OK, AAC failed. How about MT9?

Seriously, give me a break:

The Motion Pictures Experts Group, otherwise known as MPEG, will meet this month in Germany to consider making a new digital audio format called MT9 an international standard.

Developed by the South Korean company Audizen, the MT9 format -- commercially known as Music 2.0 -- splits an audio file into six channels, such as vocals, guitar, bass and so on. Users playing the track can then raise or lower the volume on the different channels like a producer on a mixing board, to the point of isolating a single item.

According to the Korea Times, its inventors say the new format will replace MP3 as the standard for all digital music. But certain music industry realities stand in the way of their goal.

Two comments here.

  1. How could any article write about a successor to MP3 and not mention AAC, even once? It does, however, mention mp3PRO and MP3 Surround, neither which I've even heard of.
  2. Given that AAC has been a complete failure, how exactly will yet another format succeed?

OK, I guess those are questions, not comments.

And what's up with this bit of skewed logic:

Despite the difficulties, a new digital music format is exactly what the music industry needs to kick-start digital sales.

Please. What the music industry needs is better music, not a new format.

Discuss this Article 33

romperstomper
on Jun 18, 2008
This sounds like an all-round bad idea. Music is mixed in certain way for a reason. The levels of each composite part of a track are almost as important as the parts themselves. Post-production of music is a long, often expensive process, done by professionals, some who have become famous due to their expertise in the field. It is an art. A format like this not only leaves the art of mastering almost irrelevant but makes it even easier for tracks to be ripped apart for sampling etc.
gavers
on Jun 18, 2008
The article is plain bizarre, but AAC hardly failed. While the only commercially available music tracks (that I'm aware of) encoded in AAC come from Apple, there is vast hardware support for the format including on the Zune, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii and a bunch of also-ran MP3 players. The formats the article mentions are ones that got little or no hardware support. At least AAC had wide-spread hardware support.
pthurrott
on Jun 18, 2008
If AAC didn't replace MP3, it's a failure. That was the point, right? Higher quality at the same bitrate? Small file sizes? Better compression? And yet MP3 is still ubiquitous.
TreyFlack
on Jun 18, 2008
Hey Paul- come on dude.. Please get real for one second. We realize that you have "mouths to feed," but come on: "AAC has been a complete failure" - pt thurrot Do you have a grip on reality? Can you possibly see beyond the party line of your Microsoft boss men? FACT: The Itunes store sells the vast majority of it's tracks in AAC file format. Paul: "AAC has been a complete failure" Translation: "AAC has been a complete for Microsoft"
BrightrevCarl
on Jun 18, 2008
Say what? Most of the digital tracks sold today are AAC encoded, not MP3 encoded. I personally keep everything in MP3 format and would just as soon see AAC go away, but it's not a failure. By this criteria, here are some other failures due to their inability to become or replace an overwhelming market leader: * iPhone - Hasn't replaced WinMo or BlackBerry * Xbox 360 - Can't sell more than the Wii * Apple (the company) - Hasn't replaced Windows as an OS or Dell/HP as a computer maker. * Windows Vista - Hasn't replaced Windows XP * Mozilla Firefox - Hasn't replaced Internet Explorer * Facebook - Hasn't replaced MySpace
BrightrevCarl
on Jun 18, 2008
And oh yeah - I have no interest in this new format. I don't have $10,000 speakers or $10,000 ears, so reasonably high bitrate MP3s work fine for me.
weedmonk
on Jun 18, 2008
Wow....looks like AAC is another tickler for our iFriends.
bluvg
on Jun 18, 2008
