Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why would anyone use a format other than mp3? (Read 12982 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #25
Quote
I should be. Do you have an example of one which doesn't play an mp3gained file?

Didn't iRiver sometime recently added support? The device normally can read the tag but wouldn't make use of it... I don't think most of the users know what ReplayGain is, so manufacturers wouldn't care.

Quote
mp3gain does work with all players, because it modifies mp3 data itself, so it doesn't need any kind of support on player side.
Now please stop trolling (your posts about listening to "difference files" are BS too) and putting claims about things you have no clue about.


Correction: Oh so mp3gain normalizes? But that means quality loss. That is even worse a hack. I am not trolling. If most of the encoders employ lowpass filter and there're people that could hear >18kHz, that means the difference is audible.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #26
Quote
Quote
I should be. Do you have an example of one which doesn't play an mp3gained file?

Didn't iRiver sometime recently added support? The device normally can read the tag but wouldn't make use of it... I don't think most of the users know what ReplayGain is, so manufacturers wouldn't care.

I think you should read up on how mp3gain actually works... Here you can find some information: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3274 (Seems to be little info on it here on HA though...)

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #27
Quote
Oh so mp3gain normalizes? But that means quality loss. That is even worse a hack. I am not trolling. If most of the encoders employ lowpass filter and there're people that could hear >18kHz, that means the difference is audible.

Yes, you are trolling, and noone in this thread said "normalizing" before. Mp3gain works by scaling values in mp3 frames (according to replaygain scan results), which can be reversed if used scale is known. Again, if you don't have a clue, please hold yourself from replying because your actions will be received as trolling and admin actions will be taken if needed.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #28
The only comment I would add here is, that I have never understood what all the hub-bub about "gapless" is.  In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if I even understand this term properly.  Are we simply talking about the "pause" between songs?

Records have always had them, and cassettes, and CD's, and even live bands pause between songs.  I just don't "get" this one.   

Dex

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #29
Quote
The only comment I would add here is, that I have never understood what all the hub-bub about "gapless" is.  In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if I even understand this term properly.  Are we simply talking about the "pause" between songs?

Records have always had them, and cassettes, and CD's, and even live bands pause between songs.  I just don't "get" this one.  

Dex

Some albums are not suppose to have gaps between tracks.
Like almost all Pink Floyd albums... and sgt. and abbey road comes to mind.
Non-gapless formats will not be able to play them like "one big track" without gaps (small section with silence between tracks).

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #30
Quote
The only comment I would add here is, that I have never understood what all the hub-bub about "gapless" is.


Gapless (lack of) is definitely an issue with the mp3 format for me, but I listen to a lot of live recordings, classical, jazz and prog. rock where segues between songs are an integral part of the experience.
  For mainstream single-oriented pop music,  it could certainly be a lot less of an issue, but with many genres it is very disconcerting to hear the music (crowd noise, whatnot) stop momentarily and then start again.

  If my CD deck and portable supported a gapless lossy format I would eagerly use it over mp3. Alas, the primary advantage of mp3 over competing formats is its ubiquity.

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #31
Quote
The only comment I would add here is, that I have never understood what all the hub-bub about "gapless" is.  In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if I even understand this term properly.  Are we simply talking about the "pause" between songs?

Records have always had them, and cassettes, and CD's, and even live bands pause between songs.  I just don't "get" this one.   

Dex

Live recordings with gap are annoying. A lot of classical discs are needing gapless support : think about opera, for exemple.

MP3 can be gapless. Encode what you want with LAME, and decode the same material with LAME : offset is removed (only exeption I know is a lame encoding cut with a lossless tool : a small gap remain).
Isn't it posible to imagine a software player (or plug-in) that will use lame as decoder ? Something like a lame-player, that will remove the 1105 additional samples of each mp3 ?

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #32
Jan S., Audible!, and guruboolez;  well, you all certainly cleared that up!   

