Microsoft Edge is the first web browser to support Dolby Digital Plus

[mr moose]

What? I was just pointing out that you are using a logical fallacy, that "why replace something that works" is not a real argument.

 

I am not here to argue for or against electric cars.

 

 

 

I don't see how that applies to formats though, and paid is not always better. Hell in networking it's pretty much the exact opposite (90%* of all the industry standards in networking are open source projects).

*Not the real number but you get the point

 

I don't really get your argument either. Microsoft doesn't have to choose between supporting DD+ or some other format, they can very easily support both but for some reason Microsoft only chooses to support the proprietary ones.

 

This is not a case of "please support my obscure format because that's what I use" either. Windows doesn't even natively support the formats Microsoft use in their own applications (like Opus in Skype). They could just take the Opus encoder/decoder from Skype, put it in Windows and all of a sudden all applications could hook into it.

What would be even better would be if Microsoft just baked in FFmpeg into Windows. Pretty much all compatibility issues would be solved if they just did that.

 

It's not so much an argument that I am making, but pointing out companies usually do things for a specific reason. MS doesn't have to choose anything, they choose what formats they want to include support for and what they don't. I am merely saying that there will be a reason why they have done what they have.  It may not seem rational to you but that doesn't mean there is not a reason for it.  All companies consider the financial cost of decisions they make, you were the one who raised the fact that DD is not free, I am merely saying if they are paying to include it, then there is a reason and it more than likely comes back to consumer demand.    In this scenario that presents a case that the paid option is better than the free.  Basically if their research shows that majority of their consumers will use streamed DD on services like netflix yet nearly negligible portion will use some other open source format then why would they waste their time  supporting it? 

[LAwLz]

It's not so much an argument that I am making, but pointing out companies usually do things for a specific reason. MS doesn't have to choose anything, they choose what formats they want to include support for and what they don't. I am merely saying that there will be a reason why they have done what they have.  It may not seem rational to you but that doesn't mean there is not a reason for it.  All companies consider the financial cost of decisions they make, you were the one who raised the fact that DD is not free, I am merely saying if they are paying to include it, then there is a reason and it more than likely comes back to consumer demand.    In this scenario that presents a case that the paid option is better than the free.  Basically if their research shows that majority of their consumers will use streamed DD on services like netflix yet nearly negligible portion will use some other open source format then why would they waste their time  supporting it? 

I agreed all the way up until "the paid option is better than free" part. I suspect it has more to do with marketing than it objectively being better.

It is not a "negligible potion" though. Opus is used everywhere, including Microsoft's own programs, yet Windows itself doesn't natively support it. It makes no sense. As for other formats, I don't think YouTube is a "negligible portion" of online video (VP8, VP9 and Vorbis among others).

 

 

Oh, well I do actually rip my CD's to flac, then convert to mp3's. And I'll do a comparison between 256kbps AAC at some point to see if it does sound the same as 320kpbs on my ipod (7th gen nano-a massive upgrade from my 4th gen nano which is only good for docks now due to its battery). Using less space with each file will be good as my ipod is at 100% most of the time with less than half of my library.

I can make a small blind test for you soon if you want.

[mr moose]

I agreed all the way up until "the paid option is better than free" part. I suspect it has more to do with marketing than it objectively being better.

It is not a "negligible potion" though. Opus is used everywhere, including Microsoft's own programs, yet Windows itself doesn't natively support it. It makes no sense. As for other formats, I don't think YouTube is a "negligible portion" of online video (VP8, VP9 and Vorbis among others).

 

 

I can make a small blind test for you soon if you want.

 

I dare say it will support vp8 and vp9,  they'd be stupid to release a browser that can't play youtube videos.  

 

However better is a rather ambiguous concept, it is not always about inherent physical properties of a product, it can be about cost and user base adoption, client side uptake and so on.  i.e in this scenario DD may not be better because it is in anyway sonically superior or has a digital footprint that is easier to manage, it might be superior purely because of industry support or forecast upgrades.   I mean, for all we know Dolby labs might have a deal with MS and the movie industry to ensure they remain relevant.   It could also just be the go to format because early on in the piece they were one of only two options for digital audio that met THX certification, and so everyone may have invested heavily in them making them the defacto standard.

