Slashdot Mirror


New Lossless MP3 Format Explained

CNETNate writes "Thomson, the company that licenses the MP3 patent, has released a new lossless MP3 format called mp3HD. It utilises both lossless and lossy audio contained inside a single .mp3 file, and the files will play on all existing MP3 players. The idea is simple: lossless files on your desktop that can be transferred without conversion to iPods and MP3 players. The issue, it transpires, is that although the full lossless/lossy hybrid MP3 file is transferred to players, only the lossy element can be played back. A command line encoder can be found on Thomson's Web site."

45 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. why? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, it's a container format with two different data streams in it, and you can stuff massively oversized files on your portable player, only you can only play the itty bity portion of that file that's the lossy one.

    And the use case for this is?

    1. Re:why? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      So let's see. It's like a car with helicopter blades, except the helicopter blades don't turn, but now you take up both lanes of traffic.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:why? by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why put the MP3 part there at all? Why would you need it if you already have a lossless file?

      If you transfer it to a player not capable of playing the lossless file it doesn't make sense to store it all over there, so converting it to a lossy only file is the way to do it, and well, you can do that while transferring the file ... ... but then using "MP3" and their technology doesn't make sense at all since there already exist plenty of lossless formats and one compressed one would be enough.

      It would had been enough if they had made an app which hooked into Windows file copying to UMS devices and encoded any lossless formats into MP3 during the transfer.

      All in all, yes, it's useless, and a stupid idea.
      (And if you already have a lossless file while not convert to something like AAC or OGG instead?)

    3. Re:why? by fm6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think a better comparison would be a helicopter that can also drive down the street. As if the convenience of not having to switch to a car outweighed the risk of accidentally decapitating pedestrians.

    4. Re:why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the use-case is probably some kind of lock-in, either now or later. or licensing fees. or NEW fees.

      yup, sounds like container when a container is NOT needed. keeping dual copies makes sense (I do this, I have mp3 and flac of the same file but in diff subdirs) and when I'm home, I play from ./flac and when I'm away, I copied files from ./mp3 to the device. time to encode is still slow so I keep pre-encoded copies on my farm.

      but putting flac in a portable and not being able to use it.

      dumb. really dumb.

      no, no use case. not for us, anyway. there might be a use-case for people making money from this, but not for us users.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:why? by niko9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would have been smarter to have the MP3 player know to only download the lossy part of the file and metadata. I'm sure someone
      can figure out how to do this with the FLAC container, i.e., the FLAC file would have a .flac and a lossy .ogg, and a program like gtkpod would know
      to only import the lossy .ogg.

    6. Re:why? by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Funny

      As if the convenience of not having to switch to a car outweighed the risk of accidentally decapitating pedestrians.

      Accidentally?

    7. Re:why? by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MP3 by itself is not a container format. It is a raw data stream designed for handling realtime audio processing. It sounds like this is more like a "hacked" MP3 with special invalid frames tacked on to the end with difference data, similar to the way ID3v2 tags and album art are embedded.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    8. Re:why? by brianosaurus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think an even better comparison would be a car with a helicopter stapled to the trunk. That's not even right, since the car & helicopter are more analogous to the ipod and computer. This is more like everything you would put in your car has a 10:1 scale model of itself attached to it.

      Its like every shirt in Arizona having a winter coat sewn to the back of it. Closets hold 1/10 as many clothes, but big closets are getting cheaper every day. The largest suitcases barely hold enough for a weekend trip. Everyone ends up dragging around winter coats like tails, even though they rarely ever need them.

      My analogy is bad, but not as bad as this hybrid mp3 format. I suppose the format is OK for archival storage, but copying the huge files to a portable device with limited space is just stupid.

      --
      blog
    9. Re:why? by drolli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly.

      which fraction of the population are non-idiots, according to your definition?

    10. Re:why? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...copying the huge files to a portable device with limited space is just stupid.

      Unless you sell flash memory.

    11. Re:Why? by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In short, what the fuck were they thinking?

      "I wonder if this cow has any milk left in it?"

      They're seeing if they can extract more $ for mp3 IP licenses.

