Couldn't have said it better.

To reiterate a point I made earier; there are several reasons why I don't use Ogg:

1. Ogg and Mp3 encoded at the same bitrate (at high VBR settings), using the new LAME encoder have not been ABX'ed (that is, not proven that they sound any different to the human ear)

2. MP3 is supported by a lot more consumers and products on the market

3. People who prefer to have Ogg Vorbis in their library can simply transcode from one format to the other

 

For me, audio codecs are purely about ease of use and what people are going to use. I used Ogg for many years on SMC, when the new builds were indeed superior to the Mp3 encoders on the market. Even then, when one was better, all the emails I would get would be "Why ogg?", "How do i use this on my MP3 player?", and so forth.

 

I definitely believe lossless is the way to go with the future, and it's a common question at my website. I almost never get emails about MP3/ogg anymore. It's just about bandwidth/space/money. Since I don't pay my own server bills, this is a factor ;)

To reiterate a point I made earier; there are several reasons why I don't use Ogg:

1. Ogg and Mp3 encoded at the same bitrate (at high VBR settings), using the new LAME encoder have not been ABX'ed (that is, not proven that they sound any different to the human ear)

2. MP3 is supported by a lot more consumers and products on the market

3. People who prefer to have Ogg Vorbis in their library can simply transcode from one format to the other

Come on now. Most of the people who are the least bit interested in having an alternate format are coming from the viewpoint that one is inferior to the other. That's the whole reason they ask for alternate formats. You can't just transcode from one to the other without getting into the very issue they're trying to avoid in the first place; quality loss. Further quality loss, at that.

 

For me, audio codecs are purely about ease of use and what people are going to use. I used Ogg for many years on SMC, when the new builds were indeed superior to the Mp3 encoders on the market. Even then, when one was better, all the emails I would get would be "Why ogg?", "How do i use this on my MP3 player?", and so forth.

 

I definitely believe lossless is the way to go with the future, and it's a common question at my website. I almost never get emails about MP3/ogg anymore. It's just about bandwidth/space/money. Since I don't pay my own server bills, this is a factor ;)

 

I don't believe it's the future, I believe it's now. Or at least it should be and we should be pushing it as much as possible. Technology has a tendency to stagnate because of personal familiarity and bias. Why is MP3 still the most used format? Because everybody knows what it is. They're used to it, all of their peripherals use it and so they stick to it like glue. Technology caters to this and so we've not moved beyond MP3 for the past 10+ years. Personally, I believe we're never going to start heading into lossless format anytime soon as long as we keep giving MP3 (and even OGG) attention it doesn't deserve anymore. Our storage spaces are immensely superior to what they used to be. We're with the same lousy format we've had since the late 90s. This is partially the reason why I don't have an iPod because I don't want to support technology that doesn't support lossless. My Sony Walkman, though inferior in features, allows the playback of WAV files. I made a conscious decision to avoid non-lossless compatible devices. Sure, very few others are going to do this, but the way I look at it we can't just go with the flow or we'll never get anywhere.

 

If lossless is what we're aspiring to as a new audio standard then we need to start pushing it yesterday. We've already gone too far with MP3. I know, I'm a little dogmatic about this. Put simply, I'm not interested in what the masses want or are used to so much as the continued improvement of my field of industry. And we've gone backwards since the CD and we haven't bounced back yet. This bothers me. We should be bettering ourselves and what we use, not moving backwards. Regardless of whether most people hear the differences or even care about it, we need to keep improving it and pushing for advancements. The only way to do that is to push these formats. If people really want MP3s so badly and don't care about quality then THEY should be the ones transcoding, not the ones that do care of quality and will lose exactly that if they are forced to transcode themselves.

