What do the listeners think?

[chubcreek]

Has anybody got any listener vibe about this bookmarkable, chapterable, artworkable, AAC format? I'd love to do it for Chub Creek, but not if everybody dumps us. Maybe I'll ask for a vote in on the show.

Dave

[cc_chapman]

I've been wondering the same thing.

The biggest problem with spending the time to create a second version is that the AAC format is only supported on iPod devices as far as I'm aware. So anyone not using an iPod as their MP3 player won't be able to listen to them without a hack of some sort. Am I right on that?

[Patrick]

CC has it right.

You basically need to offer two feeds to your listeners - one in standard MP3 and one in bookmarkable form if you'd like. Going to AAC or M4A format exclusively will cost you listeners.

[jeffoest]

Yep, my take is that two manage dealing with to file types and two feeds sounds like a hassle right now. If it proves out that their is strategic advantage in doing so or it becomes the 'defacto' standard, of course we will do it.

But at this point, managing one is hard enough!

[cc_chapman]

I'm with Jeff!

[Patrick]

I agree. I'm sticking with Mp3. It's been working as a format for over 10 years, so why mess with what works. EVERYTHING out there can play MP3.

[Hittman]

I agree. I'm sticking with Mp3. It's been working as a format for over 10 years, so why mess with what works. EVERYTHING out there can play MP3.

And DOS 6.2, why the hell don't we stick with that? It works, ******.

Just funnin', I agree that we should stick with MP3. One of the casts I really enjoy comes in on m4a. I can't play it anywhere except on my computer. As a result, I don't listen to it very often. If it were in MP3, I'd be listening to it all the time.

(Oh, and DOS 6.3 is still alive and kicking, believe it or not. It's very popular in low end point of sale systems.)

[Patrick]

Hitt - you keep thinking I'm trying to stifle innovation, and I hope you know that's not what I mean. I'm all for working towards new formats, but M4A and AAC are just not ready for primetime yet. I think anyone who goes to those formats exclusively is shooting themselves in the foot. MP3 is just universally accepted.

[chubcreek]

Okay, I think I'm going to disagree with this direction. It seems obvious to me that iTunes is going to become the norm, just as iPod has. AAC (which encompasses M4A and M4B) has a better sound quality than MP3 at a smaller size. That's good. The chaptering and ability to do slide shows with the sound is great. Imagine the sound-seeing tour possibilities. You could even put together a story book read if you wanted to. MP3 may be tried and true, but it's on its way out, and iTunes listeners have--in one day--equalled our iPodder listeners and I don't see the end in sight. I think we may bite the bullet on this and jump over to AAC. Our listeners will follow, and if not... they weren't that interested.

But I may just be talking brave.

[chubcreek]

And another thing... I'm not new to the f**king alley. What the hell is that about? I guess I don't post enough. Oh, and putting out two file types is insane. I'm not doing that.

[Patrick]

You're ignorant if you think MP3 is going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry to be blunt, but that's just a fact.

Think of the sound-seeing tour possibilities? That's great if you have a "follow me on my gay vacation" podcast, but most people don't. I can see how if you have a music podcast, showing cover art would be cool. It's just a toy though and I can't imagine it being a big deal for long. At work, I don't have my iTunes maximized, so cover art or pictures don't matter. In my car, I'm driving, so pictures don't matter. It's about audio. To be honest, I never had the picture viewer in iTunes opened before. I didn't even know it existed. I played podfinder to check it out, then I chose to hide it again. Neat toy, but not revolutionary at all.

iTunes is not going to be the standard in podcasting. The listener and the producer are all that matters. You don't even need any middleware. iTunes may be a popular client, but it still doesn't come close to the number of people who just click and download episodes direct from podcast websites.

Bandwidth is less of an issue on people than ever. What does it matter to the average listener with broadband if he has to download a 20MB file or a 40MB file? Not much. It's there in under 5 minutes either way.

[docsnavely]

As a listener, may I chime in?

If you are wanting to go to AAC strictly for bookmarking capabilities, you're waisting your time IMHO. I don't bookmark, nor would I.

Now on the other hand, if you want to use AAC to help the movement along away from MP3 dependency, well, good luck! :P

[chubcreek]

Ignorant as in obnoxious *****le, or ignorant as in knows nothing? Well I may be an obnoxious *****le who knows nothing, but I'm not taking any insults from a pineapple.

You're ignorant if you think MP3 is going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry to be blunt, but that's just a fact.