Aside from the vs. MP3 discussion, I'd like to ask about the 6 channels. Seriously? So... apparently every musical group in existence can be distilled down to Vocals, Drums, Guitar, Bass, Keyboards, and Aux (Rhythm Guitar, Harmony Vocal, Banjo, Washboard, take your pick???)? Does anyone in the digital music field care about those that like classical/orchestral/choral performances? Or how about pipe organ? Or a recording of original Harry Partch instruments? Even in the new apparent 'standard' for groups, what about if I want to raise the level of the snare drum a touch, take a little of the edge off at 1k for the kick, and rub out an obnoxious frequency on a tom? If we're really talking about multi-tracking as a digital format for distribution, six channels presumes way too much about the recording. I don't think that many people care about adjusting those things, anyhow--it is already how the author(s) intended, or at least were satisfied enough with it to release it. I'd much prefer if we could just decide on a new audio format with better fidelity. Seriously, mp3 sucks until you hit a comparatively sky-high bitrate, and even then it is not well-suited to things like classical music. Even in pop music, if the drums are up front, the horrors it inflicts on cymbals are unspeakable.
Snakedoctor1
on Jun 18, 2008
"Two comments here. 1. How could any article write about a successor to MP3 and not mention AAC, even once? It does, however, mention mp3PRO and MP3 Surround, neither which I've even heard of. 2. Given that AAC has been a complete failure, how exactly will yet another format succeed?" Wow why the Apple hate? Its sticks out like a oozing pimple at the end of your nose. I agree with you somewhat. If I wrote an article about a new format trying to make it, I would talk about all formats to date. I would talk about the efforts by the backers, and how much money has been spent/lost promoting them. I would talk about what DRM did to different formats, and which format providers backed it more. I think you would find WMA to be the biggest looser when you looked closely at the costs innvlolved. I would love to sell 1 billion + items at .99 cents and be called a failure. Can I start today?
Dipsh t Admin
on Jun 18, 2008
Actually not suing your customers would probably be a good first effort in attempting to increase sales. Just a random thought. Thoughts??? ;)
Waethorn
on Jun 18, 2008
The big reason why AAC is used by Apple is because content control (aka DRM) schemes were written into the original design plans for the format. Ditto for WMA. The MP3 container format wasn't designed for them. mp3PRO was used almost exclusively by RCA, but offered near-CD quality at lesser bitrates than the standard MP3 format (they claimed 64kbps CD-quality, similar to claims made about AAC and WMA). The big advantage to mp3PRO was that the MP3 container format could be utilized, so if storage wasn't a concern, but bandwidth was, you could utilize and mp3PRO stream when compatible, but fallback to MP3 when necessary. The format supported the multiple bitrate scheme for delivery. MP3 Surround wasn't widely accepted due to AC-3 already being well established at the time.
Auras
on Jun 18, 2008
Actually Paul is right, AAC has failed to replace MP3. Only digital stores use it because it supports DRM. Consumers love MP3 because it has even wider support than AAC and it doesn't support DRM.
mdsharpe
on Jun 18, 2008
This six channel thing sounds utterly pointless. I won't go on because romperstomper has summarized it so well.
heran
on Jun 18, 2008
"Most of the digital tracks sold today are AAC encoded, not MP3 encoded." ======== Even so, AAC still cannot replace MP3, if it was not a failure, what is? Some company uses its market monopoly to "force" you to use this format, but majority people still love mp3. "Wow why the Apple hate?" ======= Excuse me, I thought AAC was not invented or owned by Apple? By this logic, an Intel critic would be an Apple hater as well (becase the machine uses intel CPU)? By the way, mp3PRO seems to be designed for low bitrate sound. At higher bitrate (200+kbps), listening tests show that mp3 coded by LAME are actually equally good as AAC.
gorath
on Jun 18, 2008
MP3 is the "household name" for digital music for most people these days, it's like calling a vacum cleaner a "hoover" (UK-ism?) Whenever I get requests from radio stations or TV companies for pretty much any piece of audio to be sent to them, I only ever get asked for two formats. MP3, or audio CD.
drylight
on Jun 18, 2008
"If AAC didn't replace MP3, it's a failure. That was the point, right?" So you agree that, according to your own logic, that Vista is a failure? It did not replace XP.
Mum
on Jun 18, 2008
