Introducing MP3 Lossless

i still don't get how different lossless types can have different bit rates. one MUST be worse than the other.

this is still kinda cool

  On 9/19/2010 at 9:02 PM, elusive4 said:

  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

cognitive dissonance

  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.

exactly. it's a useless format. unless your player supports their special "hd" lossless format, all you're going to hear is the regular lossy mp3 they stick at the front of the file. and as a special bonus, your music take up 10x more space. yay.

i've seen flac files with bit rates in the 4000's. what on earth is that all about

  On 9/19/2010 at 10:27 PM, Calx Sherbet said:

i've seen flac files with bit rates in the 4000's. what on earth is that all about

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit loads of frequencies. Or just some being a moron using a massive bit rate

  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.

they didn't pick the bitrates, it's just a fact that different genres tend to compress differently.

for example, classical music is very easy to compress, because most instruments just output very predictable sine waves. you don't need a lot of bits to encode those.

compare that with something like track 2 from windowlicker, where there's entire images encoded into the track... it's not going to compress as well. there's more data, and it's less predictable.

basically, the number of bits required to perfectly represent a sound depends on how often the wave forms repeat, and how predictable they are. complex, highly variable sounds require more bits.

exactly i seen some of ryoji ikeda tracks (the matrix ones) compress to very smalls sizes just cuz there such simple sounds

sorry sorry, was getting bit depth confused with bitrate...derr...

every time i download a flac i convert it to 320k mp3. i feel like 320 is the best way to go. file size is small (relative to flac/wav), and sound is good. I do not expect to ever have a world class system that will make me sad that my 320 mp3s sound bad. is there any flaws to this logic?

  On 9/19/2010 at 10:30 PM, chaosmachine said:

  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.

 

they didn't pick the bitrates, it's just a fact that different genres tend to compress differently.

 

for example, classical music is very easy to compress, because most instruments just output very predictable sine waves. you don't need a lot of bits to encode those.

 

compare that with something like track 2 from windowlicker, where there's entire images encoded into the track... it's not going to compress as well. there's more data, and it's less predictable.

 

basically, the number of bits required to perfectly represent a sound depends on how often the wave forms repeat, and how predictable they are. complex, highly variable sounds require more bits.

I've noticed that anything mastered from 78s tends to have low file sizes in flac. noise like merzbow can be like 98 or 99% the size of the wavs.

That's stupid. Why on Earth would retain the mp3 extension for something that is not an mp3? Yes, it contains one, but it is not one. You don't call a margarita tequila.

Unnecessary garbage.

this thread, and people inside it (including me) are a bunch of fail.

go talk about something you all actually know about...like Gaysex Twix bars

  On 9/20/2010 at 11:48 AM, oscillik said:

this thread, and people inside it (including me) are a bunch of fail.

 

go talk about something you all actually know about...like Gaysex Twix bars

well enlighten everyone, instead of being a moanee fag, isn't that what the nets all about ?? .. i'm sure that you've used the cliche at some point about the net broadening perspectives, well now is your time to shine buddy, go for it. Lest i go over there and tackle your flabby one sample pack arse.

;-] :: [-;

LOL

  On 9/20/2010 at 3:29 PM, oscillik said:

LOL

haha, shine on brother. for taking this shit well. it's a rare treat.

*oK(;-] :: E|-;)`Broe

Does it support 5.1 yet?

  On 9/20/2010 at 2:22 AM, Hanratty said:

every time i download a flac i convert it to 320k mp3. i feel like 320 is the best way to go. file size is small (relative to flac/wav), and sound is good. I do not expect to ever have a world class system that will make me sad that my 320 mp3s sound bad. is there any flaws to this logic?

Only possible flaw is that it's not necessary to have a "world class" system to detect the difference. But, if YOU can't tell the difference, then that's all that matters. Keep rolling w/320's.

  On 9/20/2010 at 8:58 PM, T35513R said:

  On 9/20/2010 at 2:22 AM, Hanratty said:

every time i download a flac i convert it to 320k mp3. i feel like 320 is the best way to go. file size is small (relative to flac/wav), and sound is good. I do not expect to ever have a world class system that will make me sad that my 320 mp3s sound bad. is there any flaws to this logic?

 

Only possible flaw is that it's not necessary to have a "world class" system to detect the difference. But, if YOU can't tell the difference, then that's all that matters. Keep rolling w/320's.

by "world class" I mean, $1000 or more. right now i just plug my Sennheiser 555s to my ipod or laptop.

  On 9/20/2010 at 3:13 AM, wahrk said:

That's stupid. Why on Earth would retain the mp3 extension for something that is not an mp3? Yes, it contains one, but it is not one. You don't call a margarita tequila.

 

Unnecessary garbage.

Uh... so it can play on the thousand of players that only supports mp3 files?

  On 9/21/2010 at 1:51 AM, Philip Glass said:

  On 9/20/2010 at 3:13 AM, wahrk said:

That's stupid. Why on Earth would retain the mp3 extension for something that is not an mp3? Yes, it contains one, but it is not one. You don't call a margarita tequila.

 

Unnecessary garbage.

Uh... so it can play on the thousand of players that only supports mp3 files?

....if they have the mp3hd codec installed.