    12. Re:why? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to mention there is a REASON why they are coming out with this now, and it AIN'T because they want you to have high fi MP3s. It is because the MP3 patents expire in Dec 2012 so they are hoping to get all the MP3 makers and home users switched over so they can keep drawing a check.

      And the simple fact is thanks to the loudness war trying to come up with high fi MP3 is about as pointless as coming up with a super polished turd. The extra bitrate will NOT be any better than the 320k we have now, simply because the source material is so shitty. In fact most folks I know use 128K VBR because they can't tell the difference. So don't be fooled, this is NOT to make your music sound better. It is so they can keep MP3 compression under patents for another 20+ years. I don't know about you but I would rather stick to good old MP3 and wait to see what kind of cool new gadgets come out in 2013 when the patents pass. Plus having legal Linux support is a nice bonus too.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      In case it isn't bleeding obvious (apparently it isn't): The key to good compression is prediction. If you can predict the signal to within a small margin of error, then you only need to encode a small error correction stream. In this case, the MP3 signal serves as the prediction and the remaining data is the correction stream. This concept requires that the prediction is stable, and since the prediction isn't an algorithm but based on actual data, that data has to be delivered with the correction stream. So this isn't so much MP3 with additional information as it's a lossless format which happens to use an MP3 stream as a component and is formatted such that MP3 players recognize just that stream.

    14. Re:why? by cxreg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yo dawg, I herd u like trucks

    15. Re:why? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only use case can see is if you own a mp3 player with large storage that doesn't support playback of a proper lossless format.

      With this you can keep and listen to the files on your mp3 player while also being able to decode them losslessly when you plug that player into a computer.

      also given the filesize stats in the article it appears they aren't just bundling together a lossy and lossless format but actually making the lossless format build on the lossy format (either that or they have a lossless format that is considerablly better than flac).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    16. Re:why? by tobiasly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the use-case is probably some kind of lock-in, either now or later. or licensing fees. or NEW fees.

      Lock-in? New fees? C'mon, let's get serious. They're giving away the encoder for free on their website! Do you really think that the company that owns the MP3 format would just let this new format, crappy though it is, be used by enough people so that it becomes a de-facto standard and then decide to start enforcing their IP and try to wring money out of something that already has numerous superior free implementations?

    17. Re:why? by mibus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it that the software copying the "MP3" over, can't strip out the ID3(v2?) tag containing the extra info, and just save out the "normal" MP3 to the portable device?

      Surely that would be a reasonably small change, and solve half of the complaints against the format?

    18. Re:why? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      So this isn't so much MP3 with additional information as it's a lossless format which happens to use an MP3 stream as a component and is formatted such that MP3 players recognize just that stream.

      I've seen some comparisons at another site. A 41 MB wave file gives a 20 MB FLAC, and 22 MB MP3HD. So if the MP3 was indeed a skeleton of the lossless portion, it isn't very efficient. It's the same size as a normal lossless format + a separate MP3, stuffed into the same file. Actually, I doubt the MP3 has any use at all in the lossless playback, but I am ready to be corrected if anyone can cite something and not just speculate.

  3. The obvious problem by pxc · · Score: 5, Informative

    that you probably thought of when you read the summary ("So now I get a larger-than-FLAC sized file on my portable player so I can get 128kbps?") is acknowledged in TFA.

    The problems

    At face value it's remarkably convenient, like a car that doubles up as a plane. But like your aeromobile, there are problems for the average consumer. Firstly, file size. A normal 320Kbps MP3 of the same Pink Floyd song was just 14.6MB, and 320Kbps is all you'll hear if you listen to an mp3HD track on your iPod.

    But the lossless audio stored in the file will be stored on your iPod nevertheless, taking up precious storage space. (Although we should point out to audiophiles that the hybrid files are smaller than the combined size of a FLAC and 320Kbps MP3, although are less efficient to encode than FLAC.)

    I don't really see to whom this will be a valuable technology--audiophiles will probably have a large enough music collection that they don't see the benefit in taking up 10x as much space on their portable device, and are probably capable of reencoding when they transfer (some media players can do this automatically). Most everyone else just listens to low quality Limewire rips on their PC anyway.

