Another Successor to the MP3 Format is Coming

criccio said:
You can tell the difference between 320Kbps LAME encoded MP3's and FLAC? I think not. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I probably can't >90% of the time, since MP3 tends to truncate higher frequencies which we get less sensitive to as we get older. Still, just because I can't doesn't mean someone who's a bit younger or has more sensitive ears can't. Also lossless formats allow you to reconstruct the original stream or convert from one to another infinite times without a problem. MP3 may have been relevant in the 90s, but there is no need for it or any other lossy format anymore.
 
^ reconstructing lossless files uniquely also means a definitive checksum can be obtained, so metadata can be obtained with near perfect accuracy.
 
The only reason I use 320 Kbps Mp3 is because I was sooooo sick of going to put it on Mp3 players and CD's for my car, when FLAC can' be played by many common items.
 
criccio said:
You can tell the difference between 320Kbps LAME encoded MP3's and FLAC? I think not. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I can. The only way to notice the difference is with the right hardware though. If the speakers are garbage, it doesn't matter what the audio is.
 
I do hear differences between 320kbps mp3s and Lossless. The differences are most apparent in the upper octaves, but I actually think there are further differences. My friends and I have done ABX testing with high end equipment, and most of us were able to discern this difference repeatedly and easily with much more convincing numbers than those in this thread from NIXin:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=59461&st=0

JVC HARX-900: No difference
Most other headphones: No difference
My UE 10 triple.fi: Still trying to figure it out, but my X-fi may be too noisy. I THINK I heard some difference, but I wasn't really ABX'ing. Maybe I'll try this later.

My old "audiophile" speaker setup: Almost always a difference.

The system consisted of (roughly):

- Multiple Infinite Baffle Subbass drivers (Dr. Earl Geddes inspired Bass layout)
- 15" Lambda Acoustics TDM15 Apollo Midbass/Midrange (80hz - 700hz) - Now called "Acoustic Elegance"
- 3" ATC DOME SM75-150S midranges (700hz - 2.5khz)
- RAAL 140-15d amorphous core Ribbon Tweeters (2.5khz - Well beyond hearing and apparently beyond Nyquist doubling)

- Amplifiers didn't matter much as long as they were good enough.
- Signal Processing was a huge issue: It was all digital with FIR linear phase filters (MATLAB at work, but now easier options exist)

However: The same was accomplished on a simple recreation of the Linkwitz ORION ( http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ ) featuring:

- Similar multiple Driver BASS
- Seas Excel w22 magnesium cone midranges (100hz - 1.3khz)
- A trial of different (comparable) traditional tweeters (Scanspeak revelator and 6600 aircirc, Seas various, Peerless HDS) mounted with waveguides for lower extension to (1.3khz on up)

Now... I no longer have the equipment to do this ABX, nor the acoustic environment to setup such a great system, but if ever you come across such a setup (not in a boutique, cuz the people running the boutique will likely be morons) - then go ahead and do the ABX and you'll be surprised.

I'd think many of the people at DIYaudio would be able to pass this ABX test on their systems. I'd ask ZAPH of zaphaudio or the guy at Audioheuristics if either of them could pass the test for an honest answer from an unbiased source....

This isn't true for ALL recordings... obviously

- Words of a former audiophile, but never a "golden ear."
 
I think the compression artifacts, even at high MP3 bitrates, should be easily distinguishable in piano recordings for example.
 
What is the point of this? We already have aac, vorbis, wma, etc. etc. And both aac and vorbis have much better sound quality at comparable compression rates than mp3. And yet neither have met with much success, except (partially) aac, because of its link to the iPod. Unless this new format is radically better than mp3, most people won't consider changing. Heck, most people don't even know any of these formats exist. Yet the word (dare I call it one?) mp3 is synonymous with music, and digital sound in general.

For me, the future lies in lossless codecs. Lossless formats were created for distribution when bandwidth and storage potential was low, but now in an age where we can download whole movies in seconds and have 2TB external hard drives, I don't really think that's much of a problem.
 
Wait a minute. So if you pirate the file you get just the file. If you buy the file you get the option of receiving advertisements related to that song. Why wouldn't they want to advertise to the pirates?
 
Waste of a music file. I dont need an entire CD's worth of files screaming at me that the band posted a blog update...

