android
  #1  
Old 03-20-2009, 01:43 PM
ibng ibng is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22
Page Thomson announces mp3HD

For more, read here: http://www.all4mp3.com/Learn_mp3_hd_1.aspx

Sounds nice to me....
__________________

Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 03-20-2009, 06:06 PM
samueljesusfreak's Avatar
samueljesusfreak samueljesusfreak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ellendale, North Dakota
Posts: 758
Default

This doesn't look like it's gonna carry very far. FLAC and Apple Lossless have control of the lossless share, and FLAC is open source. If my understanding is right, there needs to be a separate decoder, which means none of the current players will play it.. even if it has an .mp3 extension. I just don't see much potential.
__________________
Player: Generic Philips GoGear 4GB(Sounds decent though)
Headphones: Koss KSC-75 and JVC Marshmallow
Wow I'm poor..
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 03-20-2009, 06:13 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Well, it is a hybrid format, regular MP3 and the HD stuff in one file. Backwards compatibility is true and those files (their non-lossless part) play on any old MP3 player... that's quite nifty.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 03-20-2009, 06:35 PM
samueljesusfreak's Avatar
samueljesusfreak samueljesusfreak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ellendale, North Dakota
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Well, it is a hybrid format, regular MP3 and the HD stuff in one file. Backwards compatibility is true and those files (their non-lossless part) play on any old MP3 player... that's quite nifty.
Not bad, but then that kills all portability. Sticking the lossless file on your player and hearing the lossy
__________________
Player: Generic Philips GoGear 4GB(Sounds decent though)
Headphones: Koss KSC-75 and JVC Marshmallow
Wow I'm poor..
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 03-21-2009, 04:18 PM
eboyer93's Avatar
eboyer93 eboyer93 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 838
Default

This will fail very badly.
__________________
foobar2000 | Last.fm | Get Mozilla Firefox | Rockbox
Players: SanDisk Sansa Fuze 8GB + 2GB card (w/Rockbox), SanDisk Sansa Clip+ 4GB + 8GB card (Red) (w/Rockbox)
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 03-21-2009, 04:40 PM
Geruvah Geruvah is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default

It'd be nice if it becomes the standard. But it won't. It'll be just another lossless file and just taking up more space for those of us with DAPs that won't even play it. And since storage is something a lot are lacking, these days...I dunno. I have mixed feelings about it.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 03-21-2009, 05:23 PM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,048
Default

It'd kill all the crap talk about mp3 being a "shoddy" codec, so it's something I hope that actually works. And, I hope it's a free codec, so it'll compete w/the current lossless formats and win.
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 03-23-2009, 11:12 AM
Enigmatic Enigmatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The DarkSide View Post
It'd kill all the crap talk about mp3 being a "shoddy" codec, so it's something I hope that actually works.
This is actually a very effective test to see how well an individual understands lossy compression, psychoacoustics, and the only proper way to test the effectiveness of a lossy codec. Anytime I read of someone claiming that lossy codecs are bad and that only lossless codecs matters for excellent sound quality, I know that the writer making this claim has some major gaps in his knowledge. Even at c. 128 kbps, MP3s sound quite good for most music.
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 03-23-2009, 11:19 AM
samueljesusfreak's Avatar
samueljesusfreak samueljesusfreak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ellendale, North Dakota
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmatic View Post
This is actually a very effective test to see how well an individual understands lossy compression, psychoacoustics, and the only proper way to test the effectiveness of a lossy codec. Anytime I read of someone claiming that lossy codecs are bad and that only lossless codecs matters for excellent sound quality, I know that the writer making this claim has some major gaps in his knowledge. Even at c. 128 kbps, MP3s sound quite good for most music.
I agree. A properly encoded LAME mp3 file at ~192kb/s should be considered transparency. Anyone who can hear it has quite a nice case of placebo. FLAC is nice for having a backup of your CD that you can transcode to anything, but for portable playback? No thanks.

And yeah, The DarkSide made no comments about FLAC being superior in sound. People, just don't like mp3 because they're obsessed with having every last bit of data in their song, whether they hear it or not.
__________________
Player: Generic Philips GoGear 4GB(Sounds decent though)
Headphones: Koss KSC-75 and JVC Marshmallow
Wow I'm poor..
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 03-23-2009, 11:20 AM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmatic View Post
This is actually a very effective test to see how well an individual understands lossy compression, psychoacoustics, and the only proper way to test the effectiveness of a lossy codec. Anytime I read of someone claiming that lossy codecs are bad and that only lossless codecs matters for excellent sound quality, I know that the writer making this claim has some major gaps in his knowledge. Even at c. 128 kbps, MP3s sound quite good for most music.
FWIW, encodes using a "lossy" codec sound fine to me, as I'm not an audiophile, nor claim to be. 192kbps is probably overkill for me, but I shoot for the stars.

Now the question I'd like to ask is "why do you quote me?", as I made no claims of lossy codecs being "bad", and that "only lossless codecs matter for excellent sq".

Please, tell me what claims I've made.
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 03-23-2009, 11:23 AM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

I think he didn't mean you, TDS, but the people that actually claim MP3 to be "shoddy".

Anyways, this in not yet another thread about perceived codec quality, but about the lossless/lossy MP3HD hybrid.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 03-23-2009, 11:32 AM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,048
Default

Ah, my bad!!!
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 03-23-2009, 01:05 PM
Enigmatic Enigmatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
I think he didn't mean you, TDS, but the people that actually claim MP3 to be "shoddy".
Correct. The DarkSide, I apologize if I have offended you, because it was never my intention to offend you.