"What the music industry needs is better music, not a new format." Please, enough with this already. This has been continously repeated by all sorts of morons who only very occasionally listen to some daddy music almost since music was invented. With bands such as Death Cab for Cutie making #1 in the US charts we haven't had it this good since the 60's and even then the bands weren't any less manufactured by the record companies - actually more so. You might as well argue that the music industry needs better record buyers. It definitely doesn't need idiots arguing over digital music format bitrates between which, when put to a blind test, they couldn't tell a difference if you crammed a cow sideways.
Dude1313
on Jun 19, 2008
pthurrott said: If AAC didn't replace MP3, it's a failure. That was the point, right? This is so laden with irony its not even funny... I'd say that it is par for the course now from the leader of the Windows-Jihadists. My new term every time I think of the leader of the supposed "iCabal" counter insurgent team.
subzerohitman721
on Jun 19, 2008
Paul, I have to disagree with you. Just because MP3 is the default format, doesn't mean it will last forever. Vinyl, cassettes, and the wave format are all ancient history. Beta, VHS, and laser disk for the video industry are history too. A new challenge for better audio especially for live concerts would be welcome. Considering the compression that is happening with MP3 and AAC, we're losing something in the translation. Granted I love iTunes and use it regularly with my iPod. A successor to MP3 and AAC is definitely needed, so that we get much closer to an actual live performance level. What the music industry needs is the major change in the way it does business. Right now smaller labels are succeeding while the bigger labels are failing. Many major artists are transitioning away from the big labels because of computer technology. With Windows, Linux, or Leopard, a good microphone, a good soundcard, and the proper audio recording application; you have all the tools needed to master an album/tracks without all the fat cats. Instead of trying to mold images, let the music speak for itself. As a former music major, I can tell you that good music and musicians always speaks louder than words. Frankly, the recording industry is a dinosaur thats on the verge of extinction. Unless they modernize and get out of the way of creativity, the industry as we know it will cease to exists. A new version based on independent labels will revolutionise it.
johnpapola
on Jun 19, 2008
It's reasonable to say that AAC has failed to replace MP3. That's a statement of fact. Has it failed outright? Well, that's a pretty broad declaration. If I had developed a standard for digital music and had it picked up by the #1 Music player and service (Apple), I'd feel pretty successful. If over 4 billion songs were sold in my format, I'd feel pretty successful. But if I only saw success as the absolute replacement of my predecessor, I guess that benchmark spells failure. This just goes to remind us all that be "good enough" is a very hard thing to replace, even for a lesser standard. Hell, just look at Windows! Talk about the ultimate in "just barely good enough" winning out and holding on to dominance.
peterkirn
on Jun 19, 2008
"If AAC didn't replace MP3, it's a failure. That was the point, right?" Well, no -- it's not. AAC is widely used as the audio stream for video, not only by Apple. It's very likely powering audio in videos you're watching online. That's not to say AAC hasn't been a failure -- but then, it's not so much the *format* failed as people failed to adopt it, and I think there is a difference. AAC was denied from addition to DVD and Blu-Ray formats, for instance. The problems with the lack of a basic reference compressed audio format go far beyond the limited scope of what's on your portable player. That's not to say your wrong -- on the contrary, it means the problem is actually *bigger*. Sigh.
gorath
on Jun 19, 2008
@subzerohitman721 Wow. are you saying that the wave format (as in PCM audio) is dead? You really believe that? Every single studio which deals with audio, whether professional, or home studio uses wav, or AIFF (intrinsically the same format with different headers) and this trend is not set to change for a long long time. there are alternatives, which include multi-channel versions of a wav file, with a few proprietary tags, but again, it is intrinsically the same PCM format. As for small labels succeding where the majors are not? I couldn't disagree more. Any music company which is still firmly planted in the traditional business model of a "record company" is struggling.
