Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 18:51 UTC, submitted by snydeq
Internet & Networking We here at OSNews have taken somewhat of an interest in the new HTML5 video and audio tags, which should - some day - make embedding audio and video material into web pages as easy and straightforward as embedding images, allowing the web to finally remove the shackles of dreadful Flash video. Sadly, the problem with these new tags are the codecs; as it turns out, browser makers have not reached an agreement about what codecs to choose for video, with mostly Apple throwing a spanner in the works, and Microsoft shining in absence.
Thread beginning with comment 371374
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Audio
by LB06 on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 19:42 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

H.264 is clearly superior at this moment. No question about it. But why doesn't Google pour the money into the Ogg project they would have otherwise spent on paying royalties? This would definitely improve their reputation and it doesn't cost them a lot of money. This might close the quality gap at least a bit, depending on the current state of Ogg Theora.

But I don't really think this debate matters that much. Whatever Google (youtube) will choose will be supported by all browsers except maybe in Debian ;) .

As for audio: I'm a huge proponent of HE-AAC.

http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf:


The MPEG AAC codec operating at 320 kbit/s shows an “Excellent” quality level on average, however it performs less well for “applause” (i.e. “Good”). Unfortunately, AAC could not be tested at 448 kbit/s, therefore a direct comparison with Dolby Digital and Windows Media is not possible at that bitrate.

Nevertheless, HE AAC codec gives really remarkable results. For bitrates equal and higher than 160 kbit/s, the average of all ten test items was found to be in the region of "Excellent". This means that the mean value of HE AAC is similar to the mean value of the above mentioned codecs operating at almost 3 times higher bitrate! On the downside, HE AAC gives a rather unbalanced behaviour, as "applause" is always in “Fair” region, independently of the selected bitrate.

Equally remarkable is the quality performance of HE AAC at 128 kbit/s. In spite of extremely low bitrate (for multichannel audio!), it scores systematically between “Good” and “Excellent”, with the exception of "applause" which is again in the “Fair” region only.

It can be concluded that, at the moment, the MPEG HE-AAC seems to be the most favourable choice for a broadcaster requiring a good scalability of bitrate versus quality, down to relatively low bit rates. In addition, the AAC-based codec family offers excellent audio quality at higher bitrates, e.g. at 320 kbit/s (with the exception of "applause"). Our study shows that excellent quality (on average) can be achieved even at half the bitrate, i.e. 160 kbit/s, or even less, for all test items except for the most critical items.

Note that this is about multichannel 5.1 audio, so when comparing to stereo divide by 3! So only 160/3=53kbit/s would be required to make sure a stereo audio file encoded as HE-AAC would still sound "Excellent".

I believe AAC only requires a royalty if you develop a binary codec, ie a encoder and a decoder. Distribution of content is entirely royalty free. Everybody wins!

RE: Audio
by ZephyrXero on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:06 in reply to "Audio"
ZephyrXero Member since:
2006-03-22

AAC still has patents on it, so yes there are royalties, and if you're using a special version like HE-AAC there are even more licensing issues.

Ogg Vorbis supports 5.1 audio too. In various listening tests some find one better, while others find the other best...making it negligible as to which is superior on sound fidelity.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: Audio
by LB06 on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:11 in reply to "RE: Audio"
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

You are wrong:
http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/AAC_FAQ.cfm?faq=1#1

HE-AAC is also included: http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/AAC_FAQ.cfm?faq=3#3

Btw not that I would mind if Vorbis became part of the specs... Au contraire. I just think AAC would be a better choice.

Edited 2009-07-02 20:15 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE: Audio
by tyrione on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:33 in reply to "Audio"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Raise your hand for all those hardware vendors supporting Ogg Vorbis stuff. Sorry but software solutions won't cut it against hardware accelerated ones.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

RE[2]: Audio
by jemmjemm on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 22:08 in reply to "RE: Audio"
jemmjemm Member since:
2007-08-06

I agree. For this reason I've bought Trekstor's mediaplayers Vibez (plays Ogg Vorbis and FLAC) and MovieStation (plays Ogg Vorbis).

And written them a letter praising the support of Ogg Vorbis ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: Audio
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 23:41 in reply to "RE: Audio"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Raise your hand for all those hardware vendors supporting Ogg Vorbis stuff. Sorry but software solutions won't cut it against hardware accelerated ones.


http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisHardware

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE: Audio
by Lennie on Sun 5th Jul 2009 13:28 in reply to "Audio"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You know what is really stupid is, it almost seems like now video-tag doesn't have any required codecs, audio-tag won't either. Not even wav or FLAC.

This is really sad, but discussion is still going kind of. So who knows.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1