Talk:Advanced Audio Coding/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

It's a wording thing, and then some

To continue from the problem reported in #Biased? above, the issue with this article is that it was written by and for someone who is a total digital audio geek. I mean nothing denigrating by that characterization, and am glad an expert is on hand, somewhere... But this prose is so techno-geeky it even makes me look like like a dirt farmer who marvels at internal combustion engines. As just one example - and one could be made of almost every sentence in this article - try this one: "The signal is converted from time-domain to frequency-domain using forward modified discrete cosine transform (MDCT). This is done by using filter ` that take an appropriate number of time samples and convert them to frequency samples." Now, this counter example will be full of redlinks, because I don't fully understand this stuff myself and feel lost despite being a professional Web developer and *n*x nrrrd for two decades. It's just a suggestion, for the general direction to push the article. Here's my rough-draft take: ""The signal is converted from time-domain to frequency-domain using forward modified discrete cosine transform (MDCT). This is done by using filter banks that take an appropriate number of time samples and convert them to frequency samples." A place to start. Or more like restart. My first draft of this looked more like "...forward modified discrete cosine transform", which may not even be linking to articles that are genuinely relevant. The only reason this wasn't a sea of all-red links (to pages that arguably should at least exist as redirects) was that "MDCT" , a parenthetical acronym that easily could have been omitted, seemed to suggest, as an afterthought, a concept that might exist as article itself, separate from Discretion (mathematics), and so on. Blind luck, really. Look, if your mom (and mine) cannot understand this article, we're making a mistake. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

iTunes

I would like to see the iTunes icon removed. I don't see what bearing it has to the AAC format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.42.9 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Article in present tense

Much of the article was written in the present tense. This will either look foolish in ten years, or else it will be re-written. This is somewhat thoughtless. Why leave a mess on Wikipedia? "Windows 3.1 is Microsoft's premier cutting edge etc." Write the date of standards adoption, or industry dominance, in at least a rudimentary historical form. Then it will stand the test of time. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Gapless?

It would be very interesting to know if AAC allows for gapless encoding (without gaps between songs) and if the most popular software and hardware players play such files correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.51.136 (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AAC vs MP3

While AAC has some technical advantages over MP3, blind listening tests suggests there is no statistically significant advantage in quality: http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-128-1/results.htm I would suggest we remove "Depending on the AAC profile and the MP3 encoder, 96 kbit/s AAC can give nearly the same or better perceptual quality as 128 kbit/s MP3" -- while it may be technically true, its a worthless statement. Best in class encoders of each type cant be differentiated. Adamc83 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed dubious section, since there was no objection or commentary. Adamc83 (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The deleted cite was archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20050430031411/http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/

Note that the wording there was a bit different than in the wp article.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DRM-Free

Article has: As of January 6, 2009, nearly all music on the iTunes Store became DRM-free, with the remainder becoming DRM-free by the end of March 2009.[41]

Incorrect, but my edit was auto-reverted. Could someone with some edit history add this in?

"nearly all music on the US region iTunes Store" is correct. Other countries, such as Japan, still had DRM laden music until 2012. http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/22/in-japan-itunes-gains-ringtones-3g-purchasing-itunes-plus-complete-my-album-itunes-in-the-cloud/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.17.60 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DVB - use of LC-AAC and HE-AAC?

I was under the impression that Standard Definition broadcasts on DVB-T used MPEG-2 video and layer2 audio (MP2). ...and also that High Definition broadcasts on DVB-T and DVB-T2 used H.264 video with LC-AAC for the main sound with HE-AAC usually in mono at fairly low bitrate for alternate audio such as Audio Description and probably alternative languages. (It's supposed to be necessary to use codecs from the same family - AAC - as they can be interleaved in the MP4 container also used for H.264 video). There's currently a Citation Needed and I suspect it might need factual correction too. Dynamicimanyd (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)