mp3PRO technology

Hmm... this things seems (or should I say sounds) cool after all. 64kbps gives you same quality as 192kbps in standard MP3... I think I'll be converting all my MP3s to mp3PROs soon enough. Then if I just could get that JukeBox they mention at mp3prozone.com, I'll be completely covered in terms of music.

YES YOU ARE RIGHT MY SOUNDCARD STILL HASN'T WORKED SINCE DECEMBER

Bah, there's no way I'm doing my MP3 collection over AGAIN for this shit.

192k q 0 for me forever.

standard pro-open source comment:

Ogg Vorbis

Fuck how my MP3's sound I don't really fucking care...

hell i wil just stick to 70+MB wav files... NOT!

A: The MP3Pro format only makes a difference at low bitrates. At high bitrates the difference is neglible; it's designed mostly for streaming.

B: Streaming MP3 licenses cost $2000 a pop. Who knows how much those sick fucking Germans will charge for an MP3Pro stream?

C: AC3, VQF, MP3, MP3Pro, and WMA are not free. A lot of money needs to be spent on licenses for these formats to be used.

D: The best free (barely legal) MP3 encoder is LAME. It outperforms Xing (especially at VBR) and even Fraunhofer's own codecs.

E: Just about the only serious free format you can use for lossy audio compression is Ogg Vorbis. I find the quality of Ogg files acceptable in the 150-200 kbps range.

F: Since Ogg Vorbis is a completely open source lossy audio compression standard, streams are free, you can set up as many as you have bandwidth for and they will often sound better than an MP3 with the same bitrate.

G: Where were you when I made my little rant about MP3Pro the first time I heard about it, Christ... that was a while before the forum software switch even. I liked it at the time until I learned that it stops really making much difference around 160kbps.

Bah, there's no way I'm doing my MP3 collection over AGAIN for this shit.

192k q 0 for me forever.

Yeah, there is a problem with that. Currently there is no way to convert MP3->mp3PRO on the fly. Any converters must first convert the MP3 back to uncompressed audio, and then to mp3PRO. This means awfully slow conversion. For me it's around 1x (which means 1 minute of song takes 1 minute to convert).

A: The MP3Pro format only makes a difference at low bitrates. At high bitrates the difference is neglible; it's designed mostly for streaming.

G: Where were you when I made my little rant about MP3Pro the first time I heard about it, Christ... that was a while before the forum software switch even. I liked it at the time until I learned that it stops really making much difference around 160kbps.

Well, mp3PRO is designed only for size issues. It's natural to assume that if it gives 128-192 quality at 64-96, it will allow 320 quality at 160, which you say doesn't happen. But the quality of standard MP3 at 192kbps is good enough, for the average human like myself, and if I can get the same at 2-3 times less space, it's better for me.

B: Streaming MP3 licenses cost $2000 a pop. Who knows how much those sick fucking Germans will charge for an MP3Pro stream?

C: AC3, VQF, MP3, MP3Pro, and WMA are not free. A lot of money needs to be spent on licenses for these formats to be used.

And what does it mean for the end-user, i.e. me? It's not like I pay for my MP3s or for any MP3-related software.

It may mean that that jukebox thingie, or any piece of hardware with mp3PRO support will cost quite a lot, I'll have to wait for it and hope it's in my price range.

D: The best free (barely legal) MP3 encoder is LAME. It outperforms Xing (especially at VBR) and even Fraunhofer's own codecs.

I use Nero for all my format conversions. I know that there are probably other tools, much faster. Maybe I'll test that LAME thing or anything else I can get free or crack.

Yeah, there is a problem with that. Currently there is no way to convert MP3->mp3PRO on the fly. Any converters must first convert the MP3 back to uncompressed audio, and then to mp3PRO. This means awfully slow conversion. For me it's around 1x (which means 1 minute of song takes 1 minute to convert).

Don't do that, okay? For the love of God don't do that. Rip a song, now encode it to 192kbps, decode to wave, and encode it again. Do that about four times. The end result, no matter who did the song, will sound like Chinese folk music. Only go from source to compressed format, never go from compressed format to compressed format.

Well, mp3PRO is designed only for size issues. It's natural to assume that if it gives 128-192 quality at 64-96, it will allow 320 quality at 160, which you say doesn't happen.

No it doesn't.

And what does it mean for the end-user, i.e. me? It's not like I pay for my MP3s or for any MP3-related software.

However, these rediculous licenses make a lot of good audio projects stillborn and generally kick the audio community right squah in the niuts. Refusing to use them is a start.

Personally I don't even find it necessary to use IE anymore until Microsoft stops shoving it up my ass. I'd like to choose a web browser, so I'm choosing Mozilla. There's not a lot of choice when it comes to IE, it's even bundled with Macintosh OS-X for Chrissakes.