[Dabombinable]

I agreed all the way up until "the paid option is better than free" part. I suspect it has more to do with marketing than it objectively being better.

It is not a "negligible potion" though. Opus is used everywhere, including Microsoft's own programs, yet Windows itself doesn't natively support it. It makes no sense. As for other formats, I don't think YouTube is a "negligible portion" of online video (VP8, VP9 and Vorbis among others).

 

 

I can make a small blind test for you soon if you want.

Its alright, it normally comes down to personal opinion-and people do hear things differently (eg. their own voice compared to recordings).

[LAwLz]

I dare say it will support vp8 and vp9,  they'd be stupid to release a browser that can't play youtube videos.  

 

However better is a rather ambiguous concept, it is not always about inherent physical properties of a product, it can be about cost and user base adoption, client side uptake and so on.  i.e in this scenario DD may not be better because it is in anyway sonically superior or has a digital footprint that is easier to manage, it might be superior purely because of industry support or forecast upgrades.   I mean, for all we know Dolby labs might have a deal with MS and the movie industry to ensure they remain relevant.   It could also just be the go to format because early on in the piece they were one of only two options for digital audio that met THX certification, and so everyone may have invested heavily in them making them the defacto standard.

I doubt it will support VP8 or 9. Microsoft has historically been terrible when it comes to format support (even went out of their way to try and make VP8 and 9 not become the standard for <video>). They got good reasons for it too. For example in the case of H.264 vs VP8, Microsoft gets royalties when H.264 is used because they own patents regarding it.

 

I would be more surprised if they added support than if they didn't. YouTube will work even without VP8 and 9 support, although you might need ~40% more bandwidth to watch the videos (unless Google ends up making a HEVC version of all videos too). Google and users have a lot to win from YouTube suddenly using 40% less bandwidth, but Microsoft doesn't. Microsoft has announced support for HEVC in Windows 10 but have said nothing about VP9 so we will probably end up with a similar situation as we did with H.264 vs VP8. Google and Mozilla pushing for the open and free VP9, while Microsoft pushes for the closed and proprietary HEVC.

 

In the DD+ case I think Microsoft just supports it because it is widely used, but it's not widely used for video streaming and we have better alternatives. Do you see the issue here? We are at a pretty good place to dump "old" formats and start over, but instead we are heading down the road of "it's always been done this way so let's continue doing it". I get that companies who have invested money into something want to use it for as long as possible (just look at USA's ISPs) but I prefer using whatever is the best.

 

 

Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly. Edge supporting more formats is good, but what annoys me is that Microsoft are putting their efforts into supporting this but not other very widely used formats. If Microsoft already supported for example VP9 and Vorbis then I would have been pretty indifferent about these news, but they don't.

 

 

 

Its alright, it normally comes down to personal opinion-and people do hear things differently (eg. their own voice compared to recordings).

Yeah I thought making a blind test for you would eliminate any risk of placebo. It's pretty hard to compare different formats when you know which is which.

[SansVarnic]

AAC is not an Apple thing. It's an ISO standard and is supported on pretty much any device that can play music made in the last 10 years.

If you have the choice between AAC and MP3 are similar bit rates then you should pick AAC 99.9999% of the time. It doesn't really make any sense to pick MP3 over AAC these days, unless you want to play the song on your 1996 LaserDisc player.

Its the first thing i found about AAC and I wouldn't know if it is an apple thing or whatever thing. It is just what I found that explains it what it is so I posted it for him to read. I use mp3 cuz it works and if its aac and it works then that what i use as well. I am by far not an expert on aac.

Little bit strung tight today I would say...

[SansVarnic]

Installing it via Windows Update doesn't mean you won't get a key, or that there won't be ways to reinstall Windows 10.

yup.