I would much rather have high quality FLAC or OGG files from the original recordings instead of low quality conversions.

Depending on the source of the loss less files the difference is not hard to hear with some good speakers / earphones.
 
The distortion added by the mechanical nature of your loudspeaker is likely far larger then the distortion added by a quality transcode. Our ears are insanely good at filling in the missing pieces....they have thousands of years of hardware acceleration built-in.

Back when I was into the high-end stuff I was enjoying a nice night of comparing formats (Magnepan speakers, Monarchy Audio electronics...blah blah $$$ high end stuff) and a song came up and I was blown away by the soundstage and spacial imaging. I got up to see what it was and was shocked to discover the song had been ripped at 192Kbps and had been mixed in accidently with my 320Kbps MP3's and Lossless rips. It was at that point I knew it was all in my head.....it was like the day I learned about Santa Clause :(

I wanted to believe, but eventually reality set in.
 
Archmage said:
I do hear differences between 320kbps mp3s and Lossless. The differences are most apparent in the upper octaves, but I actually think there are further differences. My friends and I have done ABX testing with high end equipment, and most of us were able to discern this difference repeatedly and easily with much more convincing numbers than those in this thread from NIXin:
...
Click to expand...

If you've passed a valid double blind test, I believe you. Otherwise...

It's been proven, for example, via scientific study, that people were unable to discern the difference between DVD-A/SACD, and downmixed-to-CD-quality.

See here: http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm

I skimmed most of this study when it was available online, briefly. They had one, ONE person, that managed to discern hi-rez from downmixed CD-quality a statistically significant amount of the time. At crazy high, hearing-damaging decibel levels. One person. Basically, the difference between CD and SACD, if there was one, was just better sound mixing by the engineers from the source.

Everyone else, until you've passed a double-blind test, odds are, the difference between 320 and FLAC, or even 192 and 320, is probably just the placebo effect. A majority of people can't tell the difference under a double blind test.
 
The only reason I got into SACD adn DVD-A was for the discrete surround channels. Having discrete rear channels made for good effect when done well. Unfortionantly SACD was real big on multi-channel on all its content and I think early stuff was purposfully limited to 2 channel.

But in the end, it didn't offer much that people didnt already have (compared to Vinyl to Tape...Tape to CD), so hi res audio failed. Where as say DVD to Blu-Ray is actually noticable on a big enough screen.
 
come on guys its not about the quality we are hearing but the comfort knowing that we are listening to the highest quality possible, like buying a ferrari instead of a regular sport coupe

america = bigger the better even though it may not have an actual tangible effect.
 
Back around 1998-99, Liquid Audio had something similar. Downloadable tracks with art, lyrics, links and all, with MPEG2-AAC LC and AC3 audio codecs supported. Lower bitrates were also supported for streaming.
 
My method is to store in FLAC for archival use and playing on the PC and transcoding from there to AAC for playback on portable devices. This allows one to keep on top of format changes without having to re-rip your CD collection, only transcode to whatever the format du jour may be. Plus FLAC is a bit more future proof than most lossless formats, supporting up to 8 channel, 655KHz, 32-bit audio. One could assume that these thresholds will not be crossed for a reasonable amount of time, in which case since the format is lossless it would be a simple matter to convert to the next lossless king.

FLAC already supports tags and album art natively as metadata, and the nagware aspect of this proposed format is the only thing they're bringing to the table that modern audio files don't support. There's an utter lack of real innovation here, essentially creating a new wrapper standard but not changing the real nuts and bolts inherent in compressed audio.

Some of you may also remember that when MP3 was in its infancy Fraunhofer almost killed it with expensive, restrictive licensing. (Remember l3enc and Winplay3?)

And yet another reason to choose FLAC: Joint stereo in MP3 sucks. Few people will mention this in relation to MP3, usually going on about direct comparison of the audio, but there's a huge difference in expansion when you listen to a CD and playback an MP3 unless you double the bandwidth and specify true stereo.

westrock2000 said:
The only reason I got into SACD adn DVD-A was for the discrete surround channels. Having discrete rear channels made for good effect when done well. Unfortionantly SACD was real big on multi-channel on all its content and I think early stuff was purposfully limited to 2 channel.

But in the end, it didn't offer much that people didnt already have (compared to Vinyl to Tape...Tape to CD), so hi res audio failed. Where as say DVD to Blu-Ray is actually noticable on a big enough screen.
Click to expand...

SACD had a lock to 2-channel unless you were either outputting in pure analog or encrypted digital mode to prevent piracy. (Also because SACDs were mostly playable in regular CD players via a predecessor to DVD's dual layer technology.) If you were getting 2 channel sound it is likely you tried to wire the player through with anything other than 6 discrete RCA cables. This was a common occurrence when DVD players supporting SACD were available, since they usually offered digital coax, optical, or later HDMI without proper encryption along with the 6 wire solution. Users would almost always hook up the digital connection. That would explain your problem with outputting to stereo.
 
westrock2000 said:
The only reason I got into SACD adn DVD-A was for the discrete surround channels. Having discrete rear channels made for good effect when done well. Unfortionantly SACD was real big on multi-channel on all its content and I think early stuff was purposfully limited to 2 channel.

But in the end, it didn't offer much that people didnt already have (compared to Vinyl to Tape...Tape to CD), so hi res audio failed. Where as say DVD to Blu-Ray is actually noticable on a big enough screen.
Click to expand...

I think the bigger reason hi resolution audio failed is because the labels couldn't pick a horse.
WB refused to use SACD, so bands that are on WB labels in the U.S. and virtually any other label in Europe have to release in one format in Europe and another in the U.S.
People bitch about HDDVD going away, but that was the best move the Studios could have made. 2 Formats leads to most waiting for a winner.

At this point, it's too late, because most people don't give a shit about quality. In some studies, people who've grown up on MP3 think compressed audio sounds better than lossless audio.

In the end, if everyone is listening ot music on an iPod on 20 dollar ear buds, then quality will never matter. The quality of the ear buds is that bad.
 
send updates to the music file every time they have something new to announce such as the dates of future tours, new interviews or updates to social network pages.
Click to expand...

Ads on music i pay for? no thanks
 
We have a successor, .ogg and .flac

How hard can it to understand that .flac > all.

Its supported Widely, of course not by your ipod.
Its supported in volvo's, 3rd party music players and so on. Lexus toyota honda and all them support it.
Dont think we need more formats :p
 
criccio said:
Thats impossible buddy... Do the math. 400Mb/s is 50MB/s. A song that is 3 minutes long would be 9GB in size.
Click to expand...
And it's the only way to listen to music, man! It sounds f'ing perfect!
 
GJSNeptune said:
I can. The only way to notice the difference is with the right hardware though. If the speakers are garbage, it doesn't matter what the audio is.
Click to expand...

no you can't. if you could, you should ask mr. james randi (www.randi.org) if that qualifies as a supernatural ability (some audiophile believes got included like distinguishing retardedly expensive speaker cables from standard ones). if you prove that in a scientific environment (read: double blind test) you will win 1 million dollar.

something like: "see, i load this 320 kbit mp3. oh boy can't you hear it? it sounds like crap." doesn't count. anything but a double blind test is worthless.

inb4: "dude, your speaker cables didn't cost 5k per meter, you're not an enlighted audiophile [who's beliefs lack any common sense] so stfu"
 
westrock2000 said:
[...]Back when I was into the high-end stuff I was enjoying a nice night of comparing formats (Magnepan speakers, Monarchy Audio electronics...blah blah $$$ high end stuff) and a song came up and I was blown away by the soundstage and spacial imaging. I got up to see what it was and was shocked to discover the song had been ripped at 192Kbps and had been mixed in accidently with my 320Kbps MP3's and Lossless rips. It was at that point I knew it was all in my head.....it was like the day I learned about Santa Clause :(

I wanted to believe, but eventually reality set in.
Click to expand...

exactly. if you don't know what source you're listening to it becomes way way harder to distinguish them. i would say 192kbit vbr is where most people won't be able to tell what is mp3 and what is uncompressed audio unless you're a trained professional ("able to tell" as in "be right significantly more often than by pure chance of guessing"). of course 192kbit is horrible, no audiophile would expose their ears to such bad quality... come on, hearing compression artifacts in 320 kbit mp3 is ridiculous if you don't know the source quality to eliminate psychoacoustics.
 
GreenMonkey said:
If you've passed a valid double blind test, I believe you. Otherwise...

It's been proven, for example, via scientific study, that people were unable to discern the difference between DVD-A/SACD, and downmixed-to-CD-quality.

See here: http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm

I skimmed most of this study when it was available online, briefly. They had one, ONE person, that managed to discern hi-rez from downmixed CD-quality a statistically significant amount of the time. At crazy high, hearing-damaging decibel levels. One person. Basically, the difference between CD and SACD, if there was one, was just better sound mixing by the engineers from the source.

Everyone else, until you've passed a double-blind test, odds are, the difference between 320 and FLAC, or even 192 and 320, is probably just the placebo effect. A majority of people can't tell the difference under a double blind test.
Click to expand...

this makes no sense. youre comparing different things. of course nobody can hear the difference from cd's to sacd's- the cd standard is already very clear and far above what 320mp3 can do.
 
DNME said:
send updates to the music file every time they have something new to announce such as the dates of future tours, new interviews or updates to social network pages.
Click to expand...
Ads on music i pay for? no thanks
Click to expand...

Ads? How exactly is it an ad? Are you saying you only buy music from artists that you have no interest in? Assuming that is true, are you also saying that computers and software confuse you so much that you're incapable of turning off those features?

I don't get the hostility towards this product. Since I don't buy lossy files, it doesn't affect me, but there's something seriously wrong when posters object to having the option of getting more content with a download.
 
temujin987 said:
no you can't. if you could, you should ask mr. james randi (www.randi.org) if that qualifies as a supernatural ability (some audiophile believes got included like distinguishing retardedly expensive speaker cables from standard ones). if you prove that in a scientific environment (read: double blind test) you will win 1 million dollar.

something like: "see, i load this 320 kbit mp3. oh boy can't you hear it? it sounds like crap." doesn't count. anything but a double blind test is worthless.

inb4: "dude, your speaker cables didn't cost 5k per meter, you're not an enlighted audiophile [who's beliefs lack any common sense] so stfu"
Click to expand...

ABX is a double blind test. There's a big difference between audiophile claims that one 1 meter digital cable is audibly different from another and claiming you can hear the difference between an MP3 and the original CD audio (which includes FLAC).

Hell, I can tell the difference between CDs on Genesis' boxset and the DVD Audio versions. Then again, they were mastered for SACD/DVD-A, and CD's simply can't reproduce it correctly.....and that doesn't require any special equipment to hear it.
 
heatlesssun said:
This ain't gonna put a dent in mp3s.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Mp3's exploded the way they did because the end-user embraced them. Unless a new format becomes popular with the people doing the work, the encoding, it won't take off unless it's got some kind of sponsorship(a store opens up that sells only in that format, for example). Mp3, asf, divx, xvid, why are they well-known? Because the guys doing the ripping chose them. I don't see Mp3+bloat becoming a feature most people ripping songs are going to be interested in using.
 
Yossarian22 said:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/ ?

Oh, I know what you're thinking. "My portable device can't handle the format!" Well, SanDisk Sansa Clip or two separate libraries of music since the DAC on your portable player probably sucks.

Do I win? :D
Click to expand...

My portable device can. Cowon ftw. :)
That was a specific consideration when I went looking for my next-gen mp3 player. Must. Support. FLAC.
 
temujin987 said:
no you can't. if you could, you should ask mr. james randi (www.randi.org) if that qualifies as a supernatural ability (some audiophile believes got included like distinguishing retardedly expensive speaker cables from standard ones). if you prove that in a scientific environment (read: double blind test) you will win 1 million dollar.

something like: "see, i load this 320 kbit mp3. oh boy can't you hear it? it sounds like crap." doesn't count. anything but a double blind test is worthless.

inb4: "dude, your speaker cables didn't cost 5k per meter, you're not an enlighted audiophile [who's beliefs lack any common sense] so stfu"
Click to expand...
Mp3s do sound like crap. Shit, actually. Fuzzy. Distorted, muffled highs. And I'm no audiophile. I spent all four years of college with my music collection ripped to mp3, and the best speakers I ever had were Klipsch ProMedia. Eventually I stockpiled hard drives, ripped my CDs to FLAC, got some much better speakers, and now I can really enjoy the music the way the producers meant for it to be heard.

Again, if your speakers are garbage, it doesn't matter what you're listening to.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Mp3s do sound like crap. Shit, actually. Fuzzy. Distorted, muffled highs. And I'm no audiophile. I spent all four years of college with my music collection ripped to mp3, and the best speakers I ever had were Klipsch ProMedia. Eventually I stockpiled hard drives, ripped my CDs to FLAC, got some much better speakers, and now I can really enjoy the music the way the producers meant for it to be heard.

Again, if your speakers are garbage, it doesn't matter what you're listening to.
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of MP3's you had, but if you can identify Nero 1.5.1 AAC files at q 0.5 or better or 320kbps mp3 from the latest LAME with proper settings, the the folks at hydrogenaudio would be interested in your hearing abilities.
 
GreenMonkey said:
If you've passed a valid double blind test, I believe you. Otherwise...

It's been proven, for example, via scientific study, that people were unable to discern the difference between DVD-A/SACD, and downmixed-to-CD-quality.

See here: http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm

I skimmed most of this study when it was available online, briefly. They had one, ONE person, that managed to discern hi-rez from downmixed CD-quality a statistically significant amount of the time. At crazy high, hearing-damaging decibel levels. One person. Basically, the difference between CD and SACD, if there was one, was just better sound mixing by the engineers from the source.
Click to expand...

CD isn't mp3; it's losslessbitstream as well.

But I don't give a crap about studies. I know that I can tell the difference between the same song in 192kbps mp3 and FLAC on my Z5500s connected via Optical S/PDIF to my computer, and no "double-blind test" is going to tell me differently.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
nilepez said:
I don't get the hostility towards this product.
Click to expand...

Because it's a shitty, pattent-incumbered replacement to a shitty, pattent-incumbered format, plus more useless shit, in a world where there are a half-dozen other formats that are either better or do the same thing. There's a difference between not being interested in an artist, and not wanting constant bombardment of stupid info about them. ;-)
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Spewn said:
Of course not. Mp3's exploded the way they did because the end-user embraced them. Unless a new format becomes popular with the people doing the work, the encoding, it won't take off unless it's got some kind of sponsorship(a store opens up that sells only in that format, for example). Mp3, asf, divx, xvid, why are they well-known? Because the guys doing the ripping chose them. I don't see Mp3+bloat becoming a feature most people ripping songs are going to be interested in using.
Click to expand...

Unless I missed something, I don't believe that it is something you'll rip to. This is something they want to offer for those that download from iTunes, Amazon and so on. The idea, as I understand it, is to give people who buy tracks/digital albums something extra. To me, it sounds like BD+ on Blu-Ray.

The downside of that is that I've yet to see a single BD+ feature that was worth my time. However, interviews, tour dates and so on, would interest me. Unfortunately, I don't think that we'll be able to rip a CD and get these features. You might be able to click on a link on the CD and get something similar, but it sounds like if you opt in on, for example, tour dates, it will push that information to you, which is a nice feature. There are a lot of bands I'd like to see, but I don't like them enough to sit there and monitor when they're touring and where.
 
It's a good idea and i can see that it will get popular. Not that i like it though. I'll stick to WAV and FLAC for home and 320kbps MP3 for walkman thanks.
 
nilepez said:
Then again, they were mastered for SACD/DVD-A, and CD's simply can't reproduce it correctly.....
Click to expand...
What exactly can the CD not reproduce?

djBon2112 said:
I know that I can tell the difference between the same song in 192kbps mp3 and FLAC on my Z5500s connected via Optical S/PDIF to my computer, and no "double-blind test" is going to tell me differently.
Click to expand...
You need to perform blind testing to validate your perceptions, however. Otherwise, you're only potentially a victim of your own psychological delusions. See: the placebo effect.

If you're entirely unwilling to perform a double-blind test, that only demonstrates that you fear not being able to claim to be able to perceive a difference without lying. There's no other possible explanation for why one wouldn't willingly submit himself to a mere 10-15 minutes of focused critical listening. It's harsh, but unfortunately quite true, I've found.

As for the studies: don't worry about 'em. They are interesting and useful but aren't applicable to everyone. The only "study" you'd want to concern yourself with is an ABX test to determine what you can and can not hear.

expansionsss said:
Vinyl. Analog.
Click to expand...
Terrible. I'm a big fan of recordings that are devoid of distracting noise and pops, which is conveniently what I get with digital (even MP3!). Plus, there's no frequency shifting, degradation over repeated plays or cleaning required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top