NEW MP3 Pro... whats the betting it sucks!
- Thread starter Duncan
- Start date
TimSchirmer
Repelling digital infidels. (Would that be called the Digifadah?)
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2001
- Posts
- 3,246
- Likes
- 83
ugh!
this is not good news...
this is not good news...
lan
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 8,606
- Likes
- 18
Posted: 11/01/2001
This is kinda old news?
This is kinda old news?
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2001
- Posts
- 13,473
- Likes
- 1,813
Quote:
You do have a point there
Fingers crossed... they scrapped the idea...
Fingers crossed
| Originally posted by lan Posted: 11/01/2001 This is kinda old news? |
You do have a point there
Fingers crossed... they scrapped the idea...
Fingers crossed
averydonovan
Headphoneus Supremus
From what I understand there are already some players that use MP3 Pro by RCA. I've tried making some 64Kbps MP3 Pro files. They sounded just as bad as 64Kbps regular MP3s or WMA's.
aos
May one day solve the Mystery of the Whoosh
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Posts
- 1,841
- Likes
- 13
I think MusicMatch Jukebox - that comes with iPod - can encode in mp3Pro. iPod will play it back though I can't say is it in compatibility mode (in which case it sounds like a 64kbps file) or real mp3Pro playback.
mkmelt
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Posts
- 907
- Likes
- 19
PC Magazine recently compared the various audio compression methods. As I recall, the study found that MP3 Pro sounded superior to standard MP3 encoding at a low sampling rate (64K), and performed about the same at a 128K sampling rate. At the higher sampling rate of 192K, MP3 encoding performed better than all other codecs tested. The study also considered both critical listening (through headphones) and non-critical listening (through a PC sound card and PC speakers).
I have goofed around with my version of Nero Burns ROM that came with my CD-RW drive, and can encode for MP3 and MP3 Pro. At the lower sampling rates, MP3 Pro clearly had the better top end. The real benefit of MP3 Pro is the files can be anywhere from half to two-thirds as large as an MP3 file and subjectively sound the same. So you can sample at between 64K and 96K (instead of 128K) and the resulting MP3 Pro will sound as good, to most people, as the 128K MP3 encoded file.
If you have a flash player with limited memory, say 64MB, or even 128MB, then you would benefit from being able to load more tunes for portable listening using MP3 Pro. If you have an iPod of one of the other hard drive portable players with 5-40 GB of storage, then your listening pleasure will benefit from encoding your MP3s at 192K with variable bit rate (VBR).
I have goofed around with my version of Nero Burns ROM that came with my CD-RW drive, and can encode for MP3 and MP3 Pro. At the lower sampling rates, MP3 Pro clearly had the better top end. The real benefit of MP3 Pro is the files can be anywhere from half to two-thirds as large as an MP3 file and subjectively sound the same. So you can sample at between 64K and 96K (instead of 128K) and the resulting MP3 Pro will sound as good, to most people, as the 128K MP3 encoded file.
If you have a flash player with limited memory, say 64MB, or even 128MB, then you would benefit from being able to load more tunes for portable listening using MP3 Pro. If you have an iPod of one of the other hard drive portable players with 5-40 GB of storage, then your listening pleasure will benefit from encoding your MP3s at 192K with variable bit rate (VBR).
Users who are viewing this thread