    Anyone here think they would really want to use this format? (genuine question)

    1. Re:The obvious problem by Taikutusu · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are other players out there than iPods. I'm sure if you're an audiophile, you've done your research and decided to buy a player which supports (or can be flahsed to support) FLAC. I get the feeling this technology will be DOA. There's simply no market for it.

    2. Re:The obvious problem by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Space isn't so cheap when you're buying it from Apple.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:The obvious problem by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually the smallest iPod you can get is 4G.

      The smallest iPod classic, now considered a clunky dinosaur by Apple, is 120G.

      A 4G iPod can hold 11 CD's of your 350mb Flac variety.

      But that doesn't matter. Because the point was, a 120G iPod classic costs $250. I can walk into Best Buy, that overpriced mecca of electronic goods, and buy a terabyte USB drive for $150. And the classic is the iPod with the best 'storage vs cost' ratio.

      That 4G shuffle costs $79 and it's nearest cousins, the 8G iPods cost $150.

      At the same price: 8G vs 1000G (round about) Or in other words: 22 CDs vs just under 3,000 CDs

      Portable storage is expensive. Home storage is cheap.

      Wasting portable storage on something that would only be used at home, is pointless to the extreme.

  4. This is useless. by twitchingbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great. I'll have 80% of the capacity of my MP3 player used up by bits I will never access. Great job solving the problem fellas.

    1. Re:This is useless. by m0rbidini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No really. It is useless and a lousy hack. It's just a way for Thomson and FhG to further milk the mp3 buzzword, one more time.

      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.

      Addendum:
      Current tagging software isn't prepared to deal with this kind of situation, so you're going to see various disturbing behaviors such as:
              * Very slow tag updates (near-full-file-rewrite with each edit).
              * Heavy memory usage of tag editors.
              * Retagging stripping correction data.
              * Tag editing or even reading failures when approaching the 256MB limit because software will try to put each ID3v2 frame in a single memory block and allocating a single block of such size is likely to fail in 32-bit address space because of fragmentation issues.

      From: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70548

  5. Re:I'll wait for the MP3-HHD-DVVDD-BVD format. by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

    The chinese companies already have MP5 players ;)

  6. The stupidest format ever! by Per+Wigren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Basically it's a standard MP3 with correction delta as a binary blob in the ID3-tag. Was it really that hard to make it interleaved? Even having the correction data as a separate file, like Wavpack does it in its hybrid mode, would be better as it would make it much easier to add the files to MP3-players without using extra tools. This is just stupid. You won't be able to stream it as it's not interleaved and ID3 tags are limited to 256 MB so you can't have a MP3HD-file longer than 35 minutes or so.

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  7. Re:I'll wait for the MP3-HHD-DVVDD-BVD format. by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't an MP5 player not be usable in many countries?

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  8. All we need... by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is more FLAC support in portables. Problem solved more elegantly and without yet more proprietary codecs.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  9. Complete waste of time by sammydee · · Score: 3, Informative

    Relevant hydrogenaudio thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=55b656dc8cdb3b97da794e936b2a9b1d&showtopic=70548

    In summary, it seems like a fairly useless and poorly thought out format. To be clear, this WILL NOT play losslessly in a standard mp3 player, you must use a special decoder to get the lossless bit. It will only play the lossy component in a normal mp3 player.

    Lossless information stored in id3v2 tags? Bad hack that will break just about every tagging program out there. File sizes much larger than real lossless codecs and encoding/decoding speed is much slower than flac. Also you can't have tracks longer than about an hour due to id3v2 size limits. Additionally, a full size flac file and 256kbit mp3 often comes in at a SMALLER size than this one monolithic hacked up mp3.

    Nothing to see here people, this is a waste of time. Something like lossy/lossless wavpack hybrid is a much better solution.

    Sam

  10. Learn with history or make the same mistakes. by Volanin · · Score: 5, Informative

    I dare say that this insistence on backward compatibility is going to kill this format.

