Old 5th January 2002, 22:51   #1
Xmen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2
MP3 Pro

There is an improved encoding format used by Nero CD burning software that allows low sampling for MP3 formats. But while decoding to audio cd, it brings back the normal 44KHz sampling. But winamp plays these encoded MP3 files as 22Khz. Does anyone have the solution to this?
Xmen is offline  
Old 5th January 2002, 23:03   #2
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 36,088
Not sure if I understand your question (it was the "while decoding to audio cd" bit that threw me), but to play MP3Pro encoded files in Winamp you need the MP3Pro plugin . . . but please read this first:

The Official 3rd-party Plugin Bug List -> 6) Thomson MP3 Pro plugin.

Thankfully, most of the bugs mentioned have been fixed with the new version.
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 7th January 2002, 00:39   #3
Xmen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2
Re: MP3 Pro

Thank you for the plug-in link.
What I wanted to say about decoding to audio Cd is that when I burned an Audio CD from MP3 Pro encoded files, the sound quality of the audio Cd came back to usual 44KHz sampling.
But winamp played those encoded MP3 (pro) files as 22Khz (sampling) not 44khz.
Anyway, you provided me the solution.
Thanx again.
Xmen is offline  
Old 7th January 2002, 01:46   #4
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 36,088
Oh right, yeah . . .

The original MP3Pro files were encoded at a sample rate/frequency of 22KHz?

But CD Quality WAV files have to be, and always are, burned at 44.1KHz

CD Quality WAV = PCM 44.1KHz 16-bit stereo

All AudioCD's are burnt in this format,
regardless of what the original WAV/MP3 files were.
Newer burners will automatically take care of this conversion procedure, whereas you'll get an error message with older versions of Nero/ECDC/etc saying that the files can't be burnt to AudioCD because they aren't CD Quality.
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 7th January 2002, 12:28   #5
NRen2k5
Banned
 
NRen2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 622
Send a message via ICQ to NRen2k5 Send a message via AIM to NRen2k5 Send a message via Yahoo to NRen2k5
The reason that WinAMP would play the files at 22kHz is because the old MP3 output plug-in is made for MP3, not that horrible MP3pro. So what happens is it sees 64kbps, expects the file to be either 44kHz mono or 22kHz stereo, and when it sees its stereo, it plays at 22kHz, because 64kbps/44kHz/stereo is impossible by MP3 standard, which I'll remind you now, MP3pro doesn't even come close to conforming with.

While you're going outside of standard, you might want to just try using MPC or OGG-Vorbis instead of MP3pro, as both are better.
NRen2k5 is offline  
Old 7th January 2002, 21:05   #6
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 36,088
Doh! Yes, of course! That would explain it!
(btw, as you can tell, I've never used mp3pro, and don't ever intend to)
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 11:30   #7
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
I didnt know before (few months ago) that mp3 pro didnt work with out a new plugin. Well I finally figured it out and tried again. I took a hq 192 khz mp3 and turned it into 96 khz pro. I was a skeptic, but I tried my hardest to find a reason why the 2x the size original was better than mp3pro... I found none. You have to listen awfully deep to find a difference. So, I wouldn't call mp3pro horrible.
Daev is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 12:31   #8
NRen2k5
Banned
 
NRen2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 622
Send a message via ICQ to NRen2k5 Send a message via AIM to NRen2k5 Send a message via Yahoo to NRen2k5
The problems with MP3pro, outlined for the especially dense among you:
1) It's estimated that with SBR technology, you only have any real advantage with MP3pro over standard MP3at bitrates up to 160. Considering CD-quality is 256kbps for MP3, it would be exactly the same for MP3pro, so why switch formats.
2) The top bitrate is 128kbps. This is reminiscent of M$'s MP3 encoder which is limited to 56kbps/22kHz. I don't want crap like that!
3) There is no VBR mode in MP3pro. What the hell?! To take advantage of a format to its utmost, it has to have variable-bitrate mode. Because in CBR (constant bitrate), sometimes the bitrate you have selected is a complete waste, and other times it's a horrible bottleneck. This is why LameEnc MP3's will always be better than MP3pro. The Lame developpers have tweaked VBR to the point where it surpasses even Fraunhofer.

The way I see MP3pro, is that it's a funny little toy. Now that we know SBR works relatively well, we can build new formats based on it. But what do Thomson/Fraunhofer do? They make a pitiful alteration to a years-old standard, and use the same file extension... utterly reidiculous.
NRen2k5 is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 12:48   #9
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
Well, I dont use VBR, so that doesnt matter to me and secondly, comparing 56/22 m$ codec to mp3pro's 128 max is comparing apples to oranges.
Daev is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 18:28   #10
c2R
Stereotype?
(Forum King)
 
c2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ware, England
Posts: 3,511
Why don't you use VBR, does sound quality not matter to you, or do you have so much space available to you that file size isn't important as you've got enough room to encode everything at 224k?