That all makes sense.  Dex

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #33
Quote
1) Not true. That's why if you reencode multiple times the loss becomes more apparent.


2) Really? even the hardware players? I don't think it is.

1) Why would you do this? Once it's done, it's done. If you're talking swappin', then you get what you deserve.

2) Tripe filled statement. It alters the file itself. Plays fine on any player.

EDIT: oops, see a cat fancier beat me to it.

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #34
I think people (in general) need to be more careful when throwing around a number like 99.9%.  That's a very very high standard.  People say "99.9%" all the time about all sorts of things and it's hyperbole 99.9% of the time.  Usually if they actually looked at numbers for whatever thing they're talking about, it's something like 80-90% at most.

If (as suggested) lame aps is transparent 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people, that means only one in a thousand can ABX it for more than one song out of a thousand.  That's preposterous.  There are lots of people on here with pretty keen ears and I think a lot more than just a handful can hear that difference on quite a few samples.  I don't any lossy codec hits that sort of standard.

In addition, file size improvements are not trivial.  To get similar quality to mpc, mp3 files (of typical songs) are, say, 10-40k bigger.  When you're talking thousands of songs, it does add up, and it can mean an extra album or two on your portable player (for example).

So, in terms of either file size or audio quality, we're not talking about getting the last 0.1%, it's more like the last 5-15%, which is important for a significant number of people.

Also, saying mp3 is usually transparent, so there's no use for any other codec is like saying Fortran is turing complete so there's no use for any other language.  There are a lot of issues beyond audio quality and file size that are important (that several people here have mentioned.)  Compared to more modern file formats/codecs, mp3 is archaic.  Newer codecs were designed with flexibility in mind and don't rely on hacks that aren't backwards compatable in order to add features.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #35
Quote
If (as suggested) lame aps is transparent 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people, that means only one in a thousand can ABX it for more than one song out of a thousand. That's preposterous. There are lots of people on here with pretty keen ears and I think a lot more than just a handful can hear that difference on quite a few samples. I don't any lossy codec hits that sort of standard.


Well to be fair, I assumed it meant 1 in a thousand samples is audiably different.  That seems reasonable.  I mean when was the last time you encoded an MP3 with APS and actually noticed something wrong?  Unless you're trained to do it, probably not too recently.  (at least for me anyway).

Quote
No they're not. If you cannot ABX anything, its because there is no audiable difference to hear.



Not true. That's why if you reencode multiple times the loss becomes more apparent.


Thats why I said "audiable difference".  If you have to pass it through some sort of processing to hear it, its not very audiable is it?

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #36
Quote
Live recordings with gap are annoying. A lot of classical discs are needing gapless support : think about opera, for exemple.

MP3 can be gapless. Encode what you want with LAME, and decode the same material with LAME : offset is removed (only exeption I know is a lame encoding cut with a lossless tool : a small gap remain).
Isn't it posible to imagine a software player (or plug-in) that will use lame as decoder ? Something like a lame-player, that will remove the 1105 additional samples of each mp3 ?

Even LAME itself doesn't appear to remove padded samples at the end of file correctly (decoded file length doesn't match source file length).
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #37
Quote
I think people (in general) need to be more careful when throwing around a number like 99.9%.  That's a very very high standard.  People say "99.9%" all the time about all sorts of things and it's hyperbole 99.9% of the time.  Usually if they actually looked at numbers for whatever thing they're talking about, it's something like 80-90% at most.

If (as suggested) lame aps is transparent 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people, that means only one in a thousand can ABX it for more than one song out of a thousand.  That's preposterous.  There are lots of people on here with pretty keen ears and I think a lot more than just a handful can hear that difference on quite a few samples.  I don't any lossy codec hits that sort of standard.

It also depends greatly on what type of music you prefer.  If you're talking Brittany Spears, Paul Simon or Queen, then the vast majority of people may never be able to ABX MP3 --aps from MPC -q5 from Ogg -q6 from WAV.  However, if you're talking Chemical Brothers, Fatboy Slim or The Crystal Method, then the average person would be able to ABX a difference between formats/bitrates more often I'd venture to say.

