Play m4a files on Windows 7
brahma at hindu.org
Sat Aug 13 21:51:24 EDT 2016
Well, clearly you have more knowledge here… of course it's assumed that Jacque's people must have the original source files (one hopes they do) in a lossless format. Setting aside blindspots on the true nature of m4a.. I thought the focus was on file size and cross platform deliverability of mono voice recordings.
The issues with cross platform delivery of m4a files caused us to abandon that format years ago. So, I granted, I'm no expert there having not used m4a for years.
For mono voice recordings, which I believe is what Jacque is talking about, we have been able to open a 100MB mp3 file (just today) which comes into audition as 44100HZ 32-bit float Mono… and when I export to an mp3 Sample: 16000hzMono, 16-bit, format with Gausian dithering enabled and save to mp32kbps CBR. The files size drops 12.5MB… and if I give both files to someone here they can't discern any difference, at least not enough to warrant using the 100MB version.
I have to dig out the original AIFFs and test an export to m4a and see if there is a savings in file size. That would be interesting… to try your "lowest complexity/LC" option. In Adobe Audition: Choosing Apple MPEG-4 Audio gets me 127MB file vs the 12.5MB mp3. I'm not seeing a LC option but doubt it would give us that much file savings.
And with m4a then we would still face the delivery issues…so if bandwidth and storage costs for 1000's of voice mono voice files are the issue, the mp3 version seems to win over m4a… what am I missing?
I have more than a theoretical interest here…we also have 1000's of audio mono voice files and envision ramping up big time on production of more…
if you could post on line two files: mono voice: one mp3 at 16000hz mono, 16 bit formatted at 32kbps CBR and an m4a of the same with a smaller file size, I am standing by with my headset ready to listen!
On 8/13/16, 2:40 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of stephen barncard" <use-livecode-bounces at lists.runrev.com on behalf of stephenREVOLUTION2 at barncard.com> wrote:
OK hold on a minute. I sense some inaccurate reporting here.... time for
me to step in...
if one is comparing m4a to mp3, we have apples and oranges here. Comparing
by rate numbers doesn't take into consideration the efficiency of m4a.
It's not just for 'audiophiles' - that's a misconception. It's an
improvement across the board, that can be used flexibly for many
1. m4a codecs come in flavors. What m4a *codec* are you using? "Low
Complexity or LC" creates the smallest, most compatible files.
2. m4a LC can use half the bit rate compared to mp3 for the same quality:
64k m4a LC compares or betters quality of 128k mp3
3. when it comes to converting, copying from one lossy format to another
will ALWAYS degrade the audio, as opposed to WAV or AIF
I've been working with audio compression for the web since the mid-90s, and
have been in personal contact with one of the guys that invented the
btw the Fraunhofer institute holds the patents on both mp3 and m4a ....
More information about the Use-livecode