Slashdot Mirror
MP3...in Surround Sound
A number of people sent in the latest news from the fine folks at Frauhofer that they are expecting to have surround sound working for MP3s by July. The details are pretty sketchy in the article, but supposedly it won't be much more space per MP3s, and existing players will work with it.
Does your collection already have surround sound data? A bit pointless to convert, no new data to store.
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
MP3 is an outdated CODEC, the only reason it's still in use is because of compatibility. If you start adding extra features that break compatibility people will just move to a better quality CODEC with the same features (and possibly more).
What would be the point of converting?
You'd just add extra headers and increase file size. If you want to dynamically alter sounds in 3d space dependant on temporal and frequency factors a plugin might be more appropriate. How often do you listen to all of your mp3 collection?
Hmmm... this might be a good time for then to try to 'enhance' the MP3 standard by adding in DRM as the various **AA's (damn them to Heck!) have been urging for years.
I think I'll sit out on this one thank you very much. I like music and everything, but stereo is more than adequate for me (If I want 6 channel sound, I'll just watch a DVD...)
Hmm, how does your audio format get any more proprietary than before when the folks who developed it in the first place extend it?
Grandparent is essentially right. MP3 *is* an outdated codec, which is only still here because of it's universality (don't get me wrong - this is a big benefit). While these added features may not actually break the old standard, they do result in bigger files with no discernable benefit for the vast majority of people. If you want to examine the success of previous add-ons to the mp3 standard, take mp3-pro - it's not exactly all over the place. People will take standard mp3 for it's universality, and choose a superior codec (AAC, OGG, MPC, whatever - even WMA) when they aren't concerned about compatibility.
Well, since there are only two audio channels on your cd's, reencoding your entire cd collection won't do much good.
Not to mention how the method of adding pretend "surround sound" that they're proposing is retarded.
For what it's worth, MP3Pro also wasn't really backwards-compatible, even though it claimed to be. In a format that didn't support the extensions, it cut off the entire high end and it sounded like absolute shit. It remains to be seen if the same issue will be seen in these surround MP3s, but if it really doesn't add too much, like the article is implying, I don't imagine it will be a cataclysmic failure.
Besides, there aren't that many surround-sound audio CDs to rip yet, so something like this wouldn't gain in popularity until a more popular codec has already superseded it. I wouldn't worry about it gaining any type of dominance.
Who wants to use a proprietary sound format, when they can use a much more appealing open format.
MP3: Everything supports it, which is very appealing for consumers.
OGG: Few products support it, not very appealing for consumers.
This is the old VHS/BETA debate again. Each one has various advantages over the other, but MP3 has already won mindshare and, as a result, is ubiquitous. In the end, consumers don't really care that Apple has to pay Fraunhofer $1 (or whatever) for licensing iPod's MP3 tech instead of $0 for OGG. After all, you'll never see Apple advertising a regular iPod for $299 -OR- you can get an iPod which doesn't play MP3 for $298.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Why? Your CDs don't have the extra audio channels either. Double fawk.
No one will give a flying fuck about MP3+DRM, but if they add it at the same time as multi channel surround sound support they might be able to get people to use it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You basically have two ways to achieve this ; the most obvious, but also the most inelegant one being simply saving multiple tracks in the file. I think they will rather use a multiplexing algorithm dealing with phasis and frequency similarities between the tracks ; that's why it shouldn't be that space-consuming.
But it is exactly what the Ogg Vorbis is working on. Please, don't adopt this standard ; I am sick of patents and licenses issues on video and audio codecs and algorithms. The industry will probably choose the MP3, because they feel more confident with protected formats, as well as with proprietary softwares. But this doesn't mean they make good choices. The MP3's first aim was voice encoding, not music one ; but it was choosen even instead of better solutions.
Why the f#ck do we need a PORTABLE surround-sound music format?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Most of the people I know that have an iPod use it for more than a modern walkman. They also plug it into their car stereos or speakers in their living room. With high storage capacities, MP3 players and their like are used for more than simply walking around listening to music. I would assume that this could be used for those situations.
I don't see why they would put the time into their "teenager" codec to put surround sound support into it. Especially when mp3 is mainly used for music and isn't technically for video. Where as they could have spent the time to hammer out multichannel support for aac, so then mpeg4 would have multichannel support. So then they'd have a codec for video AND a codec used for just audio with multichannel support. The only thing i see this good for is Xvix and Divx videos. While these can be encoded with AC3 5.1 support, its rare that anyone does it. They usually opt for VBR MP3 with an average bitrate of 192k. So now it looks like they can use mp3 still and get the 5.1 Cmon mplayer! make sure you get support fast.. my xbox needs it!
One of the places Ogg Vorbis has become surprisingly popular is in soundtracks for computer games. The no licensing fees must be one useful aspect,
No licencing fees doesn't mean just that. It also means no overhead like getting a licencing deal set up, signed, making sure it's paid on time, in right amount, used only in accordance with the terms and so on. I'm seeing this first hand how much time is spent fiddling.
Just the process of going to someone with the authoroty to sign contracts and spend money in the company's name is wasting time, and time is money. That everyone, everywhere can use it for whatever is in itself probably worth as much as the licencing costs themselves.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Of course, good binaural recordings (and good stereo recordings) are better at sound immersion than any 4, 5.1 or 7.1 setup you might make. After all, like you said, we only have two ears which process all the sound in the world. So all those extra channels become downmixed when they get to your ears.
But you need a slightly different mix for binaural vs. stereo devices (due to differences in delays and placement of the drivers). And to produce a proper stereo soundstage, you need to be really careful about speaker placement (especially with regards to reflection and overlapping), and you need to buy speakers which have power, precision and a wide enough cone across the entire spectrum to maintain a soundstage for all listeners regardless of head position.
By adding more speakers into the mix, you decrease the need for such tight controls over environment. Which means you can get by with less power and lower quality speakers -- and that the immersion effect is not limited to the guy in the middle of the soundstage keeping his head relatively still
Personally, I'm strictly stereo (I go by the Jolida adage, "Why use 6 speakers when you can't get 2 right?"). And it's occasionally a problem for movies...not because the sound is bad, but because when I watch movies with my wife, she puts her head on my shoulder, essentially eliminating half of the one channel. If I did have a 5.1 setup, I'd get fill in from the rear channel and the effect would be reduced.
Besides, there are a lot of bassheads who can't distinguish between realistic sound stage and a bunch of poorly positioned speakers and a bone-shaking thumpbox. If what you look for in sound is measured in Watts...
Hey freaks: now you're ju