New high-quality MP3(Pro) format debuts

bonkers325

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
13,076
1
0
"...Thomson Multimedia and the Fraunhofer Institute, the companies behind the MP3 digital music format, are releasing an upgraded version of their music format Thursday called MP3Pro. The companies hope to attract software and hardware developers to the new technology but are also providing a version for consumers to play with. Although the release will be limited, it will include a new player and "ripper," or file creator, that will allow music lovers to create near-CD quality digital music files using only about half the disc space previously required for MP3s.

While MP3Pro files will work with software and devices based on the current MP3 format, they may sound worse on systems designed for standard MP3s because of differences in the way the sound is recorded. MP3Pro uses two separate streams of data to improve audio quality, only one of which can be detected by older players.

The release comes as the old MP3 format is under increasing pressure from companies such as Microsoft and RealNetworks, who have struck deals with record companies to use their technology in subscription or download services. But with the nearly universal use of MP3s online, Thomson and Fraunhofer hope to finally win their way into the record companies' graces. Others aren't nearly as confident about this strategy's success. Analysts note that even the new MP3Pro will lack any kind of built-in anti-piracy mechanism. This makes it a far less attractive choice than Windows Media from the record companies' perspective, they say..."

Link
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
MP3Pro rocks, I like it already.

<<Analysts note that even the new MP3Pro will lack any kind of built-in anti-piracy mechanism.>>

Excellent, no RIAA BS to deal with.

<< This makes it a far less attractive choice than Windows Media from the record companies' perspective>>

Yeah, less attractive from the record company's perspective that would rather have everything in the hands of the Redmond Borg (aka Microshaft) and Windows Media Format than have it be an open standard that lots of companies can develop for. :| Yep, less attractive for the record companies, but far more attractive for the consumers.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126


<< New high-quality MP3(Pro) format debuts >>


isn't high-quality and pretty much any form of music compression an oxymoron? CDs might be high quality... but you lose a lot of dynamic range with even those... go SACD!
 

Pyro

Banned
Sep 2, 2000
1,483
0
0


<< How long is it until WinAmp supports this? >>



they'll probably have a plug in in several weeks...
 

pulpp

Platinum Member
May 14, 2001
2,137
0
0


<<

<< New high-quality MP3(Pro) format debuts >>


isn't high-quality and pretty much any form of music compression an oxymoron? CDs might be high quality... but you lose a lot of dynamic range with even those... go SACD!
>>



not nesseceraly, compression have to do with the way the data is stored, if you can still store as much details about the audio stream and do it more effciently, you get the best of both worlds
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91
Well, I just ripped a song from a CD of mine @ 64kbps MP3Pro format then played back the same file that I had previously ripped at 192kbps in regular MP3 format. I couldn't tell the difference.

And the file size of the MP3Pro file is 2.42MB vs 7.26MB.

THIS FRIGGEN RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!! WinAmp needs to hurry up and get a plugin for this.


On a side note, the MP3Pro file sounded like a$$ when played back through WinAmp or WMP7.1
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Ya, according to Winamp, the one stream it can read is only 22khz instead of 44khz. That would describe the song quality(or lack thereof). Actual audio quality wise, I'm just as impressed as NFS4. I also did a 192 vs. 64 comparison, and got the same results, no difference to me.:D I see this format going far, since among other things, all the file sharing services can support it as is.:)
 

piku

Diamond Member
May 30, 2000
4,049
1
0
Great. Now I have to re-download/re-rip everything.

Oh well, my hard drive will thank me.
 

Aihyah

Banned
Apr 21, 2000
2,593
0
0
i can't wait for one of those audiophile site to do an indepth analysis of this format to see its true strengths and weaknesses:) are there any already?

makes me happy i didn't shell for a mp3 car deck yet hehe
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
re-rip and re-encode my CDs for the 3rd time... blah...
 

randomlinh

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,846
2
0
linh.wordpress.com
heh, re ripping cd's is fun :) i need to anyway.. i killed my mp3 dir thinking i had backed them up... lo and behold... i can't find my freakin cds (backups that is)!!!

Now, to figure out what to do.. hehe

 

Siva

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2001
5,472
0
71
damn! its awesome! sounds as good if not better than 192kbps and its so much smaller. Great, now I have 1000+ mp3s to download again :p
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
i've got my own thred on this in general hardware, surprised it hasnt been locked. Anyway, NFS4, you seem to be liking this, but you also were an advocate of WMA8. Personally, at 64kbps, I cant tell a sh*t of a difference between WMA8 and MP3Pro. Whats your thoughts?

And do you ever sleep? :D
 

vohwink1

Member
Nov 14, 2000
174
0
0
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.