[thechungster]

Quote:

All4MP3 has announced the launch of their new mp3HD codec which promises to keep "100% bit-exact replica of CD tracks" when ripping from a physical audio CD. According to the official site, mp3HD offers the following: * mp3HD is a lossless audio codec (100% bit-exact replica of CD tracks) * Backward Compatible to mp3 * File extension .mp3 * Bitrates for music approximately 500 to 900 kbps rates (similar to other lossless codecs), depending on genre * Embedded mp3 track and the mp3HD file share the same id3 metadata * Encoding parameters (e.g. bit rate), ancillary data and meta data of embedded mp3 track are under control The group also says the average mp3HD bit rate for an everyday "top 40" pop song is 876 kbit/s, for a filesize of about 26 MB for a 4 minute track. Audiophiles should be very excited for this new codec, as most mp3 players, especially the Apple iPod line, does not allow playback of lossless formats such as FLAC.

What was ever wrong with FLAC or ALAC? The last paragraph is slightly misleading saying that the iPod does not play lossless formats... obviously it does

 

[smrtby123]

This looks interesting and I'll have to wait and see if there are any reviews/tests/comparisons to flac and whatnot. File size looks on par with flac, but I would want to see how good the codec actually is. I know the flac guys put a lot of effort into testing to make sure each build gives bit-perfect compression.

 

[thechungster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smrtby123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This looks interesting and I'll have to wait and see if there are any reviews/tests/comparisons to flac and whatnot. File size looks on par with flac, but I would want to see how good the codec actually is. I know the flac guys put a lot of effort into testing to make sure each build gives bit-perfect compression.

I think I would still prefer ALAC/FLAC over this. It says maximum rate is roughly 900kbps... There are songs in my library with 1100, but maybe 900kbps might not sound any different. We'll have to wait and listen.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thechungster /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think I would still prefer ALAC/FLAC over this. It says maximum rate is roughly 900kbps... There are songs in my library with 1100, but maybe 900kbps might not sound any different. We'll have to wait and listen.

If it is lossless and bit-exact as claimed then it won't sound any different (when playing the HD stream.) But I can't really see the point of this format... you'll need a new codec to play the lossless portion, so why not just use FLAC? The lossy MP3 portion will play on any player, but what's the point of a lossy MP3 file that large?

.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

I can see a very big benefit for people like me who wish they could reliably maintain two seperate libraries easily...one lossless for home rig use and one lossy for portable rigs. The embedded lossy mp3 would seem to address that issue, as you could set, say, iTunes to extract the lossy portion to your portable player instead of the lossless file.

 

[krmathis]

Nothing wrong with FLAC or ALAC!

They probably just want to extend the MP3 codec, allowing playback of lossless files on players not originally supporting so.

 

[mark2410]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nothing wrong with FLAC or ALAC! They probably just want to extend the MP3 codec, allowing playback of lossless files on players not originally supporting so.

erm no

they wanted to play on the name of the most popular and recognised codec to be able to sell new licences and make more money

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2410 /img/forum/go_quote.gif erm no they wanted to play on the name of the most popular and recognised codec to be able to sell new licences and make more money

What?
What you say is probably true, but that don't make what I said wrong. Cause they clearly say "Backward Compatible to mp3", which to me imply that these new MP3HD files can play on any MP3 player.

 

[Nocturnal310]

this will be great...mp3 was always about compatibility ..and now it offers quality.

 

[Rempert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif What? What you say is probably true, but that don't make what I said wrong. Cause they clearly say "Backward Compatible to mp3", which to me imply that these new MP3HD files can play on any MP3 player.

And that will have great appeal to artists, labels, etc. who want to sell or share lossless singles. Because mp3s play on darn near anything, and you want your customer to be able to play your song without having to consult tech support.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif What you say is probably true, but that don't make what I said wrong. Cause they clearly say "Backward Compatible to mp3", which to me imply that these new MP3HD files can play on any MP3 player.

No, that's not how it works. The MP3HD format will not allow current players to play lossless MP3 files, rather it encodes two separate streams in one file, one lossless and one lossy. A special codec is required to play the lossless portion and if a player is not so equipped then it will just play the lossy part... so in a standard MP3 player you'll be hearing a lossy file... but have the same filesize as lossless!

.

 

[insyte]

I think I will be sticking to FLAC

 

[smrtby123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, that's not how it works. The MP3HD format will not allow current players to play lossless MP3 files, rather it encodes two separate streams in one file, one lossless and one lossy. A special codec is required to play the lossless portion and if a player is not so equipped then it will just play the lossy part... so in a standard MP3 player you'll be hearing a lossy file... but have the same filesize as lossless! .

Oh well then that really isn't backwards compatible. Its like packaging a CD and DVD-A in the same box and saying oh if you don't have a DVD player just use the CD, but you still have to carry around that DVD, so its pretty much useless. This really does seem to be trying to cash in on the MP3 name. I will stick to flac, since I know those guys are ridiculously stringent in their coding.

 

[thechungster]

FLAC≥ALAC>MP3HD

I believe that FLAC is greater since it's open sourced, then ALAC since even though it's just Apple, it's at least something lossless for the iPod, and then mp3HD...

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smrtby123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh well then that really isn't backwards compatible.

Nope. I got kind of excited for a minute before I realized what they were really doing (which isn't very easy to discern from the scant documentation.)

The only potential advantage is as Jeff noted, i.e. you could store your lossy and lossless tracks in a single file. But then there would have to be some mechanism for your sync software to send only the lossy portion to your player else you be storing a huge file on your player with no benefit. It will take a lot of support from other vendors for this scheme to catch on and I kind of doubt that will happen, but we'll see...