Author Topic: At last: MP3 Lossless!!! (Read 74,279 times)

f0dder · « **Reply #25 on:** November 07, 2009, 06:30 PM »

Quote from: scancode on November 07, 2009, 05:56 PM

Am I the only one who thinks MP3 should've died a slow death by now?

It's still an OK format when you can accept quality loss...

Innuendo · « **Reply #26 on:** November 07, 2009, 07:06 PM »

Quote from: scancode on November 07, 2009, 05:56 PM

Am I the only one who thinks MP3 should've died a slow death by now?

The sound quality is fine, but the way the tagging standard for the MP3 format stands today it's as if it were strategized by a drunken monkey.

tomos · « **Reply #27 on:** November 07, 2009, 08:42 PM »

Quote from: scancode on November 07, 2009, 05:56 PM

Am I the only one who thinks MP3 should've died a slow death by now?

as someone who hasnt a clue I ask:
are there alternatives that dont involve huge filesizes - or should we just get used to large filesizes ?
(I know, there's loads of space on current hard-drives...)

Lashiec · « **Reply #28 on:** November 07, 2009, 09:17 PM »

Quote from: tomos on November 07, 2009, 08:42 PM

as someone who hasnt a clue I ask:
are there alternatives that dont involve huge filesizes - or should we just get used to large filesizes ?
(I know, there's loads of space on current hard-drives...)

Sure, there is Vorbis and AAC (short for Advanced Audio Coding) if you like lossy codecs. Both have open implementations for encoding and decoding, and are well supported. Plus they're not involved in the patent hell that the algorithms used in MP3 are, so you can use them freely without any of the concerns, especially Vorbis, which was an open format from the start.

In any case, MP3 is still a very viable option, even more if you use a good encoder like LAME, which has continued to improve its encoding quality over the last years.

Curt · « **Reply #29 on:** November 07, 2009, 10:49 PM »

Quote from: defiant91 on November 07, 2009, 05:51 PM

I made the GUI that you download for windows

- welcome to DC, defiant91

defiant91 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 07, 2009, 11:57 PM »

Quote from: Curt on November 07, 2009, 10:49 PM

- welcome to DC, defiant91

Thanks. Do you guys like the GUI? I worked hard on it and would like some opinions on it.

Deozaan · « **Reply #31 on:** November 10, 2009, 08:37 AM »

Quote from: scancode on November 07, 2009, 05:56 PM

Am I the only one who thinks MP3 should've died a slow death by now?

It still is dying a slow death.

Curt · « **Reply #32 on:** November 10, 2009, 09:03 AM »

Quote from: defiant91 on November 07, 2009, 11:57 PM

Thanks. Do you guys like the GUI? I worked hard on it and would like some opinions on it.

- you did it in vain, I think, as far as DC goes. No-one seems to be using it. Me neither.

Deozaan · « **Reply #33 on:** November 10, 2009, 09:17 AM »

Quote from: defiant91 on November 07, 2009, 05:51 PM

I made the GUI that you download for windows

What GUI?

mouser · « **Reply #34 on:** November 10, 2009, 09:35 AM »

GUI = Graphical User Interface

skwire · « **Reply #35 on:** November 10, 2009, 09:48 AM »

I think Deo meant his statement for defiant91 who had asked for opinions on the GUI he designed for this MP3HD product but didn't provide a screenshot. I couldn't find one on the Thomson website, either. defiant91, if you want some opinions, perhaps you can post a screenshot or two here? Or, if anybody has installed it (I have no plans to), maybe they can post some screenies.

Tuxman · « **Reply #36 on:** November 10, 2009, 03:47 PM »

OMG, MP3 lossless. There is WavPack, there is FLAC

and there is Monkey's Audio. MP3 is for instant, mobile playing, not for archiving. (And the MP3 codec is still not license-free.)

I wonder when there will be "Ogg Vorbis HD" ...

Xenonym · « **Reply #37 on:** November 12, 2009, 09:04 AM »

This sounds like what mp3PRO failed to do.

Keeping fingers crossed there.

Innuendo · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2009, 04:01 PM »

Quote from: Xenonym on November 12, 2009, 09:04 AM

This sounds like what mp3PRO failed to do.

While on the surface it may seem like they are similar in their goals they really aren't. MP3Pro was all about providing better sounding audio at lower bit-rates, but it was always still lossy. MP3HD is trying to implement lossless as part of the MP3 standard while the core MP3 technology is the same as it always has been.

They've got a tough row to hoe if they are going to overtake FLAC as the lossless standard.

Tuxman · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2009, 04:05 PM »

FLAC is an open, license-free format, MP3 is not. Unless they'll change that, they'll fail.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #40 on:** November 12, 2009, 04:14 PM »

Quote from: scancode on November 07, 2009, 05:56 PM

Am I the only one who thinks MP3 should've died a slow death by now?

MP3 is ubiquitous so it is unlikely to die out any time soon. Whether MP3HD will make any headway is debatable but give than lossy MP3 is prrety standard on all mobile players it seems very unlikely that manufacturers will stop supporting the format.

Also there are millions of people who have purchased in MP3 format - its pretty unlikely that people will convert MP3 to something else and lose even more fiddelity (assuming most people are even capable of figuring out conversion processes).

40hz · « **Reply #41 on:** November 12, 2009, 11:40 PM »

Quote from: tomos on November 07, 2009, 08:42 PM

Quote from: scancode on November 07, 2009, 05:56 PM
Am I the only one who thinks MP3 should've died a slow death by now?

as someone who hasnt a clue I ask:
are there alternatives that dont involve huge filesizes - or should we just get used to large filesizes ?
(I know, there's loads of space on current hard-drives...)

