Home » News » Portable Audio News » Lossless, Backwards Compatible MP3 Successor Launched » Comments

Comments for Lossless, Backwards Compatible MP3 Successor Launched

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

ChaosDefinesOrder

12:05 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ChaosDefinesOrder. Show Details Hide Details

I'm still completely and utterly at a loss why music player manufacturers don't use FLAC, especially given that the first letter of the acronym is "Free"

Even if most of the customers won't use it, it costs them nothing at all to implement it! (I've had this rant before on TR, sorry for repeating myself!)

Score:

Name withheld

Ohmz

1:25 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ohmz. Show Details Hide Details

"I'm still completely and utterly at a loss why music player manufacturers don't use FLAC, especially given that the first letter of the acronym is "Free""

I've wondered that too, I can understand why Apple did it for so long, DRM'd iTunes. But now...

Score:

Name withheld

MPR

7:45 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore MPR. Show Details Hide Details

I'd rather there was a war against dynamic compression than a war against bitrate compression. I can't tell the difference between a 192Kbps MP3 and the original CD (so long as care an attention is given at the encoding stage). I can tell the difference between a highly dynamically compressed piece of music and one which is not. Since dynamic compression is mastered into the track, there's no fix for it.

Score:

Name withheld

basicasic

9:31 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore basicasic. Show Details Hide Details

On The Gadget Show last week they blind tested MP3 (at 320kbs bitrate),CD and vinyl using high end audio kit in a theatre. Both presenters picked MP3 as the best. CD was 2nd and vinyl 3rd. Amazing.

So this seems an answer to a problem that doesn't really exist, except perhaps in peoples minds.

Score:

Name withheld

Ed

9:33 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ed. Show Details Hide Details

@MPR

Although I'm with you on the dynamic compression thing, to say you can't tell the difference between a 192Kbps mp3 and the CD does rather dilute your point. Dynamic compression is also only a problem for a very limited selection of musical genres. Anything pop/rock/dance/RnB/etc is fine.

Score:

Name withheld

Martin Daler

9:50 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Martin Daler. Show Details Hide Details

@basicasic

Odd that, I wonder which was the original source for the MP3 - the CD or the vinyl?

Score:

Name withheld

pwackert

10:17 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore pwackert. Show Details Hide Details

I not sure I really get the point of this format. If MP3HD is 26mb per 4min, and a standard .Wav is 40mb per 4 min, you might as well just use .wav. At least with mp3s (roughly 4mb - 128kb, and 9mb 320kbs per 4mins) you had upto a 10x space save.

Over the next 5 years or so, as storage capacity on music players/PC's gets bigger and bigger, we're gonna start getting to the point where a tracks "compression rate" or whether it's "lossless" or not won't really matter.

Score:

Name withheld

basicasic

10:40 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore basicasic. Show Details Hide Details

@Martin - the 2003 remastered version of Pink Floyd's 'Money' was the original source for all 3 formats. http://fwd.five.tv/videos/sound-challenge-part-3

Score:

Name withheld

Martin Daler

11:40 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Martin Daler. Show Details Hide Details

@basicasic

Thanks, I looked at the show. Typical of the media hacks - a totally random, meaningless result dressed up a "news". When will they ever learn about stastical significance? When will they understand about repeatable results? Still, as long as its entertainment, who cares, right?

Score:

Name withheld

Keithe6e

11:45 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keithe6e. Show Details Hide Details

Will it succeed?

>> with Thompson charging royalty rates of 75 cents per PC software/hardware decoder and $2.50 to $5 for the codec.

Hahaha,, nearly fell of my chair.. I've a gut feeling MP3HD is going nowhere..

Score:

Name withheld

Keithe6e

11:53 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keithe6e. Show Details Hide Details

@pwackert - I not sure I really get the point of this format. If MP3HD is 26mb per 4min, and a standard .Wav is 40mb per 4 min,

I assume you talking about encoding a CD here, CD isn't exactly HD. It's of course for encoding much higher quality than 16bit 44100 Hz.

Score:

Name withheld

Gnormie

11:56 AM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gnormie. Show Details Hide Details

@basicasic

The problem with that test (the same one with all of the gadget shows bias 'tests') is that they all own iPods - and given such time with a product people invariably get 'used' to the sound signature and believe it to be the best (which is why many people still think vinyl sounds best because that was their media source for 10 years+). The fact is that a decent CD source will obliterate any .mp3 bitrate in music quality (quality being as close to the original recording as possible).

Personally I hope the format fails, seriously we have 2 good FREE codecs in .OGG and .FLAC we don't need more to crowd a market or produce a new standard that companies have to pay royalties for as all that will do is increase the cost of the players.

