Moonbase;409154 Wrote:
> Looking back at "mp3PRO" which -was- a nice idea for low-bandwidth
> radio streams at its time, but has now vanished into nothingness I
> dont believe anyone should care much.
>
> Looks like some last struggles to run with the pack, coming much too
> late. And of co
I'm not sure I see the need for this format. Disk space on a PC isn't a
consideration, but disk space on portable devices still is. I'd have
both a flac and an mp3 on my PC than waste space by using this on
portable devices.
--
cooppw02
Skinny wrote:
> Now for the record, I don't think we need another format, since there
> are better ones for both lossy and lossless purposes. I don't like
> mp3HD. But if it becomes an easy way of purchasing lossless music, then
> welcome as there's really nothing right now! And I don't see mp3HD
>
servies;41 Wrote:
> And why o why would that be the case...
Oh 'chute, I really managed to make a mess of my last post, it seems! I
couldn't have structured it any worse or made it any more confusing
talking back and forth about flac and mp3HD without making any clear
references. What I want
Skinny;409990 Wrote:
> This is a very good point, indeed! I would absolutely prefer buying FLAC
> files from music stores, but this doesn't seem to catch on very well.
And why o why would that be the case...
> So, I'll gladly start buying mp3HD:s if they start showing up.
> Converting to FLAC wo
sveinan;409430 Wrote:
> (...)To me the value will be that this may contribute to making more
> online sources of lossless content available. Sure, they will probably
> price the 'HD' edition of music tracks higher (hype + money). And I
> will need to convert the mp3HD to FLAC. But in this day and
Moonbase;409590 Wrote:
> Some 'interesting discussion'
> (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70548) also
> going on over in the -hydrogenaudio- forums.
It sounds like the concept is kind similar to MP3pro. Standard players
ignore the "pro" data, while pro players use _both_
Some 'interesting discussion'
(http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70548) also
going on over in the -hydrogenaudio- forums.
--
Moonbase
Moonbase: 'The Problem Solver' (http://www.kaufen-ist-toll.de/moonbase)
--
iPhone wrote:
> I am following what you did now and it’s closer but I’m still not
> convinced. Will rip a CD with MP3HD and see what I see. But this is all
> still just storage. Is it really truly lossless when played back? If I
> had an MP3HD player I could check it with the program Phil and I ha
Steve Bernard, Jr;409370 Wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Calum Mackay (DOT) org> wrote:
> > iPhone wrote:
> >> Steve Bernard, Jr;409324 Wrote:
> >>> C:\Documents and
> >>>
> Settings\Steve\Desktop\mp3HD_Toolkit_for_Windows_2009-03-16>mp3hdencoder.exe
> >>> -br 32 -if test.wav -of m
seanadams wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone is surprised that someone managed to make
> yet another lossless format.
heh.
I wonder if they just made the new format by concatenating a flac file
onto the end of an mp3?
:)
cheers,
calum.
___
discus
peter;409466 Wrote:
> Someone better start writing a tool to strip the lossless part from the
>
> mp3 part so you can fit more songs on your mp3 player.
I would guess that is feasable, and probably much quicker than
transcoding too.
--
funkstar
finnbrodersen wrote:
> Well as normal I am no expert in the subject,
>
> but here is my 5c worth of input
>
> mp3HD =
>
> a) compatible with all players
> b) lossless
>
> it sounds good to me !
>
> Of course b) is only with a mp3HD compatible decoder.
>
Someone better start writing a tool to s
To me MP3HD looks like pure marketing (just trying to sell more
licenses). :(
1) MP3HD is NOT HD! It is just 16bit/44.1KHz stereo.
2) They refer to MP3HD as a convenient format, but it has lost the #1
convenience of a MP3 file - file size! MP3HD is BIG. WavPack solution
with 2 files (lossy+correc
I'll keep my library of FLAC files. But I can see a few positive angles.
To me this is a mix between marketing and the technical facts.
Ok. We have a new 'HD' format. Which in itself is kinda funny, CDs
introduced in 1982 contains about the same ammount and quality of
information that this 'HD' f
Well as normal I am no expert in the subject,
but here is my 5c worth of input
mp3HD =
a) compatible with all players
b) lossless
it sounds good to me !
Of course b) is only with a mp3HD compatible decoder.
--
finnbrodersen
-
http://flac.sourceforge.net/itunes.html
Keep on hammering.
--
bernt
'LastFM' (http://www.last.fm/user/ottovonkopp/)
SB3 - SC 7.3.2 - Ubuntu Server 8.04
bernt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=134
seanadams wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone is surprised that someone managed to make
> yet another lossless format.