 

Of course, there's the size and bandwidth standpoints, which I've already agreed with. We can only do what we are able to do. I don't know about everybody else, but the MP3s I get out of LAME are still larger than OGGs at the same bitrate regardless of quality comparison. I still to this day can hear the differences between high-bitrate lossy and lossless formats. It bothers me every day that we haven't moved beyond this. There are a myriad of issues I could go into why this affects an artist's ability to compose and be creative that I won't go into. Suffice to say, we'll never get anywhere unless we advance ourselves. And that's true today more than ever. It's a different world now. The indie scenes, home studios, film makers, game developers, people with their own websites, etc affect the popular demand more than the industries did of old. Before we had to follow what the record companies gave us and what technology presented us with. And that was all physical media. Nowadays, everything is digital and virtual. We create our own levels of quality now. The industries follow us. We should be setting the standard instead of remaining complacent.

 

That's my spiel for the day lol.

There is something to be said for convenience, however. Especially user convenience. I completely agree that, if space permits, we should offer FLAC. I completely agree with everything you said about audio quality. I wish my battered old iPod would play FLAC. I have a FLAC player for my Android phone and it absolutely sucks ape dongs. The technology is there, but we're not using it to its full advantage yet.

 

So I'll suggest that we should offer properly encoded, high quality MP3 files next to the FLAC's; again, space permitting. It's not just a case of championing a new format. Or, indeed, a format that deserves wider spread. It's also a matter of not forcing casual visitors to go hunt for a FLAC-to-MP3 converter on-line that doesn't install a truckload of Russian mail-order bride-spewing spyware on their vulnerable machines.

What it comes down to is facts. In the scientific audio community, HydrogenAudio, there has never been any general proof that:

a. Ogg Vorbis sounds better than MP3 at a similar bitrate

b. MP3 (or Ogg) at a high VBR setting is distinguishable from a lossless source in normal listening environments

 

If your complaint about MP3 is that the files are larger than Ogg, and you feel you can hear a difference, that'simportant to you, but not to most, with due respect. Probably not most end users. The convenience is probably a big factor however.

 

Short of that, it makes sense to give people a lossy and lossless option, MP3 is a widely used and good format, with the new encoders, it's indistinguishable from Ogg until proven otherwise. FLAC is a good lossless codec, although I'll admit I'm ignorant when it comes to it so I'm open to other suggestions, FLAC just seems to be widely used.

 

I don't believe in transcoding either, BTW, it was just discussed so I flagged it as a possibility. There's no reason to transcode MP3 to Ogg.

 

 

On lossless, I definitely think it's the way to go. I have, and always will, keep lossless archives of my music. One day the lossless archives will be put out there. In SQ's case it sounds like it will be sooner than later, which is excellent news.

I began recording and editing this year in 32-bit, 88.2 kHz float, so my masters are higher quality than ever before. So getting proper 44.1 kHz recordings that sound like my dithered masters is important to me.

 

Until the space is out there and I can afford it I will be providing lossy versions for convenience, and most people will be unable to hear a difference between them and the masters.

 

OK, let's talk about music again ;)

I'm not waging a crusade or anything, even though it might sound like I am. I just think if there's going to be a change it's up to us. Technology has always moved forward (eventually) regardless of what people were used to. The only difference now is that the general public are the ones holding the reigns and controlling the rate of technological improvement (maybe we're not suited for it, who knows). We can be lazy and just cater to MP3 forever or we can do something about it (resources and finances permitting of course :) ). I basically agree with everyone, I just disagree with the notion that we should be sticking to MP3 just because it's convenient. And also the notion that it's not worth it to change because the difference is indistinguishable. I doubt the masses can spot the differences between vinyl and digital either, yet technology still pushed passed it. Now, that's not really a matter of one being better than the other, in that case they're just different. I'm one of the ones that can't really distinguish the difference between analogue and digital recordings very well, but there are various types of audiophiles out there who swear by one and curse the other. I see them as alternatives.

 

However, in this case one IS superior to the other. And just from a basic standpoint of bettering ourselves as human beings, we should be pushing the boundaries regardless of whether it sounds any different to most people's ears or not, as we've consistently done in the past. We haven't hit an apex or anything, there's still a ways to go. But there is a definite distinguishable difference and it needs to be acknowledged and addressed at some point. I just think it's been too long already.