Score:

Name withheld

padrikas

12:04 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore padrikas. Show Details Hide Details

I am sticking with OGG and FLAC thank you very much

Score:

Name withheld

pwackert

12:53 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore pwackert. Show Details Hide Details

@Keith - I agree 16bit 44100hz isn't exactly HD, though most people currently listen to all types of music at this rate or below. (I record at at least 24bit 96khz). This article and the Linked article only talk about "100% bit-exact replica of CD tracks" which are at 16bit 44.1khz, hence my comparison. No Mention of above this rate support as i can find....

Score:

Name withheld

Keithe6e

1:56 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keithe6e. Show Details Hide Details

@Gnormi: The fact is that a decent CD source will obliterate any .mp3 bitrate

Remember CD is digital too, with a current sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, even the current MP3 standard has 48 kHz, put OGG and Flac into the picture and these sampling rates are blown into the ground, of course you need to make sure you bitrate is up to scratch too, most people beleive 256 to be identical to CD quality so the extra in the 320 could be used for 48 kHz encoding, so if Gadget show had a 320 bitrate 48 kHz, then there is a very good chance it was better.

Score:

Name withheld

Keithe6e

2:10 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keithe6e. Show Details Hide Details

@pwackert, I see your point. But to me HD stands for Higher Definition, so in this case you would expect that to be also in the Sampling Rate, I'm not sure of what specification MP3 HD can go, I would assume higher than 48 kHz at least. I'm assuming the CD comparison was only meant to show the compression achieved as lossless bitrate, that in itself is not impressive even Apple's lossless achieves about the 50% rate.

Score:

Name withheld

TimDickinson

3:11 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore TimDickinson. Show Details Hide Details

FLAC is actually pretty well supported, but Apple has decided it doesn't wan it on iPods as it doesn't want it to compete with its Apple Lossless. Could you not get a FLAC lossless audio track and an MP3 audio track within a single MP4 container and get roughly the same effect? Most audio players can already read mp4 (m4a), so with a few tweaks this could easily be possible. I would prefer .mkv, but that would be less backward compatible.

Another proprietary format - no thank you. MP3 caught on because it had no DRM and was the best format available (size v quality) when MP3 downloading took off in a major way with the birth of Napster. Because most people have their music library on their computers as MP3s, and it is still pretty much the only format that works across all mp3 players.

Score:

Name withheld

Tony Walker

5:37 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Tony Walker. Show Details Hide Details

MP3s only caught on because initially the royalty wasn't being collected and it was getting used basically as a free codec. Thomson then retrospectively started collecting the royalties.

MP3-HD won't stand a chance if it is being charged for upfront.

Score:

Name withheld

Tony Walker

6:02 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Tony Walker. Show Details Hide Details

Regarding that Gadget Show test.

They must've been using a Bush turntable or something equally cheap and nasty. A £250 turntable will blow a £250 CD player out of the water with sound fidelity, and I believe from friends and fellow audiophiles with deeper pockets (say Linn) that carries on up the line. Mine's a Pro-ject Debut II.

I can see a studio crafted 320kbit MP3 (was it MP3Pro) beating the CD as lossy audio can work excellently - the Minidisc being the shining example. I was a huge sceptic 'till I actually heard a studio recorded Minidisc.

Score:

Name withheld

Jay4d0

8:42 PM on 23 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Jay4d0. Show Details Hide Details

The Gadget Show used full 320kbs mp3

Also they have just recommended this site on their show :D

Score:

Name withheld

MikeOwen

10:37 AM on 29 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore MikeOwen. Show Details Hide Details

@Tim Dickinson

"Apple has decided it doesn't wan it on iPods as it doesn't want it to compete with its Apple Lossless."

I have seen zero promotion of Apple Lossless on Apple's part, so I find it hard to believe they are concerned about competition from FLAC. They don't even enable Quicktime's True VBR for iTunes so it's doubtful they have any plans for a big lossless push in the future. The fact is the majority of people I know have no idea what FLAC is, and those that do don't use it either because they can't be arsed to or they don't know how (or can't with their iPod). The last time I met someone with something other than an iPod was about 3 years ago.

Score:

Name withheld

Neil B

6:10 PM on 29 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Neil B. Show Details Hide Details

@Mike

"The last time I met someone with something other than an iPod was about 3 years ago"

I have never owned an apple product and probably never will. My mp3 player supports both OGG and FLAC but I must admit I use neither due to the fact that they're not universally supported. I don't want to have more than one copy of the same track so that I can play it on my phone/car/toaster...

Score:

Name withheld

Geoff Richards

9:32 PM on 29 March, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Geoff Richards. Show Details Hide Details

I don't mean to start a war here, just provide some balance. I have never owned an iPod anything, and don't have any plans to either (though the non-music abilities of the touch do have some appeal).

Sure, iPods are extremely popular, but other MP3 players do exist, and their owners are not a poor underclass. Some of us are doing it by choice :)

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.