Introducing MP3 Lossless

  Quote

mp3HD Overview

 

* mp3HD is a lossless audio codec (100% bit-exact replica of CD tracks)

* Backward Compatible to mp3

* File extension .mp3

* Bitrates for music approximately 500 to 900 kbps rates (similar to other lossless codecs), depending on genre

* Embedded mp3 track and the mp3HD file share the same id3 metadata

* Encoding parameters (e.g. bit rate), ancillary data and meta data of embedded mp3 track are under control

 

 

 

The following tools are available immediately for your tests:

 

* Encoding

o Command-line encoder

* Decoding (to wav)

o Command-line decoder

* Playing

o Plug-in for Winamp (for Winamp 5.5 and above)

* Platforms

o Win32 (Microsoft Windows XP, 2000, NT 4, Me/98), Vista

o Linux32

o Mac OS X

* Support

o CD audio (PCM): 44.1, 48 kHz sampling rate, 16 bit/sample

 

 

 

Link

(Jazz , but not Jazz to me)

900kb?

what's wrong with good old WAV?

So you'd rather go for this patented trademark because it has the name MP3 in it?

FLAC is perfect.

^ y u mad tho? sounds wicked.

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:23 PM, Ego said:

So you'd rather go for this patented trademark because it has the name MP3 in it?

 

FLAC is perfect.

compatibility comes to mind. not having to have special software or plugins to recognize it. not having to convert to mp3 anyway to use in ipod, creating duplicate versions which takes up more media space.

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:23 PM, Ego said:

 

FLAC is perfect.

in terms of audio quality it is.

but it is simply not functional.

Is this compatible with my MP3 player?

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:38 PM, Rhombix said:

Is this compatible with my MP3 player?

should be, since it is .mp3 extension.

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:35 PM, glasse said:

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:23 PM, Ego said:

So you'd rather go for this patented trademark because it has the name MP3 in it?

 

FLAC is perfect.

 

compatibility comes to mind. not having to have special software or plugins to recognize it. not having to convert to mp3 anyway to use in ipod, creating duplicate versions which takes up more media space.

You hardly need to get any special plugins to play FLAC nowadays, if you do the program you are using is probably shit in other ways too. DAPs worth a shit can all play FLAC out of the box.

Great, I can finally play lossless files on my iPod and on iTunes.

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:42 PM, azatoth said:

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:35 PM, glasse said:

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:23 PM, Ego said:

So you'd rather go for this patented trademark because it has the name MP3 in it?

 

FLAC is perfect.

 

compatibility comes to mind. not having to have special software or plugins to recognize it. not having to convert to mp3 anyway to use in ipod, creating duplicate versions which takes up more media space.

 

You hardly need to get any special plugins to play FLAC nowadays, if you do the program you are using is probably shit in other ways too. DAPs worth a shit can all play FLAC out of the box.

Sure, point me to one that will recognize my ipod and allow me to copy the songs to my ipod without converting anything. Also then can I hook it up to my xbox 360 and play them while I play a game, without converting? (of course you also have to convert aac for this.)

Here is the thing, it doesn't really help me if it sounds the best on my laptop. I'm usually not going to hook up the computer to a stereo just to play music, that is what the ipod is for. It needs to sound the best on the portable device also.

yo dawg i heard you like transcodes so we transcoded a transcode into mp3 lossless so you can idm out while you ride!

well wicked!

yo i dont think is possible to make a real "mp3" lossless. this sounds like what its just take a regular mp3 add lossless crap ontop of the fiel. so you really got 2 files in 1. the old mp3 which what makes it be backwards compatible (and its not lossless), then the lossless file. so unlees u got a special plugin to play this special mp3s it sounds like a regular mp3. just my guess i dindt read any of this shit

Bound to happen. Really not quite sure of how useful this is though. Why would I want lossless on my iPod when generally I listen on buses and other noisy surrounding, kinda defeats the whole purpose.