Think of the sound-seeing tour possibilities? That's great if you have a "follow me on my gay vacation" podcast, but most people don't. I can see how if you have a music podcast, showing cover art would be cool. It's just a toy though and I can't imagine it being a big deal for long. At work, I don't have my iTunes maximized, so cover art or pictures don't matter. In my car, I'm driving, so pictures don't matter. It's about audio. To be honest, I never had the picture viewer in iTunes opened before. I didn't even know it existed. I played podfinder to check it out, then I chose to hide it again. Neat toy, but not revolutionary at all.

iTunes is not going to be the standard in podcasting. The listener and the producer are all that matters. You don't even need any middleware. iTunes may be a popular client, but it still doesn't come close to the number of people who just click and download episodes direct from podcast websites.

Bandwidth is less of an issue on people than ever. What does it matter to the average listener with broadband if he has to download a 20MB file or a 40MB file? Not much. It's there in under 5 minutes either way.

[Hittman]

Hitt - you keep thinking I'm trying to stifle innovation, and I hope you know that's not what I mean.

Pat, grow a funny bone. How did you miss "I'm just funnin.' I agree that we should stick with MP3."?

Oh, and putting out two file types is insane. I'm not doing that.

Then you're going to lose listeners, plain and simple.

One of the first podcasts I downloaded was The Sounds In My Head. I really like it, it's a great show, and I haven't heard it in over a month. He puts it out in m4a format, which won't work on my player. Yes, I know I can convert it. But I haven't got around to it yet, and don't know when I will. It's an extra step, an extra hassle, and hell, I can listen to, say, Bandtrax, which I like just as much, without going through the extra messing around.

A lot of listeners are still using old hardware and old OSs. My last gig was supporting lawyers, and a substantial number of them were running Windows 98 on a six gig hard drive. (And just to make my life suck even more, WordPerfect.) Lawyers, fer cris' sake, and they're not willing to spend the five hundred bucks it would take to get a new, much better PC.

Yeah, you've got to decide where to draw the line – I don't think anyone bothers with Win 95 users (.4% of my visitors, according to my stats) or webTV users (who, I'm guessing, have all died out because their brains were so small.) But 4.9% of my visitors are still using Win 98, and while that's not a lot, I'm not going to turn them away.

MP3 is king, and will remain king for a very long time. Of course, in this business, five years is a very long time, and by then people may be shifting to a different format. If they are, great, then it will be time to do the same. But doing it prematurely will cost you listeners, lots and lots of them.

[Patrick]

The ignorant guy finds this thread again after more than a week and we're supposed to just keep the conversation going like it hasn't been eight days?

Sorry the class has moved on. Try to keep up.

[Hittman]

Remember a week ago when I covered your back because some punk here told you to stop posting, so I ripped him a new one? You're getting close to doing the same thing here, so be careful. If someone wants to revive a thread, that beats repeating the **** thing from scratch.

This IS going to be an issue, so it's worth discussing. If most casters stick with mp3, it won't be an issue for a long time. If/when massive amounts of them start shifting to another format, it will be.

I agree that keeping up with two formats is insane, and way to big a PITA. Hey, if someone wants to, more power to 'em, but this stuff takes up enough of my time as it is.

[Patrick]

I'm fully agree with you. I was the one arguing MP3 would be the standard for a long time. If someone wants to turn down that advice and argue that "MP3's reign will be short-lived", well then ok. I'll sit back and watch it die.

I was just joking, too, Hittman. We can both joke, can't we?

I don't care if this guy stops posting or not. We've both made our points about MP3 though, and I'm not going to spend much more time arguing that it's the format to stick with because EVERYONE can play it.

[chubcreek]

I just went through hell moving 3000 miles across Canada and after finally getting set up again I'm not arguing with a pineapple about when I can and can't reply to my own thread. Be careful pineapple, you're asking to be lambasted. But as far as this discussion goes, I'm just saying that I have a strong feeling we're staring at the future here with AAC. The only thing that will stop that is if Microsoft tries to create something mediocre but more popular, such as some form of Windows media. AAC really is better, and you've got to change to take advantage of better technologies. I don't do this podcast alone, so it's not up to me, but Gary uses windows and has an iPod so I don't think he'd give a crap.

[Patrick]

I don't understand the pineapple comment, but it's not having your desired effect, so you might want to move on to the next pseudo-insult.

AAC isn't new. It isn't going to spark some audio revolution. Sorry. Microsoft does have a format, it's called WMA.

If you seriously think I'm telling you to stop posting, I apologize. Carry on arguing the merits of AAC over MP3. It's only lacking in one area, and that's universal acceptance as a standard. Unfortunately, that's the only area that matters.