 

That was a little too philosophical than intended lol. Back to music...

Assuming you're talking about FLAC vs MP3, then I'm with you all the way. :) OK, back to music.

 

SQ4, I'm about 66% through, making slow progress lately. Working on something with Ken Allen. We'll see what comes of it.

 

SQ6- will have a crack at it again soon. Supposed to have a chat with Neal Grandstaff when we both have the time, but we've both been busy for a while..

Yes, FLAC and MP3. :y:

 

Exciting news as well!

I have some more news coming about lossless files, there may be a solution to the whole FLAC thing sooner than we thought.. If I don't update about this for a couple of weeks, someone remind me ;) Kind of behind the scenes for now.

To reiterate a point I made earier; there are several reasons why I don't use Ogg:

1. Ogg and Mp3 encoded at the same bitrate (at high VBR settings), using the new LAME encoder have not been ABX'ed (that is, not proven that they sound any different to the human ear)

2. MP3 is supported by a lot more consumers and products on the market

3. People who prefer to have Ogg Vorbis in their library can simply transcode from one format to the other

 

For me, audio codecs are purely about ease of use and what people are going to use. I used Ogg for many years on SMC, when the new builds were indeed superior to the Mp3 encoders on the market. Even then, when one was better, all the emails I would get would be "Why ogg?", "How do i use this on my MP3 player?", and so forth.

 

I definitely believe lossless is the way to go with the future, and it's a common question at my website. I almost never get emails about MP3/ogg anymore. It's just about bandwidth/space/money. Since I don't pay my own server bills, this is a factor ;)

 

Spikey, I did not lobby for native Ogg Vorbis versions alongside the originals. I merely mentioned that it is a bandwagon I'm still fully on-board with. Also, please do not suggest transcoding between lossy formats as any kind of real solution. It compounds artifacts of both formats (even MP3 to MP3 far from perfect). To make a blanket statement that transcoding is costless ignores all sorts of details (reductio ad absurdum here would suggest that encoding a 320Kbps VBR file to 64Kbps CBR loses no noticeable quality as well).

 

My simple statement was... keep the originals. The only reason for mentioning JWPlayer at all was that pcj seemed interested in the music archive at SQN having the capability to play the stored files via a web-based player, and, as a result of preserving/mirroring originals, since Tom's music archive are Ogg Vorbis files, then they could be played via the browser player just the same.

 

I agree that downsampled versions can easily be transcoded. That's why I'm suggesting that the originals be kept (FLAC, Tom's Oggs, and whatever is in MP3 only). If anyone sees fit to have lossy versions transcoded from the originals, that's where I suggested 128Kbps-ish VBR MP3 files (though IMHO, this is unnecessary). Further, any originals that are not FLAC would have to be transcoded from lossy to FLAC to provide "FLAC and MP3" which is equally ludicrous as the (admittedly contrived) severe downsample scenario I mentioned above.

 

Hence my three-word pitch would be...

 

Originals and MP3

What it comes down to is facts. In the scientific audio community, HydrogenAudio, there has never been any general proof that:

 

Oh, man, I love it when HA is claimed to have come to a consensus on anything :) I suspect that a deeper dive into the forums will reveal a less clear picture.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the community there at Hydrogen (and have participated at times), but any in-depth discussion on the merits of individual codecs is incomplete without mentioning the fact that the resulting artifacts are as much a factor of the source material (usually genre & original mastering) as they are a factor of codec/bitrate choices. As well one must discuss the equipment one is using to listen to their music; for example, Troels' old warhorse iPod and probably earbuds will mask a lot of inherent shortcomings in playback. I, on the other hand, worked in the pro-audio gear industry some years ago, and ended up with really nice cans and good playback equipment. My ABX tests reflect a clear dominance of codecs (which is also why I'm so passionate about my personal choices; anything else annoys the living shit out of me). Also Nyquist-Shannon must be brought up at some point ;)

 

Personally, I've not been at all impressed with the progress of MP3 (specifically LAME) in the past four years or so (only one significant psychoacoustic model tweak/improvement, really... mostly bugfixes otherwise), as opposed to Vorbis which has had significant improvement (Aoyumi's wonderful AoTuV work, surround support, etc). Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

 

Short of that, it makes sense to give people a lossy and lossless option, MP3 is a widely used and good format, with the new encoders, it's indistinguishable from Ogg until proven otherwise.