>
I don't know if I get the point, but don't the resulting lossless files
play in standard mp3 players that only support mp3? That's kind of an
advantage, although, having
I don't understand why anyone is surprised that someone managed to make
yet another lossless format.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3
View this thread: http://forums.slimd
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Calum Mackay wrote:
> iPhone wrote:
>> Steve Bernard, Jr;409324 Wrote:
>>> C:\Documents and
>>> Settings\Steve\Desktop\mp3HD_Toolkit_for_Windows_2009-03-16>mp3hdencoder.exe
>>> -br 32 -if test.wav -of mp3HD.mp3
>>>
> ...
>>>
>>> C:\Documents and
>>> Sett
iPhone wrote:
> Steve Bernard, Jr;409324 Wrote:
>> C:\Documents and
>> Settings\Steve\Desktop\mp3HD_Toolkit_for_Windows_2009-03-16>mp3hdencoder.exe
>> -br 32 -if test.wav -of mp3HD.mp3
>>
...
>>
>> C:\Documents and
>> Settings\Steve\Desktop\mp3HD_Toolkit_for_Windows_2009-03-16>mp3hdDec
Steve Bernard, Jr;409324 Wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM, iPhone wrote:
>
> > Seems I didn't make my point. It is very simple. Why bother with MP3
> > files with "side information" files attached to mathematically get
> to
> > lossless when one can just use lossless files? I would bet
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM, iPhone wrote:
> Seems I didn't make my point. It is very simple. Why bother with MP3
> files with "side information" files attached to mathematically get to
> lossless when one can just use lossless files? I would bet the farm
> that one can't take an MP3HD file a
Mark Lanctot;409221 Wrote:
> This would be similar to the WavPack idea. The lossy file is
> accompanied by a correction file which indicates what data was dropped
> to make the lossy file. Taken together, both files could be used to
> produce a lossless version.
>
> It's a neat idea, but WavPa
Steve Bernard, Jr;409252 Wrote:
> 2009/3/23 Mark Lanctot:
>
> > (among other things) *All we know about mp3HD is that it's 16/44.1
> > only, and since it's proprietary, we may not know much more.
>
> Actually, the readme file that comes with the encoder says:
>
> "This program encodes WAV audi
2009/3/23 Mark Lanctot:
> (among other things) All we know about mp3HD is that it's 16/44.1
> only, and since it's proprietary, we may not know much more.
Actually, the readme file that comes with the encoder says:
"This program encodes WAV audio files to mp3HD files. The WAV audio
files have
iPhone;409210 Wrote:
> I think that FLAC will remain the king as far as Ripping to a lossless
> format for end user home use. MP3HD is regular MP3 with *-"side
> information"-?* How in the world is that even loosely defined as
> "mathematically lossless" when MP3 by definition is a lossy format?
bernt wrote:
> Is this the end for flac?
>From the cited website:
"Professionals can find all information and license mp3HD from Thomson
at www.mp3licensing.com."
What part of free is covered by this sentence?
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
bernt;409128 Wrote:
> http://www.thomson.net/GlobalEnglish/Corporate/News/PressReleases/Pages/Thomson-Introduces-mp3HD-FileFormat.aspx
>
> Is this the end for flac?
I think that FLAC will remain the king as far as Ripping to a lossless
format for end user home use. MP3HD is regular MP3 with *-"
Mark Lanctot;409188 Wrote:
> OT...aren't these press releases written by people with degrees in
> Communications? If so, you'd think they'd know how to...communicate?> > >
> > The added file size required for lossless compression no longer being a
> > limiting factor thanks to the continuous in
Too little, too late, sounds like they're just hopping on the "high
definition" bandwagon. Others have many years' head start on them.
And, really, who thinks of Thomson and Fraunhofer when they think of
MP3? Does anyone actually use their hopelessly outdated reference
encoder/decoder? They sa
Yeah :-
--
Moonbase
Moonbase: 'The Problem Solver' (http://www.kaufen-ist-toll.de/moonbase)
Moonbase's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21594
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sho
Ugh, let's just ignore it and hope it goes away.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61694
__
Looking back at "mp3PRO" which -was- a nice idea for low-bandwidth
radio streams at its time, but has now vanished into nothingness I
dont believe anyone should care much.
Looks like some last struggles to run with the pack, coming much too
late. And of course there wont be any advantages (
No.
---
--
autopilot
Cheers, auto.
-"don't call me Shirley."-
autopilot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1763
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61694
_
http://www.thomson.net/GlobalEnglish/Corporate/News/PressReleases/Pages/Thomson-Introduces-mp3HD-FileFormat.aspx
Is this the end for flac?
--
bernt
'LastFM' (http://www.last.fm/user/ottovonkopp/)
SB3 - SC 7.3.2 - Ubuntu Server 8.04
-
36 matches
Mail list logo