It may mean that that jukebox thingie, or any piece of hardware with mp3PRO support will cost quite a lot, I'll have to wait for it and hope it's in my price range.

Yeah well Ogg Vorbis isn't done. I remember the creators of it stating that competing with MP3 is stupid, they're going after mpeg-4 audio types, like VQF. So the final production of Ogg should give acceptable quality in the 80-120 kbps range, and dammit I can't wait for that! =)

If any company wants to add Ogg support for their portable hardware player they can, free of charge.

Do you think those little things would cost so damn much if the makers didn't have to pay Fraunhofer a big slice of moolah with each unit?

I use Nero for all my format conversions. I know that there are probably other tools, much faster. Maybe I'll test that LAME thing or anything else I can get free or crack.

LAME is freeware. When Fraunhofer sued Blade to death the Blade guy realized he could still release his source code. Hence the birth of LAME, MP3 software designed by audiophiles for audiophiles.

It's free. Get yourself a build here and a frontend for it here. It only does straight MP3, however.

lame --alt-preset standard in.wav out.mp3 might work well for you.

Lüt is fond of -b 192 -q 0, but for that bitrate I prefer -alt-preset cbr 192 -q 0... to each his own.

MP3 is like 12 years old. MP3Pro is just a cheap hack to keep MP3 profitable while they try to hurry up and finish MP4, which will undoubtedly make them a rediculous amount of money... unless we simply refuse to use it. =)

Don't do that, okay? For the love of God don't do that. Rip a song, now encode it to 192kbps, decode to wave, and encode it again. Do that about four times. The end result, no matter who did the song, will sound like Chinese folk music. Only go from source to compressed format, never go from compressed format to compressed format.

Whoa, whoa, calm down. I only did it twice (CD->MP3,MP3->mp3PRO) and it sounds just as nice. I don't plan to do it more than that. Of course if I have the original CD, I'll do it straight to mp3PRO, but what if I don't? What if I got the file from AudioGalaxy? I think one MP3->MP3 encoding isn't something awful.

Do you think those little things would cost so damn much if the makers didn't have to pay Fraunhofer a big slice of moolah with each unit?

I assume not, but last time I checked, there wasn't a shocking difference between the price of a CD-player and the price of a CD/MP3-player...

MP3 is like 12 years old. MP3Pro is just a cheap hack to keep MP3 profitable while they try to hurry up and finish MP4, which will undoubtedly make them a rediculous amount of money... unless we simply refuse to use it. =)

I have no objections to people making money. Sometimes they are making too much money, that's true. Sometimes they charge a ridiculous amount of money, that's true. That's why I reserve the right to warez or not to use at all.

However, these rediculous licenses make a lot of good audio projects stillborn and generally kick the audio community right squah in the niuts. Refusing to use them is a start.

Personally I don't even find it necessary to use IE anymore until Microsoft stops shoving it up my ass. I'd like to choose a web browser, so I'm choosing Mozilla. There's not a lot of choice when it comes to IE, it's even bundled with Macintosh OS-X for Chrissakes.
...
Yeah well Ogg Vorbis isn't done. I remember the creators of it stating that competing with MP3 is stupid, they're going after mpeg-4 audio types, like VQF. So the final production of Ogg should give acceptable quality in the 80-120 kbps range, and dammit I can't wait for that! =)

Heh, deadnail, you Open Source zealot! :P

I'm not an open source zealot. Truth be told I have no problem with programs' source code being guarded by Nazis and rabid pitbulls. The source to really old programs (including games) ought to be released though, just so that the whole of the programming community can benefit from it.

I'm still using Windows. However, my strong opinion is that if it doesn't directly relate to the operation of the system it shouldn't come with the OS. IE, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, Jesus Christ. If those fuckers stuck to making an OS there would be a lot fewer security problems, it'd run better, and best of all it'd be a hell of a lot less expensive.

Lunix is not the Operating System for me. I'm a gamer, not a console freak. I admit you can get a lot done with a console, I just don't think every computer program needs a console to operate properly. My opinion. I'm still waiting on a good file manager like the perfect one in my head, you'd figure it'd already be out for Lenux but I'm wrong.

Mac is not the Operating System for me. It's just as bad as WinXP as far as I'm concerned. Really pretty OS with potential, but the company sucks and the OS comes loaded with a bunch of software made by them. They're really the intelligent alternative, they bundle software just as much as Microsoft does. If they could be running the Monopoly they wouldn't change a Goddamn thing and one look at X and everything that comes with it should confirm that.

I could try BeOS or something else but they're not really geared towards gaming or game editing.

Therefore, I'm stuck with Windows.

I may not like it, I certainly don't like Microsoft, but Godammit, I'm choiceless.

As such I make my choices where I can. Paying insane amounts of money to some greedy assed German lawyers over a format over a DECADE old is fucking rediculous and I refuse to be a part of that in any way, shape or form, and that includes purchasing 3rd party software that is forced to do so.

