM formats on one side (which I will never touch), and non-DRM formats on the other side (my real choices come from come from here).
If this gets implemented without DRM, then I'm excited. If somebody wraps DRM around this, then it might as well not exist.
Hi Fraunhofer
http://flac.sourceforge.net
This is how it's done.
Regards,
The rest of the world.
You can already get lossless multichannel 24bit/96KHz audio with both FLAC and WMA lossless. I don't know why Fraunhofer thinks their HD-ACC is special.