[nirvanaxp]

that's a great idea only because it enables any run of the mill mp3 player to become a lossless player as well.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nirvanaxp /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's a great idea only because it enables any run of the mill mp3 player to become a lossless player as well.

It doesn't make any old mp3 player a lossless player, it makes any old mp3 player play the lossy section of the mp3HD file. Only mp3HD compatible players will play the full lossless file, the other ones will just play the lossy file embedded into the file. It's been said before a few times - an mp3HD has both a lossless and a lossy file combined together within it.

 

[ekliptiko]

Quote:

that's a great idea only because it enables any run of the mill mp3 player to become a lossless player as well.

lol. one more time

 

[xnor]

I don't like this format.
 
First of all it builds upon mp3. I've had so many problems with mp3 in the past, ranging from problems with corrupted tags, incompatible tagging software, etc. to erroneous xing (VBR) headers, frames with non-mp3 data, audio data corruption ...
 
(never had such problems or even a single problem with, e.g., flac)
 
It seems to inherit most limitations from mp3, for example the max. sample size and sampling rate.
 
The mp3 "specification" is a mess. We can only hope that Thomson can provide a real specification with mp3hd, but since it's backwards compatible there's probably no way to clean up the initial mess without breaking things ("compatiblity") even more.
 
mp3hd encoded songs are usually not only bigger than their flac counterparts, they are bigger than the flac + (lossy) mp3 combined.
 
Encoding and decoding is complex, and slow, slow, slow.
It decoded a flac album in 7 seconds, with mp3hd it took 11 times longer: 77 seconds. Hardware players will need even more complex/battery hungry chips.
Encoding took just under 1 minute in flac (highest compression level), and over 3 minutes with mp3HDencoder.
 
VBR V0 doesn't seem to be supported for the lossy part of an mp3HD file, only V1 to V5 it seems.
 
... /wallbash 
 
Did I mention that I don't like this format? 
 
 
edit: Oh great, just found out how "compatible" it is. Tag an mp3hd file with fb2k, dbpoweramp or mp3tag and the lossless part will be corrupted or chopped away, whatever.
We can only hope this format will NOT be a mainstream success.
 
edit2: Oh, wow. The lossless part is stored in ID3v2 tags. That's a horrible design decision. That's not even design, it's a hack. Not only because of the aforementioned incompatibility problems with mp3 tagging software, but also because it limits the size of mp3hd files.

 

[haloxt]

At least we can thank them for being about ten years too late and letting FLAC become the lossless compression standard.
 
No just kidding . Whatever it takes to convince more mp3 player manufacturers  to have lossless!!!

 

[khaos974]

There already exists a format that combines lossy and lossless, it's called wavpack.

 

[TheKisho]

This sounds like a horrible idea.  Can anybody else foresee software players screwing up and only playing lossy tracks, or just saying the file is plain corrupted?  I can see that being more of a support headache.  Mp3HD sounds like a too little too late hack job.  Still for some reason I can see the mainstream jumping on it because it says 'mp3' and 'HD'!  [They should of included '3D' to top it off (mp3DHD)].  What I want to know is if they are going to allow people to convert the lossless portion to FLAC, or are they going to put some annoy DRM to prevent bit perfect CD copies from being 'shared' [or so they'd claim].  I personally will keep using FLAC and Rockbox on my iPod.

 

[darknessproz]

I personally won't trust a codec that comes with zero documentation.

 

[TheKisho]

Documentation? Manuals? Real men don't need no documentation, they improvise! ;D
 

There is documentation to go along with the codec and source code? [FLAC]  Where's the fun in that?  Half the enjoyment is figuring out how something work on your own by taking it apart and half heartedly putting it back together.

 

[darknessproz]

You probably have ZERO experience in serious programming to be saying that. Even for something as trivial as a school project, it was a total PITA to figure out what a teammate was doing without any documentation.

 

[haloxt]

He was joking.

 

[Canuckabroad81]

Quote:

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...

Wait no more. I have a .flac player for Ipod touch. You can purchase this on apples app store!  Do a search and you'll see that there is a player. It works beautifully on my Apple component doc hooked up to a smallish 30W (2x15W) tube amp!   

 

[xnor]

Hey, nothing against the good old "code doesn't need comments if it's self-documenting" approach! 

 

[TheKisho]

I was kidding.  A smart programmer should at least make some kind of notes within the code.
 
On a side note I cannot program, even when there is documentation.  [Damn you BASIC for screwing with my learning ability]!
 
 
@Canuckabroad81 are you using the VLC app or what app are you using to play FLAC back on your iPod Touch?

 

[darknessproz]

Ohh. Re-reading my post, it came out a bit harsh. Sorry for that. I haven't downloaded the codec pack. Does it actually come with ANY documentation, even a small note here and there?
 
Quote:

I was kidding.  A smart programmer should at least make some kind of notes within the code.
 
On a side note I cannot program, even when there is documentation.  [Damn you BASIC for screwing with my learning ability]!
 
 
@Canuckabroad81 are you using the VLC app or what app are you using to play FLAC back on your iPod Touch?