New "mp3PRO" From Fraunhofer, But What About LAME?

xenoweeno writes: "This Week In Consumer Electronic reports that Thomson and the Fraunhofer Institute are working on a new mp3 format they've dubbed "mp3PRO." Thanks to competition from e.g. Windows Media Audio, they're looking to get 128kbps quality down to 64kbps. Great, but what does this mean for projects like L.A.M.E., which has just recently freed itself from Fraunhofer ["regular"] mp3 code/patents? Back into the fray?"

Comments

Re:same speed, better quality?

[F.Prefect]

Sorry you got such stupid responses from others on this question. Here's a better one: Yes, it does mean you get better quality.

To use Microsoft's Windows Media Audio format as an example (because they make the same claim as MP3PRO): One of Microsoft's claims on WMA is that you get better quality at half the size. This is actually more true than most people (especially around here) are willing to believe. I thought it was marketing BS until last week, when I decided to run an informal experiment.

Using MusicMatch Jukebox I ripped one song ("Finding Me" by Vertical Horizon, because it starts off immediately with sufficiently dynamic sound) into raw WAV, 128 and 64 kbps MP3 and 128 and 64 kbps WMA. Then I listened to sections of the song, comparing the same section in the five formats. I'm a vocal musician, and have a sensitive ear to sound quality, particularly in music (I know it's not as rigorous as that waveform analysis of MP3 encoders that was published here recently, but in the end it's how the music sounds to the human ear that really counts).

I was impressed with the fidelity of the 128 kbps WMA. In fact (and I was quite surprised at this one) the WMA was truer to the original than the same bitrate MP3. The MP3 was actually slightly dampened in the high ranges compared to the original. What was really surprising were the 64 kbps files. The MP3 at that bitrate basically sucked, because the sample rate was only 22 kHz (resulting in weak low ranges and muted upper tones), while the 64 kbps file sounded quite good, because it was still at a 44 kHz sample rate. Of course, there was a slight degradation (to my hearing) in the sound quality between the 128 and 64 kbps files (mainly a slightly "metallic" sound in some spots), but I suspect that most people wouldn't really notice it.

So, MS's claim of 1/2 the size, better quality is not strictly true in combination; it's more like same size == better quality, half the size == considerably-more-acceptable-than-MP3 quality at that size.

If MP3PRO uses an even better compression/interpolation algorithm than MS Research came up with for WMA, then not only will 128 kbps MP3s sound better, but 64 kbps MP3s will probably start becoming the norm for use in pocket MP3 players.

The Real Deal

[tartanboy]

Now people (heavens no, not me) can download twice as much Metallica for the same price!

Gosh.

[viktor]

So Fraunhofer, without whom we wouldn't have the MP3 format to begin with, is developing a new, improved format. To me that would seem like great news. I can fit twice as much music on my harddisk as I do today.

And the immediate comment by Slashdot is "But what about LAME?!". Aren't we being just a tad narrow-minded here? What the article subject says to me is "Fraunhofer is developing something new, which is bad because we've just managed to legally use the last thing they did."

Fraunhofer developed mp3. Had slashdot been around by then, it would probably have considered that to be really, really bad news because of the license. But, yet, I can listen to mp3:s today. The development of mp3 wasn't a bad thing in the long run, and there's nothing that indicates that the development mp3PRO would be bad in the long run either.

Couldn't we try to be just a bit positive about new inventions and developments instead?! Even if the inventions aren't made by three happy hackers in a University basement?

/Viktor...

whining nonsense

[joss]

You can't have it both ways.

I thought people believed that open source was better than commerical software.

So MP3 comes out, and open source can faithfully reproduce it by violating these (non-obvious) patents. It matches implementation but certainly doesn't improve on the efforts of Fraunhofer institute, their real work being in developing the acoustic model. If Fraunhofer can improve on that it just shows that potential for improvement was always there, but open source efforts weren't good enough to find it.

The only reason people would switch to this new encoding would be if it was substantially better. If that means that open source software falls behind - tough shit, this can be fixed eventually, it just means ignoring a different set of patents. This just shows where the real innovation comes from. I know that innovation is a dirty word now that MS have got their fangs in it, but there is such a thing as the genuine article.

Re:LAME will survive

[Gleef]

adolf writes:

I don't -want- to see hear bad they can make things sound at 64kbps. And further, I don't care about bandwidth or disk usage, even though I'm behind a 28.8 modem.

I -do- want high-quality downloadable (freely or not) music. By high-quality, I mean indistinguishable from a CD to my own ears (LAME at ~220Kbps average VBR does this for me).

Storage is stupid-cheap these days. Bandwidth is slowly spreading out into much more diverse, and usually competitive, markets.

Sounds like what you are looking for is FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net). It's lossless compression. If you sample at CD resolutions, you get CD quality sound (if you sample at higher resolution from a better input source, you get better than CD quality sound). Only two downsides:
* Less compression than mp3's
* Not finished yet (but they do have working code)

Check it out.

----

Patents aren't so easy to get around.

[jemfinch]

Great, but what does this mean for projects like L.A.M.E., which has just recently freed itself from Fraunhofer ["regular"] mp3 code/patents? Back into the fray?"

LAME isn't "free from Fraunhofer mp3 code/patents". They may have finally outgrown their name and become a full-fledged mp3 encoder in their own right, but no matter, Fraunhofer's patent still stands. LAME infringes on that patent.