    If anyone still remembers, many years ago Thomson released the mp3PRO format.
    It was a low bitrate MP3 with some added spectral band data that could recreate the original
    music sound quality. So in theory, you could have the same quality for half the bitrate/size.

    To my decaying ears, it sounded really good at the time... if played on the supported players.
    But when you played these files in any unsupported player, which happened to be all of them
    except for the Thomson's Player or the Thomson's Winamp Plugin, you ended up listening to
    a HORRIBLE low bitrate sound quality, since the extra mp3PRO information was ignored.

    And even worse: you had no way of telling if a file being downloaded was an original mp3 file
    or a new mp3PRO file, since they both used the same file extension. Maybe if they had renamed
    the extension to .mp3pro or something like that, the mp3PRO format might have had some chance...

    Years pass... and now they are doing the same thing again.

    Instead of focusing on a lossless mp3 codec for a specific kind of market/enthusiast, they are
    insisting in keeping backward compatibility with players using the same method as mp3PRO did.
    And once more the files are going to have the same extension as the original ones, instead
    of .mp3hd or something similar.

    I hope I am wrong, but this surely spells doom to me.

    --
    If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
    If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
  11. Re:transpire? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't a transpire a male vampire who dresses like a female vampire?

  12. It's all in the name by ray_mccrae · · Score: 5, Funny

    I predict this will be a raging success on the scale of JPEG2000

  13. Why? by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My P-133 could do better than real time encoding of .wav -> .mp3

    So why, when computers are now routinely 50 or 60 times faster than that, would I bother with two separate file formats crammed into one blob on the relatively tiny memory of my portable device?

    Why, when disk space is now so cheap on my pc, can't I have a simple background process converting .flac into.mp3, to be stored separately for transfer to my portable device?

    Why would I suddenly want to put up with 9/10th's of the storage capacity of my portable device being used for useless data?

    In short, what the fuck were they thinking?

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  14. Re:The only loss... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you can define "fair compensation", we can start to worry about whether or not artists are getting it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Another extension by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, yes, lets tweak this patent just a tad and see if we can extend it for another 20 years.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  16. Re:I'm the only one that thinks this is a good ide by yuna49 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My reply is why bother supporting a proprietary format to incorporate lossless audio when there's already a well-developed open standard already, namely FLAC? By your argument, the expansion of disk space makes lossless storage more attractive. I agree with that, but what I don't want is for everyone to hop on board another standard from Thomson and friends which can't legally be supported in free and open software.

    Forward-thinking companies like COWON support open formats like FLAC and Matroska. Other players should as well. We've all suffered long enough with proprietary formats that bring nothing extra to the table other than the marketing power of large corporate backers.

  17. Re:I'll wait for the MP3-HHD-DVVDD-BVD format. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://007.blogbrasil.com.br/mp10-player/

    The device is an Mp10 player, it has built-in all the features of previous devices, that means, inside the mp10 there are an mp3, mp4, mp5, mp6, mp7, mp8 and mp9.

    Someone from work one explained to me. Each feature, like a camera, mobile analogic TV, digital TV, fmRadio, etc. Each feature adds 1 to MpX.

  18. H&K by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 5, Funny

    That MP5 format is really bad for your ears.

    1. Re:H&K by perryizgr8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      and your head too if used at point blank range.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    2. Re:H&K by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Headless AND lossy

  19. Evergreening by giorgist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounds like evergreening to me

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening

  20. A Far Less Brain-Damaged Solution (for Linux) by Spasmodeus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...is MP3FS, a virtual file system that transcodes your FLAC files to MP3 on the fly (including metadata).

    Just keep all your FLAC files on PC or NAS, and when you want to load them on a player, copy them from the MP3FS directory.

    You don't need to keep duplicate lossy files around, and you don't have huge chunks of lossless music taking up space on a player that can't play them anyway.

    1. Re:A Far Less Brain-Damaged Solution (for Linux) by SimplePaul · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good call. I was about to suggest this myself.

      I have used MP3FS and it worked perfectly.

      It's *the* ideal solution for people like me who like to have high quality audio on their computer but are limited to MP3 on their MP3 player.