Music File Formats, Short Term, Long Term

[filkertom]

According to this story, lots and lots of companies that license MP3 technology -- including Apple and Sony -- could end up having, shall we say, interesting times ahead.

MP3 is firmly entrenched right now as the audio format of choice for computers and media players. But that's not likely to continue forever. Other formats are gaining prominence -- some for better compression, some for little or no compression, some for better audio replication, some for being open-source.

I asked about this a few years ago, and got some fascinating and helpful info. But time and technology have marched on, and I haven't researched things nearly enough lately, but I think it's time to do so.

What audio file format(s) do you prefer? (The likeliest candidates are MP3, MP4, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, WavPack, and lossless WMA.) What features of those formats do you find more important -- audio quality, file size, compression ratio, DRM or lack thereof, what? And, if I made songs available in multiple formats -- not a trouble, I've got lots of server space and the conversion is just an additional step, two mouse clicks, and five minutes' processing -- which would you like to be able to buy?

Comments

[hms42]

Downloads from you?? Whatever format you prefer to use. :)

Personal usage/sharing out of print tapes - .mp3 since its cross platform between the PC and the Mac (iTunes unfortunately doesn't play .ogg, nor does Adobe Audition.). Otherwise I likely would make the .ogg jump.

Editing/recording - .wav ONLY. (Till I get told to use a better format by the experts (which do INCLUDE you.))

Harold

[mneme]

I'd probably use FLAC over .wav where available -- it's got all the advantages aside from ubuituity (losslessness), but is also decently compressed. (and since it's lossless, you can convert between it and uncompressed .wav without any corruption -- something not true about anything to/from .mp3 or to/from .ogg).

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I'm not switching from .WAV for recording and editing anytime soon, and I don't think anyone else is either. It's uncompressed, and can handle pretty much any resolution you need; the limitation is the software reading it.

[killernurd.livejournal.com]

Err... actually, iTunes has plugin support for Ogg/Vorbis. Can't say about Audition, though.

[hms42]

More info please! Does the plugin work on the mac??

Audition (windows only) runs fine thru Crossover on my Intel mac.

Harold

[killernurd.livejournal.com]

http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/

[mneme]

I prefer FLAC, MP3, and Ogg Vorbis:

MP3 is the only more-or-less open standard that's universally supported. I can play an MP3 on any keychain MP3 player, on my dvd player, on any modern computer, etc.

Ogg Vorbis is an open standard with decent compression. It's not lossless (so I wouldn't use it for archives), but it has all the advantages of MP3 aside from ubuiquity. If it were easier to get portable devices with Ogg Vorbis support, I'd use it more.

FLAC is an open archival-quality standard. I wouldn't use it for travelling around music (way too large), but it's very good for archiving tapes and CDs to data-quality DVDs and CDs.

[ericcoleman]

Just because everything plays it ... MP3 ...

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

Format doesn't matter to me. I wants transparency. I want to be able to download or rip music with relative ease. I want to be able to move the file between players, from computer to portable player to dedicated player without restrictions.

I want reasonable sound quality, manageable file size and the ability to customize the header information as to title, artist, genre and such.

Right now, .MP3 gives me this, many of the others do not.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

What he said.

I'm a dedicated Mac/iTunes user, make of that what you will but what you have been doing so far works for me.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

I'm wedded to the MP3 format because it's what my iPod uses, and frankly, having used some other players, I'm not liable to switch any time soon. (I admit that this may change, but as yet I don't see any reason to abandon my iPod, nor do I see an alternative that works anywhere near as well...which would be a reason, I suppose.) Also, MP3 is a least common denominator. I get music from a lot of different sources, especially online; the format they'll all share is guaranteed to be MP3.

I am an open source booster; if I had my druthers, I'd make Ogg Vorbis or FLAC (I leave the audiophiles to fight this one out, but as I understand it Ogg is leading, at least for the uses I'd be putting my music to) the standard, and be happier than happy.

It seems this is pretty much the standard response.