From the Vorbis FAQ:

Why Vorbis? MP3 is open.

No, it isn't. Fraunhofer (and other MPEG consortium members) claim that it is impossible to create an mp3 encoder without infringing on their patents. To create/use an encoder, the law says one must pay royalties to Fraunhofer and other MPEG Consortium members. In other words, you can play what you like, but you're not allowed to contribute without paying the ante.

(note that this question isn't on the faq from vorbis.com, it's from xiph.org.

No matter how hard LAME tries, it is another MP3 encoder, and as such, infringes on mp3 patents.

Higher quality closed formats is not the answer. Higher quality open formats are the only way.

Jeremy

They're not the only ones killing MP3...

[David E. Smith]

Everyone and their distant cousin is in the business of trying to improve on MP3, it seems. The Ogg Vorbis format claims to do roughly the same thing -- provide better-sounding music, while taking less disk space.

Vorbis is GPL/LGPL too, which is a definite plus to many geeks :)

Copy Protection Not Built In - Cool!

[billstewart]

The article quite noticeably said Nothing about built-in copy protection. That's a nice change from the other commercially developed compression algorithms that claim to be twice as tight as MP3, like AT&T's a2b-music, Sony's system used in their memory stick widgets, etc. It's still software they're planning to license, but the hook is only "you'll get twice as much music in your portable player", not "record labels can use this to take back control of the music industry". Cool.

same speed, better quality?

[morie]

if they claim they can heve the same quality in half the data, does this also maen they have better quality in the same ammount of data?, e.g. is this going to improve the quality of a 128 kbps compression?

But what of VBR mode

[POPE Mad Mitch]

Sounds like Fraunhofer and the likes are trying to play catchup on the developments that have been made in the open source world, with improved psyco-acoustic models, and refinements in VBR encoding. With the likes of LAME used in VBR (variable bit rate) mode, even at max. compression i can get files that have an average of only 80kbps and sounds way better than the crud produced by some of the commercial encoders at 192kbps fixed rate. (eg. the encoder shipped with the rio500).

Many people seem to overlook VBR mode, i have yet to find a player that doesnt handle it, the rio, xmms, winamp all handle it fine (the bitrate meter goes silly, but hey) and you can get much better quality for the space, as it ramps the quality up and down as required, so your not wasting a few hundred kbps on the silence.

Not likely

[pouwelse]

Researchers in the field of audio coding agree that the subband filtering technology in MP3 and AAC is now mature. The MP3PRO claims are very impressive, the improvement claims they make are not very likely. They have either changed the world of audio coding or are defending they intrests with waporware.

For my Ph.D. research I work a lot with audio codecs and the statement that they want a 64 Kbps bitrate to sound like 128 Kbps MP3 is doubtfull. They claim the MP3PRO format to be downwards compatible, the MP3 standard does not leave any room for a 50% reduction without a giant breakthrough.

A new technology is needed such as sinusodial coding.

MP3PRO Open technology? also doubtfull.

Johan.

LAME will survive

[adolf]

Not to sound pragmatic, but with any luck the new 'mp3' format will fizzle and die.

I don't -want- to see hear bad they can make things sound at 64kbps. And further, I don't care about bandwidth or disk usage, even though I'm behind a 28.8 modem.

I -do- want high-quality downloadable (freely or not) music. By high-quality, I mean indistinguishable from a CD to my own ears (LAME at ~220Kbps average VBR does this for me).

Storage is stupid-cheap these days. Bandwidth is slowly spreading out into much more diverse, and usually competitive, markets.

The focus should not be to make the files smaller (Realaudio G2, anyone?), but to make the quality better. The data distribution and storage capabilities of the Internet at large are progessing leaps and bounds ahead of the state of human hearing (which is actually moving BACKWARDS due to higher levels of everyday ambient noise) - once the epitome of perceptually perfect encoding is deemed possible for the masses, I'll settle for smaller files that reach the same end. Until that point is reached: Fuck off, Fraunhoffer.

And, dispite my freedom-esque views on life, I'd like to see high-quality encoding forced forced upon the populace, as the most infuriating members don't seem to mind even 96Kbps joint stereo mp3s either due to the fact that they are deaf, use equipment that is absolute shit, or just have never heard anything better.

It's for their own good, really - most illicit MP3s come from teens-to-20somthings who don't have to the cash to spend on quality (as in, "you can't buy this at Circuit City") audio equipment, but who (given the forward momentum of consumer electronics) will, at some point, be disappointed with the sound quality of the typical 128KBPS MP3 (of which they will have amassed several tens of gigabytes by such a point).

You idiots who bought a Diamond Rio (or similar) with only 64 megs, being pissed that you can only get an hour's worth of still half-assed-sounding music on the device, are no exception. You should have realized that flash memory is hideously expensive -before- you made such a purchase.

Feel free to moderate this down as flamebait. It's not like karma doesn't grow on trees.

Re:Software/algorithm patents...

[Skeptopotamus]

I think that in general its because the patented, closed technology comes first. With all due respect to the people who create wonderful patent free & Open Source alternatives (png, ogg vorbis, etc) they are always in reaction to an existing technology brought forth by a company who could afford the R&D costs on something more original.

By the time the open source alternative is available for use by non-programmers it is generally too late...Even if the open source alternative has considerable benefits over the closed one (PNG compared to GIF for example) habits that have had time to form don't die easily, and the majority of people just stick with what they've already grown used to.