johnpapola
on Jun 19, 2008
Correction. Apple announced today that they've sold over 5 billion songs... in AAC format.
Digitarius
on Jun 19, 2008
I love how the iCult leaps to the defense of Apple at the merest phantom of criticism. As others say, Apple didn't invent AAC. It just made it a minor player in the market. And just because iTunes sells AAC doesn't make it a success: What matters is what you choose when you're doing your own encoding. And people widely prefer MP3, I think mainly for compatibility reasons. I do like the idea of multiple tracks, but I don't know if six is enough. I know I personally would love to mix down (or out!) the vocals of some of my favorite songs and just rock out with the instrumentation. Kills the specialized karaoke market? I imagine it wouldn't be much harder to write up the spec to allow any number of tracks. I'm in the process of trying to learn the guitar, and I would completely dig the ability to mix down everything but one specific guitar in the track just to listen to that. I'd go so far as to say I would buy -all- my music in multitrack format, and I'd be willing to pay just a little more for it.
subzerohitman721
on Jun 19, 2008
@gorath The mass majority of songs sold are MP3 and AAC. I know wav files are still used and supported, but its not as prevalent as the two defaults now. I have a hard time finding songs in the traditional .wav file format online anymore. Not like it was 11 years ago. My point was that we'll move on from MP3 and AAC. The ultimate goal is to reproduce a recording that sounds like a live performance. Nothing more.
gorath
on Jun 19, 2008
You appeared to be saying that wav was a dead format, whern the opposite is true. uncompressed PCM audio isn't going anywhere for a long time.
Waethorn
on Jun 19, 2008
"AAC was denied from addition to DVD and Blu-Ray formats, for instance." Actually, it was due to the already-existing complexities of the formats. AAC wasn't established when the DVD spec was made. Neither was high-quality MPEG-4 (only the lower MPEG-4 levels, designed to optimize video for lower bandwidths were ratified, instead of the high-bandwidth Level 10 MPEG-4 used in Bluray - otherwise known as AVC). Bluray didn't adopt it because of 2 reasons: 1) Licensing exclusivity rights with Dolby and DTS. 2) The features of AAC are already covered by the above 2 formats, in addition to PCM.
Waethorn
on Jun 19, 2008
"Post-production of music is a long, often expensive process, done by professionals, some who have become famous due to their expertise in the field. It is an art." This is a very important statement. Digital compression studios also consider themselves artists in their field. Codec variances "optimize" the loss of data during lossy compression by deciding on what can and can't be acceptably lost. Compression and loss doesn't just come from digital processing though - it comes at the recording level. Live music can never be reproduced perfectly. Recording it will reduce the sound quality to the limit that the recording, mixing, and eventually, the digital storage and compression hardware and software will allow. Mixing is one of the first major man-made limitations on sound quality though, and it's all up to the mixer's ears.
Snakedoctor1
on Jun 19, 2008
tayme
on Jun 19, 2008
@Snakedoctor1 - That is an impressive number!!! I haven't read the entire article yet...does it give any date regarding how many of those are in the unprotected mp3 format? Just curious how much that has spurred sales from iTunes(like it needed spurring). --tayme
lotsamystuff
on Jun 19, 2008
"I haven't read the entire article yet...does it give any date regarding how many of those are in the unprotected mp3 format? " None. Apple sells unprotected AAC (mp4) songs as allowed by the labels, but they don't sell anything in mp3.
tayme
on Jun 20, 2008
"None. Apple sells unprotected AAC (mp4) songs as allowed by the labels, but they don't sell anything in mp3." Thanks for the clarification...so, are numbers available that show protected vs unprotected purchases? --tayme
subzerohitman721
on Jun 21, 2008
@gorath, My apologies for not being specific enough. Further comment. Apple should add support for HE-AAC or high efficiency AAC to both iPods and iTunes.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use