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

I believe that MP4 is iTunes (or at least Apple) proprietary, and more importantly, is DRM'ed to the hilt. Sorry, but that is a format (along with the associated m4p and m4a formats) to be avoided unless you like being able to use that file in iTunes only. Or am I thinking of m4p/m4a here, and not mp4 itself?

[killernurd.livejournal.com]

MP4 is the earlier name for M4A. Apple changed the extension when they realized that too many people were getting confused between MP4-audio and MP4-video. Technically, MP4/M4A is a container format, designed to encircle AAC files. There are differences in how raw AAC files are accessed and in how AAC-in-M4A files are accessed; they're quite aggravating sometimes.

M4P is a variant on the M4A container that supports DRM encryption.

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the explaination. I had the feeling there was a piece in that I had wrong. So m4a is fine but m4p should be avoided since it only works on the PC you initially downloaded the file on. Got it now.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

MP4/AAC is _not_ proprietary and is _not_ inherently DRM'd, the DRM format Apple puts on iTunes songs _is_ proprietary, and from what I've heard from people in the music biz who deal with the labels on a regular basis, it's the labels that demanded the DRM, not Apple, something that was confirmed recently with Jobs open letter.

[bathtubnz.livejournal.com]

MP3 for the casual downloads. FLAC for when it gets serious.

[killernurd.livejournal.com]

My personal preference is for Ogg/Vorbis. It offers me the balance between my need for file efficiency and my audiophilia. I generally get noticeably better quality out of Ogg/Vorbis than I do out of MP3. However, I do recognize that if I need to store audio data for archival purposes, then the way to fly would likely be FLAC. I really don't understand why people seem to believe in competition between Vorbis and FLAC, though - they're both codecs developed and supported by Xiph, for different purposes. :\ Probably less well-known is the Ogg/Speex codec, which is designed to do for strictly vocal recordings what Ogg/Vorbis does for music.

For recording, yeah, I still use the 16-bit PCM WAV format. It's easy to use, easy to edit and easy to turn into something else. I'll likely look into using FLAC for this purpose at some point in the future. However, I will note that both Audacity and Ardour use a completely different file storage system for storing both temporary and project audio data, which intrigues me.

I realize that most of the world is wedded to MP3, and I do tend to agree with the why. Vorbis hasn't really been around that long (relatively), and I can understand why it's not getting immediate acceptance globally. I am still extremely happy that it's been taken up by a few of the major game producers as the in-game audio codec for gameplay (IE, Epic's picked it up, ID's picked it up, and I'm fairly certain that if Microsoft hadn't bought out Bungie, they'd've picked it up by now).

To respond to a comment I noticed:
iPods actually support the AAC codec natively; MP3 was an addition Apple added to ensure more success with the endeavor. The default compression algorithm that iTunes uses is AAC-in-M4A (downloads are usually AAC-in-M4P, what with DRM and all).

My personal stance on DRM... eew. I've never been that fond of it, because frankly it's a crock, and it stinketh. It always has. The real purpose of DRM, from what I can divine, has nothing to do with music, production or the artists, and everything to do with the industry wanting to pry more money out of the lot of us for something they shouldn't have the rights to in the first place. I do what I can to get around DRM, even to the point of avoiding certain CDs (also because I don't wish to get hit with a rootkit when I'm not looking). In the end, I'm very much of the opinion that DRM will likely go the way of the dodo, and all it's proponents will meet the proverbial 72 Virginians when they reach the Pearly Gates (and if I'm dead by then, I'll be the first in line).

...I really shouldn't start talking about WMA at all. Frankly, from what I've seen, it's a bloated codec that serves as nothing more than Microsoft's attempt at further tightening its stranglehold of the world of software and media. I do what I can to fight it, and as I run a non-MS compliant OS (read: I'm a Linux Geek), I have very poor support for the codec anyway. I run a (usually weekly) SHOUTcast show, and when I ask for requests, I always make sure I inform the listeners that if they send me Windows Media files, I will consign them to Shepherd Book's Special Hell.

...I realize now that I've just spend the better part of 20 minutes writing this, so I'll shut up and get off my soapbox now.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

Like so many others have said: .wav, for recording (not that I do tonnes of that these days), and mp3 for listening, just for the convenience factor. I'm not that spectacularly picky about quality, honestly--obviously I don't want a lot of glitches or static and I want to be able to hear it, but most of what I do with digital music is have my iPod on while waiting for the bus/falling asleep/walking around/working out/driving. It's just on in the background, and all I really want is to be able to get music into the program I want them in, put them on my iPod, and go along my way.

As for DRM, I never buy CDs anymore, or iTunes either, because I refuse to support treating customers like criminals and potentially ruining my computer. Oh well.

[argonel.livejournal.com]

Chiming in.
1. anything but WMA
2. Anything but DRM

for philosophical reasons I prefer vorbis audio in an ogg container but mp3 is closer to being universally useful. My portable player handles MP3 and ogg vorbis, but the PS3 only handles MP3 and MP4.

Which audio file format do I prefer?

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

WAV

*No* compression, therefore no loss. MP3 I know has a certain amount of loss ("CD-like" my @$$), although it is a convenient format for my Dell Digital DJ as it takes up much less space than WAV, and let's face it, if I'm sweating to the oldies, I'm not as concerned about loss. I don't know enough about the other formats, other than the Digital DJ will play some other formats (not sure which ones - it's at home, I'm at work, hard for me to check).

But in burning my LP collection to CD, I play the LP into the computer via GoldWave, which records in WAV format. I process in WAV format. I burn the CD from the WAV format. It doesn't *touch* any other format in the process, even though GoldWave can convert to quite a few formats.

If I *have* to go with compressed, I'd have to go with something lossless. But that's me. And I'm not given to downloading much music - I'll buy the CDs I want, thanks. :-)

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I'm embarrassingly unsophisticated about computer audio for someone who spends so much time using computers and who is fairly seriously interested in music. I download a small amount of music in .MP3 format because it Just Works; if it's in some other format that my computer doesn't grok, I ignore it.

I'm really worried about this bullshit MP3 patent. The only good that could possibly come of it is if it sparks reform that puts some reality into the patent system. It's far more likely that MS would try to leverage this into no longer supporting MP3 and "replacing" it with a format with strong DRM. Seeing as how they've just released an entire operating system whose sole purpose is to take your machine away from you and turn it into the property of the content providers, this wouldn't be out of character at all. In fact, you wouldn't have to be too wild-eyed a conspiracy theorist to come to the conclusion that it's all a plot on the part of the RIAA-MPAA-MS cabal to suppress non-DRM formats. (They are the people who claim that all MP3 files are pirated anyway.) Just watch and see whether MS really pays, or if they "come to an arrangement" that ends up with the RIAA getting what they want and MS coming out ahead financially.

[mdlbear]

I usually use Audacity's internal format for recording, and greatly prefer Ogg Vorbis for use on the web and for ripped CDs on my internal server. WAV works as a universal exchange format, e.g. for burning or mastering CDs. I prefer ogg because you get about twice the quality of mp3 for the same number of bytes, and the fact that I can make them using nothing but free software.

My usual practice is to export from Audacity in WAV format and convert that automagically to Ogg for uploading; that gives me a lot more control over text tags.

As of about a month ago I also started uploading mp3 files because I continually get complaints from people who can't handle oggs. Eventually I hope that will change.

[louisadkins.livejournal.com]

I've been using MP3 for years, though I tend to prefer the higher settings with lower loss. Lately, I've been considering alternatives, and what I've decided can be summed as: storage space is very cheap, so I prefer lossless/quality over small size. But, then, I am also not looking at storing my files in an iPod or such, I store them on my computer. If there is a format that is just a little lower on the quality scale, but that is much lower on the file size scale, then I will consider compromise for that.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

(Revised for additions)

Pretty much what mnemex said.

I prefer FLAC to SHN for archival files; both are lossless with some compression (analagous to TIFF for graphics) but FLAC seem to be handled more easily, and is in fact a free format. APE is also okay for archives, but is far less common than either of the others. I'd prefer to buy in one of these formats, so that I can create files of any quality I'd like from them, including CD audio and MP3.

I convert most of my music to 192 kb/s MP3 for actual listening. That seems to be the best balance point between file size and listenability.

OGG is fine for many applications, but not all players support it. Aside from that, it's perfectly unobjectionable.

I have an unreasoned prejudice against WMA; even with no DRM and at high bit rates, they make my skin prickle. Could be that they want to play in Windows Media Player, which I dislike lots.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

"MP3 is the only more-or-less open standard that's universally supported."

One of the problems here is that Alcatel-Lucent has now firmly established their MP3 audio patent claim. A-L could now sue Apple, SanDisk, and so forth. No MP3 software can now be released under an FOSS license unless A-L allows it. What a mess! I suppose that the various MP3 player makers will settle; the iPod is the golden egg, and I doubt that A-L will insist that Apple make no more of them, but it may be that the makers will then head to proprietary encodings; future iPods, for instance, may not support MP3 at all. It is unlikely any of the major labels will go with a non-DRM format; in fact, we may end up with a situation where one must play Sony music on a Sony player. An alternative solution for the industry would be to pursue open encodings--Steve Jobs of Apple has publicly supported this, though I think it is primarily because he knows he has no power over the major labels and studios, let alone Alcatel-Lucent, with which Apple's is going to compete.

Personally? We will have to wait and see. If Alcatel-Lucent makes MP3 available for FOSS software, matters will be a bit easier; otherwise expect to pay for MP3 software in the future. For mastering and archival purposes stick with an open, lossless encoding (does anyone know if WAV is in fact open?)--you want people to be able to play at least your masters in the indefinite future. If you want the widest audience for your work, mp3 is going to continue to be the way to go, unless A-L gets really tightass. We can only hope that we will see music players adopt a genuinely open standards like Ogg Vorbis; if so, I strongly encourage their use.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

I like MP3 because it's everywhere. Any player that can't handle MP3s die off quickly (a big "Ha-Ha" to Sony here ;-) While MP3's are lossy and not state-of-the-art, they aren't as bas as some people make them out to be. If they bump up the setting from 98k to 164 or higher, they'll notice better quality. Personally, I can't tell the difference between 192 and anything higher, but I can hear the difference between 164 and 192, though it's very slight.

When I rip a CD for my iPod, I like using MP4/AAC. I can hear the difference. If a site offers AAC as an option, I take it.

As for Ogg Vorbis and the others, while I can appreciate what they do, I really have no need for them. Can't use them in my iPod (or any portable player, where is where I listen to my music 95% of the time) and I don't do audio recording. I do hope a truly open standard becomes accepted as MP3 is today, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

It's all about the liberties, baby

[gan-chan.livejournal.com]

If I'm plunking down my hard-earned cash, I prefer FLAC or WAV. To me, the short-term pain of longer download time is worth the long-term benefit of flexibility. If it's encoded with a lossless and open technology, I can enjoy it as-is or transcode it to whatever format happens to be required at the moment, using my operating system of choice.

As far as Alcatel's litigious ambitions are concerned, their goal is extortion, plain and simple. There are plenty of other countries which rightly hold that software is not patentable, and who are therefore perfectly legally able to provide hosting for the multiple different open-source implementations of MP3 codecs and the software programs that use them. But Alcatel doesn't want to kill MP3 - their ability to leech money from other companies and consumers would vanish if Vorbis or WMA or AAC suddenly replaced MP3 as the overwhelmingly dominant audio format.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[tropism.livejournal.com]

Plain, vanilla mp3. It's flexible, drm-free, and -everything- plays it.

[allah-sulu.livejournal.com]

Another vote for MP3.