 

No such proof will ever be forthcoming (either way). Millions have their ears trained to the artifacts they expect, making audio fidelity a highly subjective exercise. I recall a study, some years ago, in which a statistically significant (low p-value) body of early 20-somethings preferred MP3 to uncompressed in ABX :)

 

What does one make of that?

 

FLAC is a good lossless codec, although I'll admit I'm ignorant when it comes to it so I'm open to other suggestions, FLAC just seems to be widely used.

 

Lossless is lossless. How good it is is only a factor of encoding size. I've read that Apple lossless is actually smaller in niche cases... but man, talk about obscure niche of obscure niche. Stick to FLAC.

 

I don't believe in transcoding either, BTW, it was just discussed so I flagged it as a possibility. There's no reason to transcode MP3 to Ogg.

 

OK, I feel better about that. But what of Ogg originals, as in Tom's case? (assuming he's even interested in participating here)

 

That being said (and all of the above)... I'm sticking to my above suggestion that originals be the focus here. I do understand the convenience of providing MP3s for casual listening, but it is worth an investigation into which demographic it is that the music archive here is going to serve. Other than other musicians (whom almost certainly will clamor for FLAC), I mainly see fan game authors gracing the forums here, and I suspect they'd want the flexibility to transcode as necessary for their game. I am most certainly not lobbying for Vorbis files (while I'd be overjoyed to see this, I am also a realist).

 

I began recording and editing this year in 32-bit, 88.2 kHz float, so my masters are higher quality than ever before. So getting proper 44.1 kHz recordings that sound like my dithered masters is important to me.

 

Sounds droolworthy!!

 

Until the space is out there and I can afford it I will be providing lossy versions for convenience, and most people will be unable to hear a difference between them and the masters.

 

I hope our small community can find a way to achieve that for you, and the other wonderful musicians here. I love what I can do in sampling, mixing & slicing & dicing, and playing around with really high-quality FLAC masters. Not that I would ever inflict my creations upon anyone, but it's certainly a fun hobby. Maybe I'll inflict them on my kid. She's still at an age in which I can do no wrong, so I might as well take advantage of that for a short-term ego-boost...

 

OK, let's talk about music again ;)

 

Erm... what? I missed the Codec Crusade/Holy War thread?

 

/me takes his ball & red wagon and heads home

I wish my battered old iPod would play FLAC. I have a FLAC player for my Android phone and it absolutely sucks ape dongs.

 

Troels, if it means having FLAC files here on SQN, I'll be your personal SQ-fan-music transcoding machine :D

Edited version of Troels's timeline:

 

-> Space Quest I

-> -> AGI soundtrack

(No MIDI soundtrack, just a PC Speaker and possibly other chiptune score on Apple II/et al)

 

-> Space Quest II

-> -> AGI soundtrack

(No MIDI soundtrack, just a PC Speaker and possibly other chiptune score on Apple II/et al)

 

Both of these had music for Tandy 3-Voice:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Dqsz69hpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZS0_IYgzTk

 

 

Not throughout the whole game like SQ3 onwards, but definitely for the intro, and short pieces here and there (such as when Vohaul appears to Roger for the first time).

Both of these had music for Tandy 3-Voice:

I love Tandy 3-Voice. It's how I experienced most of Sierra's early graphic adventures (including Space Quest 1 and 2).

 

Jess

Don't forget that "Space Quest II" also had a unique soundtrack on the Apple IIgs.

 

[media=]

[/media]

Troels, if it means having FLAC files here on SQN, I'll be your personal SQ-fan-music transcoding machine :D

 

Thanks, man! Don't worry. I would never, on principle, deprive anyone of a superior alternative, just because I can't get in on the fun.

