lossless mp3 - mp3HD, backwards compatible with standard mp3 Options

[2Bdecided]

• mp3HD is a lossless audio codec (100% bit-exact replica of CD tracks)
• Backward Compatible to mp3
• File extension .mp3
• Bitrates for music approximately 500 to 900 kbps rates (similar to other lossless codecs), depending on genre
• Embedded mp3 track and the mp3HD file share the same id3 metadata
• Encoding parameters (e.g. bit rate), ancillary data and meta data of embedded mp3 track are under control

Main page:
http://www.all4mp3.com/Learn_mp3_hd_1.aspx

...which links to downloadable test software:
http://www.all4mp3.com/Software3.aspx

I learnt about this from this post...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1263465#post1263465
...where a quick test suggests it's not as efficient as FLAC, or as fast.

Might be useful for a widely-compatible lossy/lossless hybrid.

I wonder if they've done something clever - when I tried this years ago, mp3 was a terrible base for lossless coding - the lossy>lossless "correction" file was often larger than a straight lossless encode. Maybe this new technology is more tightly integrated into mp3, so performs better?

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Mar 19 2009, 17:36

[guruboolez]

When many customers doesn't even know file extension why would they care if they have a lossless mp3hd?

Having few knowledge about computer things doesn't mean that people don't care about quality and would buy anything. If advertising on "CD-Quality" is now pointless and confusing (because stores were claiming it since the beginning) selling "HD MP3" and advertising on files "four time bigger" (hence better) makes things easy to understand even to the less-technician people on earth.

and that lossless part is just accesible with appropriate decoder, which has to be installed.

It doesn't matter people could really access to the correction stuff or not. Most people (even here) wouldn't notice the difference between a truncated "HD" stream at 256 kbps and the full lossless music. I'm pretty sure placebo effect will ensure people that their HD file are now much better than regular MP3, even if the stream is the same.

and I don't understand why it's mp3hd that gives stores like amazon that opportunity? they could also just use flac...

Yes, and having their hotline full of people unable to make their flac/alac/WMAlossless work on their computer, digital players or even both. Selling a format customers don't understand means losing customers (I saw it myself with some friends of mine trying to deal with WMA and AAC). MP3HD is at the moment the only lossless solution that give a sound (even a nice one at 256 kbps) working on all DAP players, DVD players and software players in the world. Without installing anything. That would make a big difference for several people on earth.
What's the most attractive in your opinion:
"Buy HD MUSIC. Cristal clear sound. Compatible with every player"
or
"Buy lossless music. CD Quality. Download the MP3 codec, the GUI and follow our two page tutorial to make it work"

Note that I'm not personaly fond of this format (crappy IDTag solution) but I'm just trying to show that the concept isn't useless.

[DOS386]

Useless format:

• The lossless part is stored in ID3v2 tags.
• Size of ID3v2 tags is limited to 256MB by specifications; as a result, lossless part of an mp3hd file can't be larger than 256MB.

I wonder what those people will think of next. Maybe resurrect VQF or something.

Agree, useless horrible hack.

What's the most attractive in your opinion:
"Buy HD MUSIC. Cristal clear sound. Compatible with every player"
or
"Buy lossless music. CD Quality. Download the MP3 codec, the GUI and follow our two page tutorial to make it work"

None of those. I prefer:
"Buy lossless music. CD Quality. Download audio file, codec is free, open source and well designed"

Also, since FLAC is the weakest of the "useful" lossless codecs and this hack is even weaker and at same time much slower


This post has been edited by DOS386: Mar 21 2009, 12:17

[guruboolez]

None of those. I prefer:
"Buy lossless music. CD Quality. Download audio file, codec is free, open source and well designed"

I also share your choice, but I repeat, installing a piece of software is an annoyance for many people (customers) and they could flee any store requires such operation. Moreover, the codec is sometimes useless. For example, there's no plug-in for people using iTunes and I don't see a vast public learning to transcode their flac to a third-party tool in order to play-it on iTunes and transfert it on iPod. The success of amazon.com and iTunes Music store comes from simplicity (download and play & transfer) – not from freedom or open-source. Unfortunately I would say…

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Mar 21 2009, 12:26