Neo's right on this one - mp3pro sucks, and the restrictions on the format are very similar to what MS are doing with their mp3 encoder.
c2R is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 18:57   #11
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
Quote:
Originally posted by c2R
Why don't you use VBR, does sound quality not matter to you, or do you have so much space available to you that file size isn't important as you've got enough room to encode everything at 224k?
In a word, yes

My 40 gigger is almost out of space and I dont have the bones to drop on another drive, soo.... pro is gonna gain me some disk back
Daev is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 19:04   #12
NRen2k5
Banned
 
NRen2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 622
Send a message via ICQ to NRen2k5 Send a message via AIM to NRen2k5 Send a message via Yahoo to NRen2k5
Well then use MPC instead of MP3pro. MPC can be used at the same low bitrates as MP3pro, except it's VBR in nature, and it works better than MP3pro.
NRen2k5 is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 19:53   #13
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
No, I think I'll stick with mp3pro. I dont like VBR no matter how many people tell me its the best thing since sliced bread. If im gonna do regular MP3's though, I use LAME

I think of myself as big on sound quality. For me to say I like it, means it sounds as good to me as 256 MP3.... At least on the 20 or so tracks I tested it on. I have outstanding headphones, a high quality I really had to listed for a hint of distortion, lack of dynamic range, clipping, etc.
Daev is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 19:57   #14
Wish
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 702
You may think you're big on sound quality, but by not using MPC, you aren't. The concensus is, MPC is the best lossy compression format. 256kbps MP3 is nothing compared to MPC.
Wish is offline  
Old 18th January 2002, 20:30   #15
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
EDIT: nm.. your post was wordy. Any way... MP3pro works well, sue me
Daev is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 03:16   #16
NRen2k5
Banned
 
NRen2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 622
Send a message via ICQ to NRen2k5 Send a message via AIM to NRen2k5 Send a message via Yahoo to NRen2k5
If stupidity was a crime, I would.
NRen2k5 is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 11:59   #17
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
Oh, so you're a crazy mad flaem warrior
Well, forget this conversation, I can tell I'm talking to a moron
Daev is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 13:07   #18
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,911
i had to say this....

the space saved from converting to mp3pro isn't worth the quality loss caused.....thats all their trying to say

you'll have much less troubles using MPC or vorbis....because the decoder's are open source/very well engineered and easily ported to other systems for free.

MP3pro isn't the second coming of god so live with that...

if you convert everything you'll regret it so badly in the longrun.

we advise you try MPC and/or vorbis and see what you think

also have a read here
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org


[edit]edited cos peter is scum and he likes to correct me[/edit]

Last edited by Rocker; 19th January 2002 at 14:16.
Rocker is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 13:34   #19
peter
ist death
 
peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,704
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org
peter is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 16:45   #20
NRen2k5
Banned
 
NRen2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 622
Send a message via ICQ to NRen2k5 Send a message via AIM to NRen2k5 Send a message via Yahoo to NRen2k5
You can use whatever format you want, but get the facts straight first.
1) Transcoding always incurs quality loss, even moreso than just encoding the source at the lower bitrate.
2) VBR is superior to CBR.
3) MPC is superior to MP3pro.
4) MP3pro is just a toy. It's Thomson's little test with SubBand 4eplication before they develop a new format based on the concept.
NRen2k5 is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 16:55   #21
peter
ist death
 
peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,704
neo: i liked first version of your reply more (i think i've seen all 3 versions)
peter is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 17:22   #22
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 36,088
And I preferred your sig before you added those 2 images.
The least ya could do is change it from Blade to Xing.
Blade's pretty bad, but Xing is even worse.
And as for the motherf--ker thing, get rid!
DJ Egg is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 18:00   #23
Daev
Junior Member
 
Daev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 10
Send a message via ICQ to Daev
I mean, if he wants to flame me, I got a lot of experience with newbies, know-it-alls and mitey flaem warriors... I moderate a flame forum on a GSI board.

I'm just trying to relate my experiences.
Daev is offline  
Old 19th January 2002, 18:53   #24
peter
ist death
 
peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,704
well, it seems that some people just love to encode their music in non-open commercial formats, then someday find that their music collection is completely unplayable after changing OS (or even changing media playback software). well, some people also love to transcode between formats, but that's another case. if you like to have funny problems with accessing your mp3 collection, that's ok with us; just don't try to convince other people to go your way (or do that on your own forum, not here); anyway, we've already seen enough folks having problems with Winamp because of poor quality of the mp3pro decoder plugin.
peace.
peter is offline  
Closed Thread
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Technical Support

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump