MP3Pro! Hmm...

[BD2003]

Just tried out the MP3Pro codec. Encoded a file ripped from a CD, and well...I dunno what to think of it. It doesnt sound much better than WMA at 64kbps, slightly worse. But far far better than MP3 at 64. And it sounds HORRIBLE in anything but the MP3Pro player. Actually read it as 22khz.

Being that it doesnt sound any better than WMA, whats the point? We're going to need newer hardware to play the mp3pro files, but WMA, even the newest version works just fine on most current. As soon as WMA gets VBR for audio files itll be awesome.

I'd have to say theyre about equal, but I'm no audiologist.

Anyone has any web space to lend me to upload the files to, and I'll upload some samples.

I'm using a fairly taxing song, hard rock. Linkin Park - A Place for my head. Great song no matter the quality.

Anyone else try it? Whaddaya think?

Also, CPU usage.

On a C650.

Mp3Pro at 64 - 12%
WMA 8 at 64 - 4%
MP3 at 192 - 2%

Quite the jump there. I'd imagine it would take a Pentium 200 MMX to even play the mp3pro. Without MMX (possible even SSE or 3dnow), you'd probably be SOL.

 

[Ryan]

All your players have to support the MP3Pro codec. The MP3pro format is delivered in two streams in the file, so it effectivly delivers the same bit rate at half the size. BUT, current mp3 players can only play 1 of the streams (as current MP3's are only comprised of one stream), and not the other. That's why quality sounds soo crappy.

 

[BD2003]

If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I did play the Mp3pro in the mp3pro player. Like I said, when played through winamp, it does sound horrible. They both sound great, one would likely have to go through a wave subtraction process to tell the difference, but that currently isnt possible.

I'm going to try a more acousticly oriented song, to see if Mp3pro is any better. Dont get me wrong, it sounds GREAT for 64kbps, but it doesnt sound any better than WMA, and considering the hardware and cpu usage factors, it doesnt have much of a point, unless you really really hate microsoft.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Being that it doesnt sound any better than WMA, whats the point? We're going to need newer hardware to play the mp3pro files, but WMA, even the newest version works just fine on most current. As soon as WMA gets VBR for audio files itll be awesome. >>

Sounds like you answered your own question: vbr. The &quot;W&quot; in WMA stands for Windows. Microsoft owns WMA. Eventually, if WMA dominates, MS may take advantage of their audio format dominance at the expense of the consumers. I'm not all anti-MS but there's a reason for not putting all of your eggs (standards) in one basket (Microsoft) though I know some feel that's a strength.

 

[BD2003]

Hey man, I dont care who makes the codec. Microsoft can suck my balls for all I care. I just want good quality at low bitrates, that I can play on my portable player, and with lower cpu usage, more battery time. I doubt the fact that MP3Pro can even work on my pocket pc because of CPU limitations.

Anyways, my next song...and you guys are going to love this. George Michael - Faith. And the verdict is:


It still doesnt sound better than WMA8. They sound roughly equal. In other words, they both sound great for 64kbps. Just as good as 128kbps MP3, and to be honest, for this song, I doubt I could distinguish it from the actual CD. I'd be far more impressed by it if WMA8 didnt exist.

Although to be honest, Mp3pro is probably going to dominate. Its an MP3. Name recognition. Even the same 3 letter file type.

However, something else has to be considered. Mp3 has been using the same codec for years, with no updates. MS has been constantly updating theirs, slowly making improvements. I expect to see WMA9 in a year, but I've got to wonder, will mp3pro be updated as well? Considering the history, it doesnt seem so.

Although, as far as I can tell, nothing in WMA has changed, just the encoder. New Mp3 encoders come out all the time. Someone would have to verify that the wma codec itself has changed otherwise. Because WMA8 plays just fine, with full quality in older WMA environments with no codec updates (winamp original wma player).

Anyways, I dont see what vbr has to do with windows or microsoft. MS has VBR Video 8, they just havent gotten around to the audio part. Maybe they never will. I dont see why it couldnt be done if they felt like doing so.

 

[Auric]

Much ado about diddly. I'm not going to get my panties all bunched up about 64k audio compression if it is not going to match, say, current 175k VBR MP3 in quality because those are not overly large and sound pretty good and if I really must fit more on a portable medium then I am willing to sacrifice a little quality to do so if necessary but I am not going to rush to switch formats for general use. The battle for 64k audio is just not really a consumer issue but a company issue. MS, RN, and CT want to sell other companies the gear to stream their format and from the consumer point of view it does not really matter which so long as it works well. For those that use audio compression for general use themselves the old MP3 format does the job and really is only limited by bandwidth and cheap storage media which will continue to improve.

 

[Topochicho]

you will care that MS owns the WMA standard when they start taking control off your music. MP3 has no inherent license, WMA is licensed to the hilt. And it is totally controlled by MS... who of course will do anything the recording industry says as long as its profitable for them. Wait until XP and you won't be able to rip a song on your server (old machine, but big harddrive), and be able to listen to them on your game machine because there is a license embeded in WMA that only allows you to listen on the machine that it was ripped on.

And as for updates, maybe mp3 was done right the first time and doesn't need the constant fixing WMA does.

 

[McCarthy]

My observations:

WMA - Two downsides:
*The &quot;Microsoft&quot; baggage
*It hurts my ears. It's more distinct, brighter than mp3, but gives me an impression my eardrum is being scraped with a razorblade. Not what I'm looking for in music or spoken word recording. If this has been eliminated in version 8, that's nice.
Upside - updated regularly. And pushes others to continue development.

mp3PRO -
*Sounds nice and the demo is limited to 64, full will allow more options.
*Will go down to 24kbps mono, where WMA hurts my ears bigtime and I do a lot of low bitrate work. Currently the old Fraunhofer still is my choice for low bitrate. Personally I'd go with Realaudio before WMA, though RealNetworks seem to have licensed themselves into near oblivion.

general mp3 -
*None of the MS baggage. And even where licensing is required it's nowhere near as restrictive/expensive as WMA.
*There have been updates to mp3 codecs over the years. Not like there's just the one. Fraunhofer started it all, Xing made mp3 encoding fast and easy (at a quality loss), BladeEnc offered a higher quality free alternative, LAME offers the same and is updated constantly, 3.88 just came out what, last month? Now sure, they're all stuck within the limitation of working with present decoders so they can't make big switches, but tweaking has continued for both quality and speed.

One thing I'm sure of. Glad I haven't bought a Rio Volt yet. Hopefully the old ones will be able to support mp3PRO through a flash upgradge, and even if they aren't, a new revision could be put out. Just hope they license this quickly. And sure, keep WMA support on the volt, I get stuck with some of those occasionally.

The CPU usage does bug me a bit. 6x as much as the regular mp3 decoder may be a problem when it comes to portables supporting it right away That, and the 96kbps stereo ceiling are both concerns to an extent.

--Mc

 

[Aihyah]

just wondering if 128kbs mp3 pro= 175kbs vrb/192 cbr mp3 or something, that would be nice finally a reason to use 128.. the 12:1 compression ratio they keep bragging about.

 

[BD2003]

WMA used to hurt my ears as well, but I can definitely say its been fixed. Just as a 128kbps WMA would blow away a 128kbps MP3, I think its safe to say a 128kbps MP3Pro would be at well. It'll be interesting to see how well MP3pro scales with bitrate. Supposedly the big release is going to be tommorrow. With the added CPU usage, Mp3pro has to be doing something that WMA is not. I wouldnt be surprised if at 64kbps wave subtraction tests show that theres a difference, but to be honest, my ears cant tell. Just as WMA needed time, I expect that Mp3pro will as well.

For local PC usage, none of this is really a concern. But for portable players (not counting mp3 cd players, but theyre not all the portable), 64kbps is the magic number. Right now, and apparently for a while, WMA is going to own Mp3pro in that arena. And considering the fees they plan to charge for people planning to stream it, well, theyre digging themsevles into a hole. For content providers, 2% of rev. and a 2,000 minimum fee. Its free for personal usage, but if youre going to be making money off of it, they want a cut. As far as I know, theres no such fees associated with WMA.

Time will tell.

 

[Radboy]

The MP3 encoding wizards hang out at this bbs here.

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm with Topochicho. With MP3 you're in control as to how you manage your music. You can pick from a huge selection of players. You can pick any OS. You can output to an analog source. MP3 gives you complete freedom.

WMA means MS and the RIAA will eventually be in control. They'll start with the SDMI control control stuff being included in XP. They'll tell you when and where you can copy and use the music and at what $$$. I guess if you like being on a leash, go with WMA.

To me, as long as MP3 gets the job done it will be my standard of choice. Don't like leashes.

 

[Shmorq]

<< MP3 has no inherent license, WMA is licensed to the hilt. >>

I believe Fraunhofer Institute has the rights to MP3's. In fact they receive a small licensing fee for all the MP3 players sold.

If Fraunhofer is indeed looking to get 2% of all revenues generated by MP3pro, I don't see this as being any better than Microsoft. But at least for personal use, it'll be free which is also the case with WMA.

 

[DeeK]

<< MP3 has no inherent license >>


http://www.mp3licensing.com/

So much for that assertion.

Seeing as we're talking about codecs here, I'd like to ask: does anyone here has an opinion about Ogg Vorbis? I personally use it to encode all my CDs, and Most songs sound near CD-quality to me at 128kbps, whereas none of the various MP3 encoders out there sound close to CD at 128. Not LAME, not Fraunhofer, none. The RC1 release should be available around the weekend, with 1.0 in the next couple of months.

 

[Soccerman]

well as long as I can get free players (like winamp), and free encoders (like EAC with LAME), and a firmware update on my CD/MP3 player (Rio Volt), and most importantly of all, that this actually DOES sound better at lower bitrates, then I'll try it out.

until that happens, there is no way I'm converting my whole collection.

even IF it sounds better then MP3 when compared at 64k, etc, it has to sound at LEAST as good as MP3 does at ~192 (VBR rules!).

I can easily hear the compression of a 128K MP3 file, which is why I avoid it like the plague..

why would I support this? because in all cases, less bloat = better assuming you do not lose functionality. this includes movies, programs, sounds, OS's, etc.

 

[Topochicho]

DeeK: Ummm... your link leads to the people licensing the right to create mp3 PROGRAMS, not mp3s. There is no inherent licensing IN the mp3. You can play it anywere on any player. WMA has a license mechanism built into EACH AND EVERY WMA file you create. There has been plenty of flck already about WMA files in XP and how testers are finding themselves unable to listen to thier files in certain cituations. Not a problem with MP3.

 

[DeeK]

Misunderstanding. My bad. Do keep in mind that MP3Pro will likely have inherent licensing in order to appease the idiots in the recording industry.

 

[BD2003]

This is just a demo, soon commercial encoders will be available that encode higher and lower bitrates than 64. Pretty sure theres an upper limit, think its 192, but thats supposed to be almost carbon copy.

 

[vohwink1]

Here is a question for you guys....

With the new pro format, will you be able to select bitrates higher than 128? I thought I read that it would do it in 128 but sound as good or better than 192? Anyway... whatever the case may be, I'm in the process of ripping all my CDs (150 or so) into mp3s and I'm about a quarter of the way done. I'm encoding them at like 250ish VBR 2. Now the sound is incredible, I can't determine the difference between a CD being played on my computer or the mp3. But I CAN notice a differenct at 192.
So with that said, I have halted my CD ripping until I can determine if it would be worth re-ripping all my stuff with the pro version and conserve some space, or keep the really high quality and use more space? I have an 80 gig drive not really being used so it doesn't really bother me if I have big files or not.. I'm just all about quality.

 

[McCarthy]

According to the RCA page, 96 will be the upper bitrate for stereo, 48 for mono.

Personally I'm already losing interest in mp3PRO. The demo made a couple nice sounding files for me, and for streamed content, hell yes, I'm interested. But for creating my own files, I don't see changing from good old fashioned mp3 for awhile.

------------------------------------------------------------

The following bit rates will be supported by the first products expected by the end of 2001.
Mono: 24, 32, 40, 48 kbps
Stereo: 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96 kbps

Source

--Mc
Grr, typo

 

[coolVariable]

Sorry for the stupid question but what is &quot;vbr&quot;?

 

[DeeK]

VBR = Variable Bit Rate. VBR encoding uses more bits to encode a complex section of music than a simple one. The result is that bits are more efficiently used and the audio sounds better at the same filesize.

 

[coolVariable]

ok. But isn't that what mp3pro is all about?
Is this possible with the old mp3 too?

 

[Soccerman]

I still would like to try this out..

where can I check these out?

 

[Radboy]

here