Quote
In addition, file size improvements are not trivial. To get similar quality to mpc, mp3 files (of typical songs) are, say, 10-40k bigger. When you're talking thousands of songs, it does add up, and it can mean an extra album or two on your portable player (for example).


I agree.  For anyone like me who is using --alt-preset insane, and therefore transparency between formats is hardly measurable anymore, then filesize does become of paramount importance.  And try a difference of 20-30 albums on my Phatbox when comparing the size of --api with, say, MPC -q5 or -q6.   

Quote
Also, saying mp3 is usually transparent, so there's no use for any other codec is like saying Fortran is turing complete so there's no use for any other language. There are a lot of issues beyond audio quality and file size that are important (that several people here have mentioned.) Compared to more modern file formats/codecs, mp3 is archaic. Newer codecs were designed with flexibility in mind and don't rely on hacks that aren't backwards compatable in order to add features.


I agree again.  But the flexibility of a codec only goes as far as its compatibility can take it.  If a codec could make my music sound at least as good as MP3 --api to my ears at 10%-20% smaller filesizes, I'd use it in a heartbeat.  MPC does?  Great!  Can I play it in my car?  Nope.  Can I play it on my portables?  Nope.  So until that changes, it's MP3.  Archaic or not.

Of all the things keeping MP3 alive, IMO the top two are:

--1-- *Mass Reciprocal Investment*

Hardware Company: "The more MP3 software support there is (and barring licensing problems), the more MP3-compatible players we can justify producing."  And as much as it stinks for expandability, ISO standards serve to add more justification for production, since big companies just loooove to point to "industry standards".

Software Groups: "The more compatible hardware players there are, the more software development time we can justify for the MP3 format."  I.e., where there is demand, supply will follow.

Not that there hasn't been a tremendous amount of time invested in Ogg Vorbis, MPC, MP4/AAC and others, but MP3 has been the de facto standard for years now because of the most time invested by the most people, providers and users alike.  It will surely be uprooted someday in favor of a better technology, but think about what it will take to displace something as engrained and widely-used as the MP3 format.

--2-- *Hardware Compatibility*

Simple...if my player(s) can't play the format, then I can't use it.  This is clearly an important consideration for a person in determining which format to use.  When you take compatibility out of the equation, then it comes back to the point of transparency/filesize.  But how many people can take compatibility out of the equation?  There are Ogg players and possibly MPC players out there, but for every one of them, there are hundreds to thousands of MP3 players available.

Each of us has our own needs.  Personally, I'd love it if PhatNoise would release a firmware update with an MPC or Ogg decoder, and for someone to port an MPC or Ogg decoder to the Clie/Palm 5.0.  When those things happen, then I'll drop all my b*tching about compatiblity and finally be able to consider encoding formats other than MP3.  And believe me, I'd love to stick 200 albums in the space where 150 currently sit on my hard disk.


 

Why would anyone use a format other than mp3?

Reply #38
Quote
So the only advantage I can think of for other formats is encoding speed. Does that really justify their existence? Or am I missing something?

I don't like your thinking. No offense (I also use Mp3 as a format of choice) and you've probably seen the benefits of Mp3 in your daily useage, but other formats' existence, while not commercially widespread, will possibly become part of the next generation of audio codec's in the future. This is where the process originates - quite exciting when you think like that (we're history in the making) - but I hope after all that you've seen in the replies and that you've probably read more posts, you'll begin to see that new formats in development are key in what we use tomorrow. They might not be better in your opinion in fuction and quality to Mp3, but they're like toddlers in the development world - give them chance to grow up. An optimistic view and rather idealistic, but don't be too dismissive of the others. Keep an eye out...you might just see something you like.
"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving wasn't for you."