 

I think we just need definite confirmation that we actually have the space on SQN to host FLAC's. (Frans said we had tons of space, but I don't think he quite realizes how much music we're talking. Fred and SquallStrife already mentioned the Tandy "alternate" soundtracks of SQ1 and SQ2.) If we don't have the space, that kinda renders this whole conversation moot. Unless someone else can host the FLAC's.

Space won't be a problem. If SQN does reach a limit, I'd be willing to spring for an S3 hosting plan.

PCJ and I were talking on #sq a moment ago. Maybe we could come to a sort of compromise?

 

PCJ raised the very pertinent point: "Why would we host FLAC's if no one is downloading them?" And the obvious response is, well, we won't know if anyone's downloading them until we offer them.

 

Offering all the variants of SQ soundtracks as lossless FLAC's, however, is quite the investment.

 

So the compromise we thought of was: How about we offer Spikey's "special edition" soundtracks as FLAC + MP3 on the site, and all the other soundtracks as high quality MP3's, then see how many spring for the lossless downloads? If it turns out to be a straight up bum's rush, we could spring for the extra storage and offer everything as lossless.

I completely agree. My FLAC request was largely borne of personal preference, and reading these forum threads; that's why I was asked the question of what demographic the archive will mostly serve. The vocal minority is probably not the right group to poll when making such decisions (though it may be observed that our entire fandom right now is a bit of a vocal minority). It sounds a lot like you're trying to answer that question with real data!

All true points.

Well, we also have Troels's other idea, which is put the files on Bandcamp as lossless and host MP3 on site.

 

Now, I mentioned having an alternative, I may have a benefactor providing lossless hosting of my music. So we shall see. I will let you all know.

 

As for audio discussion, s_d, i agree with what you say about the HA forums, to a point. Still, it's the standard until a better place is found ;)

 

I also agree abot LAME vs aoTuv, i used Aoyumi (sp?)'s Ogg builds for years. The problem I had was that visitors of my website weren't getting the Ogg benefit, they were transcoding them, or asking questions like "I can use WinAmp or foobar, but how do I get it to work on my iPod?". So I decided LAME was probably non ABX-able in 99.9% of situations for most end users (note: *most*), especially given it's video game music casually listened to by again, *most* fans.

 

You're right , HA forums and most tests, including ABX, do not take into ccount what sound card/speakers/headphones you are using. That is a very valid point. But we're getting way beyond the scope of the thread ;) If anything, most fans are not using high quality cans I would imagine. But I have a feeling FLAC will be able to happen one way or another.

I personally use mp3s compressed using the überstandard (check their website for details) most of the time, but i always keep a flac backup for listening through good equipment. I would agree that for most, the flac option is not going to be used but it would be nice if it was available one way or another. The "ask politely" option sounds good but those files would be too big to just email.

Dammit guys how could u go through all this discussion without once discussing torrents as an alternative for file hosting. Torrents on their own are legal as is p2p connections and there are some free (and legal) trackers that u can use for the torrents (If needed i can provide links to them), just having one person constantly seeding will mean that the person will eventually get the files. This is just another alternative to hosting it on another site and having them taken down or lost coz of many possible issues, or having to pay for the high amount of bandwith hositng them locally will need. Im guessing that someone who is interested in the difference between FLAC and MP3 and is willing to go for the FLAC is prob gonna know or have some idea on how to how to use torrents, if not just post a tutorial on the site explaining how to do it

 

Im all for FLAC as well, too many of my music has been on 128kbps format, and its so obvious when hearing the two together as to which one is the better sound...

Torrents aren't a bad idea, good point on the legal uses of them. I don't think that's a bad idea, except I think we can get direct downloads as a reality, I don't think we'll need to use that route.

I'm all for torrents; I think it's a great technology that has really been horribly maligned. I did, however, try to upload one once and failed miserably. It was my own game, and maybe it was just because with my connection off I was the only seeder, but it never really worked for me. It could very well just be my failure to understand the technology properly - it was my first, and hitherto only, attempt.