[volwrath]

Actually IMO there is plenty of room for aac, mp3, and wma. After all there is Divx, MPEG, MPEG2, WMV, RM, QT in the video market. No need for one standard in the audio market. I have a player on my pocketpc that will play all the above. Chapters are a cool idea as well, esp. for science podcasts or podcasts with multiple content. If you get bored, go to the next chapter. i did that on adam currys podfinder cast. Also Its not a bad idea to have multiple feeds if you decide you want aac support as well. you would be shooting yourself in the foot if thats all you provided though.

Having said all that, screw apple and itunes

[Patrick]

There's no doubt all the formats have benefits. My argument is that if you're going to produce a podcast in one format, it needs to be MP3. Those of you that want to pump out three feeds and three formats for every show, more power to you!

[jimk]

Every time I see this "AAC is better" blanket statement I laugh.

I have pretty good ears. On top of that, I have a hand-built custom headphone amp and Shure E5s, about as good as you can get without doubling the price. When I use these with the iPod, I ONLY use the line out.

What I'm saying is I hear every nuance and flaw in a given file. And AAC has HUGE limitations in quality. I have been blind tested with nothing but a paper and a pen in my hand, no visual clues, no controlling any device, and I can pick out the AAC file about 95% of the time. I always find it lacking in comparison to a properly compressed mp3.

Compression is very tricky if you want it done right. You have to find the right tools and the right settings. It's easy for podcasting, just crush the file as small as you can stand to hear. But music? That's very different. AAC, at least the Apple version of it, is limited to the settings in iTunes which compresses for crap anyway.

Here's a litmus test: If you've never noticed that YOUR 128k AAC-compressed files sound slightly worse than the ones you buy from Apple...then you probably shouldn't be telling others how good or bad AAC is.

[Hittman]

Pat, I think he's referring to your avatar, which he thinks is a pineapple, which is silly. It's clearly a water balloon. (You should rename your show "Nobody Likes Water Balloons.)

Even if something noticeably better did come along, it would be a long time before people switched, for two reasons:

1) Inertia.
2) It's a podcast! Unless you're reproducing a symphony, MP3, even at a low rate and in mono, is perfectly acceptable. You don't grind up filet mignon to make a hamburger, because it's a hamburger!

What we could really use, if this ever becomes an issue, is an all in one program that will let us produce one file, then enter our description, tags, etc in one place, and spit out both an MP3 and an ACC file with the embedded tags AND update our two separate RSS feeds. And it would be nice if it updated our web pages too. And cost twenty bucks with free 24/7 phone support.

Maybe we should all switch ot Og Vorbis. I've been hearing that's the Next Big Thing for many years, so it must be true.

[docsnavely]

What we could really use, if this ever becomes an issue, is an all in one program that will let us produce one file, then enter our description, tags, etc in one place, and spit out both an MP3 and an ACC file with the embedded tags AND update our two separate RSS feeds. And it would be nice if it updated our web pages too. And cost twenty bucks with free 24/7 phone support.

Hell, I'd pay $40 for that kind of program!!!

someone who's good with code needs to get crackin' on this.....please......pretty please......

[carrington]

AAC? MP3? I say they're BOTH fads! I'm switchin' my podcast to ATRAC3 as of the next episode. WHO'S WITH ME?!?

[...crickets...]

Hmmm. Maybe I should take another look at WAV.

[Hittman]

Will that play on an Atari 800?

[carrington]

I'm not sure, but for me the big question is whether iPods can display ASCII art for album images? ;-)

[mental-escher]

I have seen the future file format, and the future is:

001001010101010100101raw multidimentional binary1010101010101101010101010

Do not resist!

You have already been assimilated, yee juz din kno 't yit...

[richpav]

Has anyone mentioned this yet? You can right click on an enhanced podcast or video in iTunes and convert it to MP3. As long as not too many of the podcasts I listen to regularly start going fancy-schmancy, I don't mind doing the conversion.

A podcast is the kind of thing I listen to once and throw away. I think most people are like that, so adding the extra overhead of bookmarks and photos isn't worth the effort in most situations. Maybe if I were podcasting the Bible or illustrated childrens' stories I'd have a different opinion. Or porn.

[podcastshuffle]

Has anybody got any listener vibe about this bookmarkable, chapterable, artworkable, AAC format? I'd love to do it for Chub Creek, but not if everybody dumps us. Maybe I'll ask for a vote in on the show.

Dave

My iPod is generally in a pocket or backpack or in a cupholder (i.e. listening in car attached to stereo). The only time I would ever see the chapter art or bother with the chapter selections would be if I was actually using iTunes on my Mac. Its a cool feature for the new iPods but I'm happy enough tapping the click wheel and moving the podcast forward myself a few seconds or minutes depending on what I want to skip or go back to.

Jeff