I think tomos hit on something with the observation about storage space.

Huge disk space has become so inexpensive that, for archival purposes, file compression has almost become a non-issue.

Nowadays, it's only if you're dealing with streaming media that file compression is still an important consideration.

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #42 on:** November 13, 2009, 06:37 PM »

I know people like to hate MP3, in favor of OGG, FLAC, etc. But since I've upgraded to the latest LAME, I don't think it's worth worrying about at decent bitrates.

According to the LAME site (like this page: http://lame.sourceforge.net/gpsycho.php), the standard implementation that most encoders use is poor, and buggy on top of that. My personal experience when encoding my preferred genres (prog metal and power metal) is that the accuracy of top-rate VBR is actually superior to my audio equipment. Then nifty display of the encoder seems to bear this out: it's not showing much if any "overflow" data outside what fits inside the allocated frames.

I'm thinking that this is an example of something becoming ubiquitous because it's "good enough". Just like HTML has plenty of quirks, but gets the job done, and is now so entrenched that I can't imagine it going away, MP3 at a decent bitrate with a good encoder is just fine, and there's so much out there for it (both infrastructure and the music itself) that it's not going anywhere for some time.

skwire · « **Reply #43 on:** November 13, 2009, 08:10 PM »

Quote from: CWuestefeld on November 13, 2009, 06:37 PM

MP3 at a decent bitrate with a good encoder is just fine

Agreed...and anybody that disputes this must prove it with an ABX test.

Innuendo · « **Reply #44 on:** November 13, 2009, 11:35 PM »

Quote from: CWuestefeld on November 13, 2009, 06:37 PM

MP3 at a decent bitrate with a good encoder is just fine, and there's so much out there for it (both infrastructure and the music itself) that it's not going anywhere for some time.

I don't think the point in using something like FLAC implies that MP3s are inherently bad. The point in using a lossless codec is for archival purposes. When MP3's lossy codec replacement comes along, and believe me sooner or later it will as progress is inevitable, those who have their music ripped to a lossless codec like FLAC can just transcode their music to the New Great Thing without having to spend all the time re-ripping their CDs. Transcoding is a lot faster than ripping. Transcoding an MP3 to a different lossy format is less than ideal as you will have the information in the music you lost while ripping to MP3 and then you'll have additional loss as you transcode to the new lossy codec.

Now if you want to leave lossless codecs out of the conversation & just talk about lossy codecs available now I think that someone who chooses Ogg Vorbis over MP3s may not even do it because of the sound quality, either. This person may choose Ogg Vorbis because they like to support the open source effort & maybe because the Ogg Vorbis tagging standard is more versatile than ID3 v2.3/v2.4/v.ad-nauseum.

Curt · « **Reply #45 on:** November 14, 2009, 01:38 AM »

Quote from: Innuendo on November 13, 2009, 11:35 PM

[... When MP3's lossy codec replacement comes along, and believe me sooner or later it will as progress is inevitable, ...

I haven't got the slightest idea what progress you are talking about! Is it the "progress" from 1411 kbps, to 320 kbps, to 64 kbps, to 22 kbps, or what??? In case you didn't notice, the quality has been constantly FALLING every year for twenty five years; there has been absolutely NO "progress"! Each and every manufactory is working at heir hardest to get lower quality, not higher.

In case you cannot tell, I am not happy with the audiophile situation.

Tuxman · « **Reply #46 on:** November 14, 2009, 01:45 AM »

Quote from: Curt on November 14, 2009, 01:38 AM

Each and every manufactory is working at heir hardest to get lower quality, not higher.

... which is multiplied with a constant factor every time something gets "remastered", see the latest Beatles remasters with the cut-off peaks...

Lashiec · « **Reply #47 on:** November 14, 2009, 02:23 AM »

Quote from: Curt on November 14, 2009, 01:38 AM

I haven't got the slightest idea what progress you are talking about! Is it the "progress" from 1411 kbps, to 320 kbps, to 64 kbps, to 22 kbps, or what??? In case you didn't notice, the quality has been constantly FALLING every year for twenty five years; there has been absolutely NO "progress"!

But that's bitrate, not quality. Quality has been improving over the years, that is, bigger quality at smaller bitrates. If music sounds worse, it's not because of lossy codecs (at least not directly), but the music industry, full of dumbasses who don't know any better about sound quality, or music for that matter <_<

Innuendo · « **Reply #48 on:** November 14, 2009, 03:08 AM »

Quote from: Tuxman on November 14, 2009, 01:45 AM

... which is multiplied with a constant factor every time something gets "remastered", see the latest Beatles remasters with the cut-off peaks...

Yep....Loudness war.

Stupid music industry...

Innuendo · « **Reply #49 on:** November 14, 2009, 03:11 AM »

Quote from: Curt on November 14, 2009, 01:38 AM

I haven't got the slightest idea what progress you are talking about! Is it the "progress" from 1411 kbps, to 320 kbps, to 64 kbps, to 22 kbps, or what??? In case you didn't notice, the quality has been constantly FALLING every year for twenty five years; there has been absolutely NO "progress"! Each and every manufactory is working at heir hardest to get lower quality, not higher.

Not sure what you mean...there are even some online music you can buy in FLAC form so I'm not sure where you are getting that quality is falling. Please elaborate as I must be misunderstanding/missing your point, Curt.