The future..??

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
they upped the bitrate to 256kbps, still far from the "best" mp3 and quite unlistenable. Funny they haven't embraced VBRs since they obviously have an issue with bandwidth or they would at least give you 320 mp3s.

I don't buy iTunes either, but to be fair, they sell AAC, which to my ears sounds considerably better than MP3. I rip my CDs to 192K AAC for use on a Shuffle, and it's surprisingly listenable.

One of the main issues with MP3 (MPEG1 v3) is that it suffers from pre-echo. This is a bug in the encoding scheme and cannot be circumvented. It leads to problems with leading edge definition and timing, of course. AAC (MPEG 4) doesn't suffer from this problem as far as I know.

That said, there are several references to a new lossless MP3 format called mp3HD which is backwardly compatible from places like the Guardian (hmm) and Cnet. From CNet:

It's called mp3HD and still uses the traditional .mp3 file extension. Simply put, it works by storing a conventional lossy MP3 track that standard players can play, alongside a 'lossless' version -- both audio streams are contained in one single MP3 file. It's similar to how hybrid SACDs work.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
From CNet:
It's called mp3HD and still uses the traditional .mp3 file extension. Simply put, it works by storing a conventional lossy MP3 track that standard players can play, alongside a 'lossless' version -- both audio streams are contained in one single MP3 file. It's similar to how hybrid SACDs work.

Also from the CNet article:-
A 6 minute 22 second mp3HD file (Pink Floyd's Money), using default settings, gave us a 48MB file -- just 5MB larger than a file ripped in FLAC, level 8.

A normal 320Kbps MP3 of the same Pink Floyd song was just 14.6MB


So that works out at about 7.5Mb per minute, WAV is under 10Mb!

It is going to get a lot of support when you say to the kiddiewinkies "You can only get 16hrs of music on a 8gb iPod, instead of the 133hrs Apple promised you."

I spot a duck with a walking stick.

Cheers

John

quote:

Originally posted by fixedwheel:

So that works out at about 7.5Mb per minute.

For that Pink Floyd song only.

For compressed lossless (ALAC, FLAC, etc) the file size is directly related to the complexity and loudness of the music.

~75 minutes of Metallica can easily exceed 450MB when converted to FLAC.

Whereas ~75 minutes of Nick Drake will compress to 250MB.

In both cases the ~75 minutes of music would be ~750MB if left as WAV.

I really don't know why we're worrying about file size at this point. Storage prices continue to decrease and I've seen 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda SATA drives for $135.

While someone may have a preference for file format I really think that the megabyte issue for file size or CD length is pretty much moot at this point, unless someone is considering solid state.

I haven't seen anything written yet that has convinced my that SSD is better than HDD for playback of music files. Even SSD in an HDX has its own particularset of issues that need to be overcome in the system development.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
In both cases the ~75 minutes of music would be ~750MB if left as WAV.

My point was more along the lines of "Why would you use a file format that takes up more space than a lossless format?"

Cheers

John

quote:

Originally posted by gary1 (US):
I really don't know why we're worrying about file size at this point. Storage prices continue to decrease and I've seen 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda SATA drives for $135.

While someone may have a preference for file format I really think that the megabyte issue for file size or CD length is pretty much moot at this point, unless someone is considering solid state.

But why use a format that takes up more space than a lossless? So you can play a crappy copy on the Nano, that takes up the full space?

quote:

I haven't seen anything written yet that has convinced my that SSD is better than HDD for playback of music files. Even SSD in an HDX has its own particularset of issues that need to be overcome in the system development.

Please elaborate. I think no noise, no vibration and minimal heat generation would count as advantages. The only real downside at the moment is space, but that is changing rapidly, as 256Gb drives are already available.

Cheers

John

quote:

My point was more along the lines of "Why would you use a file format that takes up more space than a lossless format?"

Because the decoding of lossless files uses processor cycles and buffer space that otherwise could be used solely for playback, resulting in a slight difference in sound quality (even though the uncompressed data samples should be identical).

The easiest way to hear this is to encode two WAV files as FLAC, with different levels of storage compression–quite eye-opening, really.

Fixed-disk space has gotten so cheap these days that it is really pointless to bother with compression, either storage or data, unless you absolutely, desperately need it.

@David

Maybe on old computers but for any newish computer the decoding of the lossless to uncompressed format is almost a no time task. I think it took 2 seconds to do the decode for a 3 minute song. I believe I heard the computer whistling to itself and polishing it's nails at the time

Having said that one cannot theoretically rule out the theory ( as has been states before) it is just filed under extremely improbable.

Encoding is where most of the effort, time and resources are used.

My PC is fairly studly... but does not appreciate other activities when compressing to FLAC.

That being said, without tag support in WAVS, I cannot imagine using it. Despite the need to buy 4TB of drive space to do so.

Space is surely getting less expensive but the last time I checked, $1000 USD is plenty of money.

quote:

Space is surely getting less expensive

Space is infinite.
It is dark.
Space is neutral.
It is cold.
Stars occupy minute areas of space. They are clustered a few billion here. A few billion there. As if seeking consolation in numbers.
Space does not care.

Space does not threaten.
Space does not comfort.
It does not sleep; it does not wake; it does not dream; it does not hope; it does not fear; it does not love; it does not hate; it does not encourage any of these qualities.
Space cannot be measured. It cannot be angered, it cannot be placated. It cannot be summed up. Space is there.
Space is not large and it is not small. It does not live and it does not die. It does not offer truth and neither does it lie.
Space is a remorseless, senseless, impersonal fact.
Space is the absence of time and of matter

there is no future were all doomed doomed doomed i say....

Bertrand Russell called the Universe a "brute fact." I would not have wanted to argue the point with him.

ATB from George

quote:

I would not have wanted to argue the point with him

I would never argue with anybody called Bert - Bert Russell, Bert Einstein or my old Uncle Bert - they were all far too clever for me.

quote:

It does not offer truth and neither does it lie.

Quite.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

That being said, without tag support in WAVS, I cannot imagine using it. Despite the need to buy 4TB of drive space to do so.

.

If you've got 4000 Cds that you still listen to, you can't do much else

I happily get by, most of the time, with 120Gb on my iPod Classic. Might hear a few tunes twice on shuffle, but hey! I bought them 'cos I like them.

Rocking,

Not 4000... but in a few more years.....


I have a fair amount of 24/96 transfers which are huge. And even a few 24/196 which are even bigger. I've been meaning to get around to dithering them down.