Quote:
Anyways, this in not yet another thread about perceived codec quality, but about the lossless/lossy MP3HD hybrid.
dfkt, perhaps an article should be written and placed in the MP3 Player FAQ about the perceived sound quality of MP3, Vorbis, WMA, and AAC.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 09-08-2010, 01:31 PM
lestatar's Avatar
lestatar lestatar is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hong Kong now, but NYC always
Posts: 4,657
Default

Digging up a very old thread, but I just updated my Winamp and happen to spy the mp3HD plugin.

While I have known about mp3HD for a while, I haven't followed it at all and this thread pre-dates my own ABi involvement.

So, after reading this thread 18 months later [the only relevant one i found with searching ABi for "mp3HD"], I am wondering:

- has mp3HD died an inglorious death?
- have any of you played around with it?
- has your initial opinion of mp3HD changed?

Enquiring minds want to know...
__________________
DAPs:2xRBFuze8+16GB|SonyE345|ZenV+,Micro,Xtra40GBx2|RBG igabeatFX|RCAOpal
IEMs:PanaHJE900|Nuforce 700x|HippoVB|iMetal590,i490|SM PL-21|CX300|EP630,Aurvana
Guitars:IbanezS540,JS1200|Ovation
PoolCues: a bunch
A Glossary for Newbies

Last edited by lestatar; 09-08-2010 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 09-08-2010, 01:58 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

I guess the issue with that (well intended) format is: if you know what you're doing, you choose your favorite flavor of lossy codec (LAME, AAC, Vorbis), and you keep your lossless stuff in the universally accepted FLAC format (or whatever works for you, since they all store the same information). If you don't care about any of that, you use good old "MP3" - or whatever stuff WMP or iTunes convert your CDs to, with one click.

If MP3HD would be available on portable players (I know the new Samsung is the first one to support it - good luck), it would still have to catch up to FLAC's asymmetrical power requirements for decoding, and would have a hard time finding its place among the other well established lossless codecs (ALAC probably being one of the most used ones out there, next to FLAC, APE, WV, and that WMAL junk).

The discrepancy is that people who use "MP3" (not LAME, or FhG, or Xing), probably really don't care about lossless, and the whole idea is more a waste of space than anything else. Backwards compatibility is laudable, but I can convert my FLACs within seconds to LAME -v0 - which certainly is still superior to Thomson/FhG's implementation.

You won't reach the geeks in the know with an MP3 codec that isn't LAME, and you won't reach them with a very new approach to a lossless codec either, since there's already FLAC around for that. And you won't reach many noobs with something like that as well. The MP3HD idea is nice, but it's too late to the party, and not exactly needed as a one-size-fits-all solution.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 09-08-2010, 07:11 PM
lestatar's Avatar
lestatar lestatar is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hong Kong now, but NYC always
Posts: 4,657
Default

dfkt, thanks a ton for the primer on the discussion. Pretty much my own conclusions as well. On the surface, it did seem that mp3HD had a few things going for it, but like most things in life, timing is everything as you said. And for sure, there appears to be nearly zero interest in mp3HD both here and out in the wild at present - surely not a good sign.

Thanks again for the detailed response
__________________
DAPs:2xRBFuze8+16GB|SonyE345|ZenV+,Micro,Xtra40GBx2|RBG igabeatFX|RCAOpal
IEMs:PanaHJE900|Nuforce 700x|HippoVB|iMetal590,i490|SM PL-21|CX300|EP630,Aurvana
Guitars:IbanezS540,JS1200|Ovation
PoolCues: a bunch
A Glossary for Newbies
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 09-08-2010, 07:30 PM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

FLAC ftw, no need for anything else.


Quote:
A properly encoded LAME mp3 file at ~192kb/s should be considered transparency. Anyone who can hear it has quite a nice case of placebo.
This is BS. . . for me anyway. . .
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 09-08-2010, 07:35 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Lestatar - Additionally, in two sentences, I would say: I want my LAME MP3s on my portable player, and my FLACs on my computer - I don't see a realistic reason to have both available at the same time. Especially since both, the lossy and lossless part of MP3HD, aren't up to par with the free open source standards already available.

Satellite 6 - ever did a double blind ABX test between a proper LAME encode and FLAC? I'm not saying there won't be the one or other file you can distinguish, but it should be really tough in general.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 09-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Lestatar - Additionally, in two sentences, I would say: I want my LAME MP3s on my portable player, and my FLACs on my computer - I don't see a realistic reason to have both available at the same time. Especially since both, the lossy and lossless part of MP3HD, aren't up to par with the free open source standards already available.

Satellite 6 - ever did a double blind ABX test between a proper LAME encode and FLAC? I'm not saying there won't be the one or other file you can distinguish, but it should be really tough in general.
Bleh, high bit rates it's hard, meduim bit rates it's pretty easy. I haven't done that many meduim or low bit rate tests b/c I can ABX high bit rates so I don't see the point, but I have done it in the past and it's not hard. All of this with my HD 485s. . . not my 650s.

I don't think v2 should be generally transparent for everyone is a good statement. . . . but maybe most ppl really are that deaf, idk.
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 09-09-2010, 10:00 AM
saratoga saratoga is offline
Rockbox Developer / Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
I haven't done that many meduim or low bit rate tests b/c I can ABX high bit rates so I don't see the point, but I have done it in the past and it's not hard.
If its not that hard you're probably not doing it right. That guy on headfi who had pretty good ABX result took 160 trials over the course of something like a month to get positive results, and even then he couldn't ABX most of his test tracks. If you accomplish this in a few minutes theres probably something else going on.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
codec, mp3hd, quality

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.