I use Mozilla now because:
A. It can do everything IE6 can do except for Microsoft specific features, and almost no website actually uses them. (coincidentally mine does, but I don't mind =)
B. I can disable popups and popunders.
C. Tabbed browsing is Jesus 'Dildo' Christ incarnate.

If Nero supported burning from Oggs I would completely give up MP3.

If IE was a choice I would never install it.

If Windows Media Player was a choice I would never install it.

Quicktime is a choice and the only reason I install it is because so many Goddamn CD Extra videos are, unfathomably, in the .mov format still.

what do you find so wrong with pop up stoppers that you'd rather use mozilla? Actually I'd use it too if it didn't have issues with table heights, but since it does I'd just rather use a pop up stopper and IE6

I'm still using Windows. However, my strong opinion is that if it doesn't directly relate to the operation of the system it shouldn't come with the OS. IE, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, Jesus Christ. If those fuckers stuck to making an OS there would be a lot fewer security problems, it'd run better, and best of all it'd be a hell of a lot less expensive.

There's been a lot of talk about it throughout the years. The fact that Microsoft packs Windows with its software basically strangles the market, that's true, and ultimately, we users are suffering or will suffer, but it's the company's right to provide any program of theirs with their OS. As for expensive, let me quote myself again.I reserve the right to warez it.

If Nero supported burning from Oggs I would completely give up MP3.

Yeah, that would be very nice. Nero already supports WAV, MP3, AIF, VQF and WMA (with the plugin). I haven't tried OGG for anything yet, but you make it sound cool.

Write a letter to Ahead. Explain how it is completely free, and you might just persuade them.

what do you find so wrong with pop up stoppers that you'd rather use mozilla? Actually I'd use it too if it didn't have issues with table heights, but since it does I'd just rather use a pop up stopper and IE6

The abundance of misused code on IE isn't my only reason for refusing to use it. Popups aren't even my main concern; I have Pow!, I'm the one the first posted a link here to it, and I still have it running all the time. Outright disabling all popups is a lot easier though, but popups and unders are not my main concern.

Being able to choose software is an important facet in the computing world. Given the choice between the two I would choose Mozilla. However, IE6 is still shoved so far up XP's ass I'm even stuck using it to manage my files.

Funny, you'd think I'd use a file manager for that.

=========================================
My idea of a perfect file manager:

A. Picture the default file manager. Windows, KDE and Mac's file managers all look basically the same.

B. The toolbar should be more than customizable, it should have the option to let it auto-customize. The things you do most with your files should become buttons on there on their own, just out of convenience. For instance, if you never print a file from the manager (only from the file's associated program) the print button up there should fade out and be automatically replaced with a function you do more often.

C. There should also be a toolbar that can be enabled/disabled that directly shows the attributes of a file. It's grayed out when no file is selected, but when selected, you can directly tinker with the file's attributes. Read-Only, Archive, all that fun shit. Checkboxes RIGHT THERE you can use.

D. There should be a file tree and by default a single directory contents pane. HOWEVER, you can have more than one directory contents pane open at one time in the program. This way you can keep one directory open and use the tree and the other pane to hop all over your harddrive and relocate files from several locations to one. Each directory contents pane should also have it's own...

E. CONSOLE. I know I'm not a console freak but in a file manager a big console would be nice to have built in. Okay right now you've probably got a location bar in there that says something like C:\PR0N\Weird\Bukkake right?
Well, instead of one line tall it should be at least FOUR lines tall, of course you can adjust it's size.
Only the currently active line can be used. Everything you do is visually executed in that console. Simple things like CD .. and MD "Ear Penetration" would be displayed as such.
If you highlight a file it's name is automatically typed into the console. So you could click on a wave file and it's name would be up there, so you could type lame -b192 -q0 in front of it.
(Or highlight ZDoom and type -iwad hexen.wad after it.)
Also, typing *.wav in the console SHOULD HIGHLIGHT ALL THE .WAV FILES IN THAT DIRECTORY PANE.

In my opinion, this would make managing your files a hell of a lot simpler. For novice users the console could simply be disabled or ignored, however, by simply looking at it now and again they'll be able to learn a thing or two that might serve them in the future.
=========================================



I noticed the table height problem on a few sites, like td heights have a minimum of 4 or something. Weird. You can tell the difference on my site's menu.

However, the fact that Mozilla renders pages faster than IE6 is very attractive to someone trapped to a modem like me.

Zophar's news doesn't load in on IE until that huge table menu to the right is loaded in too. On Mozilla it displays everything as it gets it. It seems more dynamic than IE when loading pages actually. It makes a good difference on these forums as well. =)

I'm not an open source zealot.

I was kidding, goddamnit!

C. Tabbed browsing is Jesus 'Dildo' Christ incarnate.

Agreed. Tabbed browsing is fantastic.