MP3HD - new standard coming soon?

[nitro1973]

THomson tries to force new MP3HD looselessaudio compression standard.
What do you think about it? For me its not going to happen. Its more marketing bull****.

[ricardouk]

losseless? "sounds" like 192k or more with normal mp3, i wont bother.

[Midzuki]

A Winamp plugin is good, BUT
a DirectShow decoder + an ACM dll would be really nice.

[poisondeathray]

Preliminary tests show its bigger than flac and way slower to encode

It's not really "backwards compatible" i.e. when you play on older devices, it is lossy.

I can see no benefit.

[Midzuki]

Preliminary tests show its bigger than flac and way slower to encode

So


MP3HD

It seems the people @ Fraunhofer et al. don't know when it's time to stop
MP3 with SBR hasn't become popular, much like multichannel-MP2 and
MP3-surround — what's made them think a poor man's version of DTS Master Audio
would ever succeed ?

Just my US$1.99 ...

[ EDIT ]

Your search - mp3hd site:en.wikipedia.org - did not match any documents.

[poisondeathray]

Well I guess you can't blame them for trying

Here you go Midzuki:

http://www.all4mp3.com/Learn_mp3_hd_1.aspx
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=145768

[AlanHK]

THomson tries to force new MP3HD looselessaudio compression standard.
What do you think about it? For me its not going to happen. Its more marketing bull****.

I guess the idea is that it is structured like a normal MP3 file, and most software will play the normal MP3 file in it, which acts like a thumbnail image. Most of the file would be the "HD" part, perhaps encoded as metadata (like ID3 tags). So you get compatibility, but at an enormous cost in filesize.

Much simpler just to crank up the MP3 bitrate to max, or use existing lossless codecs like APE, FLAC, etc, which already are free and have plugins for just about any player.

This is just a clumsy mongrel format.

[nitro1973]

[quote="AlanHK"]

...
Much simpler just to crank up the MP3 bitrate to max, or use existing lossless codecs like APE, FLAC, etc, which already are free and have plugins for just about any player.

This is just a clumsy mongrel format.

i feel the same. well, we will see what mp3hd will come to, but im not its fan.

[Midzuki]

Yet Another Comparison Test:

uncompressed source(16-bit, 44.1kHz, stereo):

    Concerto-Pour-Une-Voix.wav --> 41.0 MB

losslessly-compressed results:

    mp3hdencoder:    57.90 seconds --> 22.4 MB for file "CPUV.LSmp3"
    flac(@ "-5"):    08.41 seconds --> 20.8 MB for file "CPUV.flac"
    mac(@ "-c2000"): 10.52 seconds --> 20.0 MB for file "CPUV.ape"
    ttaenc:          05.25 seconds --> 20.8 MB for file "CPUV.tta"

{
Machine:

Processor == Pentium IV @ 1.5 GHz, Memory = 640 MB
}

---------------

BTW,
what is the meaning of the letters "hd" in the filename "mp3hdEncoder"

16-bit audio @ 48kHz(max) is NOT "High Definition" in my book.


%%%%%

[PuzZLeR]

BTW, what is the meaning of the letters "hd" in the filename "mp3hdEncoder"

"Has Difficulty" ... it was actually the acronym for a failing grade given in report cards to kids in my school then...

Nevertheless, I know it "has difficulties" at this point with its imperfections, but I'm looking forward to see where this goes. It is, after all, only the beginning.

I say they drop the technical side of the backward compatibility part. It would take too much away from its performance. The name alone, "MP3", can be enough of a "backward compatibility" if they know what they're doing (unlike other variants of this format).

[AlanHK]

Yet Another Comparison Test

My guess is that the "lossless" part of MP3HD is 20 MB, same as the other lossless formats, and the other 2 MB is a normal MP3.
So you're paying a 10% penalty for the ability to play a low-fi thumbnail version if your player doesn't support it.
It's also going to basically double the processing time if you want to edit it in any way.
And if you use it on a portable player you'll be using 10 times the file size for not better quality.

I'll bet it's got some DRM built in that makes it legally difficult for anyone to make tools to manipulate them.

Hard for me to see any use for this, except that they're trying to leverage the "MP3" familiarity.
A slightly clued up person would have a lossless archived format and produce MP3s as needed (using something like CDEx). But the music companies want us to buy different versions of files, not convert them. (Look at the absurd way ringtones are often restricted.)

[Midzuki]

OK, I should have guessed I was going to overlook an "irrelevant" detail:

Yet Another Comparison Test

My guess is that the "lossless" part of MP3HD is 20 MB, same as the other lossless formats, and the other 2 MB is a normal MP3.

Actually, the "true" MP3 part was encoded at 256kbps, which means
~ 8MB for 4 minutes. Therefore, 22MB - 8MB = 14MB.

Hard for me to see any use for this, except that they're trying to leverage the "MP3" familiarity.
A slightly clued up person would have a lossless archived format and produce MP3s as needed (using something like CDEx). But the music companies want us to buy different versions of files, not convert them. (Look at the absurd way ringtones are often restricted.)

\\\

[MOVIEGEEK]

Bitrates for music approximately 500 to 900 kbps rates (similar to other lossless codecs), depending on genre

I like that it's lossless but at these bitrates what's the point?You might as well use WAV.
If they made a MP3 codec that was lossless AND had the same bitrates as a lossy MP3 I would be impressed,as it stands I would rather use a lossy MP3 at 320kbps.