But whoopy yahoo and all the rest.

EDIT: Im still not going to use iTune, because its a shit programme.

also thats why its so bigger then flac

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:41 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:38 PM, Rhombix said:

Is this compatible with my MP3 player?

should be, since it is .mp3 extension.

Mmm I'm not so sure, sure it has the same extension but the way it's encoded is gonna be different. Think avi files - an Xvid encoded avi is different to a DivX encoded avi, which is different from a raw uncompressed avi, sure they all have the .avi extension but contents wise they're written very differently. I reckon you're gonna need a player that supports this mp3hd codec for playback of this type of mp3...

If it wasnt compatible with an mp3 player why would they call it mp3? I though that would have been the whole point.

  On 9/19/2010 at 6:34 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:41 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:38 PM, Rhombix said:

Is this compatible with my MP3 player?

should be, since it is .mp3 extension.

Mmm I'm not so sure, sure it has the same extension but the way it's encoded is gonna be different. Think avi files - an Xvid encoded avi is different to a DivX encoded avi, which is different from a raw uncompressed avi, sure they all have the .avi extension but contents wise they're written very differently. I reckon you're gonna need a player that supports this mp3hd codec for playback of this type of mp3...

actually that's a very good point.

but i guess, considering the presence of mp3 and its status in the market, that the most reasonable decision was to make it compatible with today's mp3 players.

Why different bit rates for different genres? And out of the 3 music genres bitrates, why make classical the lowest, classical music has the most dynamic range out of the types of music selected for their test set.

Bizarre. I wonder if this will catch on. Probably though, cause they put the two all important letters at the end.

edit: lol nice, I like how they only have command line encoding right now. Wonder how long it will takes some coder to whip up a GUI...

it says you need a plugin to play them on winamp...

  On 9/19/2010 at 6:52 PM, chenGOD said:

Why different bit rates for different genres? And out of the 3 music genres bitrates, why make classical the lowest, classical music has the most dynamic range out of the types of music selected for their test set.

Bizarre. I wonder if this will catch on. Probably though, cause they put the two all important letters at the end.

 

edit: lol nice, I like how they only have command line encoding right now. Wonder how long it will takes some coder to whip up a GUI...

maybe cuz classical doesnt have drums so often to contribute many very high frequencys like other genres..... so encoder can cut off more i dunno. anyway people need to read my post form last page i think its probly true

  On 9/19/2010 at 6:30 PM, sup said:

yo i dont think is possible to make a real "mp3" lossless. this sounds like what its just take a regular mp3 add lossless crap ontop of the fiel. so you really got 2 files in 1. the old mp3 which what makes it be backwards compatible (and its not lossless), then the lossless file. so unlees u got a special plugin to play this special mp3s it sounds like a regular mp3. just my guess i dindt read any of this shit

I hope people will start using it massively as soon as possible.

My situation now revolves around:

1. Downloading flacs.

2. Transcoding those flacs to m4a (for iTunes) if the release is good enough

3. Transcoding to v0 for my minidisc.

  On 9/19/2010 at 5:43 PM, Enter a new display name said:

Great, I can finally play lossless files on my iPod and on iTunes.

bout time

  On 9/19/2010 at 6:52 PM, chenGOD said:

Why different bit rates for different genres? And out of the 3 music genres bitrates, why make classical the lowest, classical music has the most dynamic range out of the types of music selected for their test set.

Bizarre. I wonder if this will catch on. Probably though, cause they put the two all important letters at the end.

 

edit: lol nice, I like how they only have command line encoding right now. Wonder how long it will takes some coder to whip up a GUI...

i think you're confusing data compression and dynamic (audio) compression....lower bitrate will have no effect on "loudness", will it?

  On 9/19/2010 at 7:44 PM, Babar said:

I hope people will start using it massively as soon as possible.

 

nah, we'll all stick to flac and wav and not hop on some bandwagon for unknown reasons othre than file extension familiarity