Old 13th June 2001, 21:37   #1
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
The first demo is now out, go and try it, I must say it's huge !

I want MP3Pro support in winamp !

I forgot the website : www.codingtechnologies.de/mp3PROzone

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2001, 21:38   #2
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
[edited]

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 09:57   #3
Wish
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 702
Winamp needs to add MP3Pro decoding to the Winamp MP3 decoder to take advantage of MP3Pro's files. Or not, the MP3Pro files would sound just like a normal 64kbps MP3 file which doesn't sound acceptable at all.
Wish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 11:36   #4
John M
Puts the Cuss in General Discussions
(Forum King)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 3,624
Send a message via AIM to John M
PP, WE NEED YOU!!!


missyob made me post this.
John M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 12:04   #5
Wish
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 702
Since Winamp uses the FHG decoder now since 2.666 and above, I would think it wouldn't be too hard(of course things sometimes just don't work the way you want it too) for Nullsoft to license and get the MP3Pro decoding source from FHG, Thomson Multimedia & Coding Technologies. *hopes Winamp 2.xx and 3.xx will support MP3Pro decoding*

[Edited by Wish on 06-14-2001 at 08:31 AM]
Wish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 12:26   #6
Benjamin Lebsanft
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 22
Send a message via ICQ to Benjamin Lebsanft
MP3pro support would be cool but not really necessary
Benjamin Lebsanft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 14:19   #7
K2L
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 2
Send a message via Yahoo to K2L
MP3Pro Yes

After playing with the RCA demo a while, I agree that MP3Pro is very worth while and needs to be supported in Winamp. This article at ZDNet was correct when it doesn't sound right in non-MP3pro players.

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...092678,00.html

I created a demo with RCA's player, it encodes @ 64KB. It sounded just as good as a regular MP3 @ 160KB. Play that same 64KB demo in Winamp... very ugly sound.
K2L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 14:35   #8
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
so they're halv the size and same quality?

sounds like WMA to me without the Microsoft baggage

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 16:22   #9
Ledge
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 6
I too downloaded the MP3pro demo and it works great. I wish only now that you could encode those demo mp3pro files at 128kbps. I could tell a slight difference in the quality from 128kbps to 64kbps, enough that I wouldn't want to burn a cd of it and play it in my premium car stereo. I did also try playing the MP3pro files in winamp and they sounded like crap. The MP3pro files only got 22khz, on winamp, instead of the 44khz they got on the MP3pro player. I am guessing this is due to the multiple streams of information that is used to code the mp3pro files.

I now only wish that winamp supported the format and that we could encode the mp3pro files at 128kbps.

-Ledge

[Edited by Ledge on 06-14-2001 at 01:10 PM]
Ledge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 16:27   #10
zorpidus
Major Dude
 
zorpidus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 1,137
Send a message via ICQ to zorpidus
Quote:
Originally posted by Ledge
The MP3pro files only got 22mhz, on winamp, instead of the 44mhz they got on the MP3pro player.
You mean 22kHz instead of 44kHz...

MHz frequency rates would rock, but aren't real

zorpidus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 16:58   #11
bonj
Major Dude
 
bonj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: HEH!!!! :D
Posts: 920
Send a message via AIM to bonj
Quote:
Originally posted by Benjamin Lebsanft
MP3pro support would be cool but not really necessary
It'd be very cool for shoutcast If it's fast enough

heh?
bonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 17:13   #12
Ledge
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 6
zorpidus - Thanks for catching my mistake. I think about computers so much I am lucky I didn't put mbps instead of kbps.

-Ledge
Ledge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 17:50   #13
s1138
Alumni?
 
s1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: joja
Posts: 6,935
Send a message via ICQ to s1138 Send a message via AIM to s1138 Send a message via Yahoo to s1138
im still quite skepical

s1138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 18:45   #14
SNYder
Forum King
 
SNYder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,432
anyone compare mp3pro to wma8 yet?
SNYder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 18:50   #15
Narg
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3
Send a message via Yahoo to Narg
MP3Pro won't fly, unless...

Thompson owns this standard. I don't see it becoming big unless the MPEG group ratifies it as a new standard (open standard, of course, so no licencing fees apply). I suggest Winamp not use it until this occurs.
Narg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 18:51   #16
temo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11
Does anyone know a location where I can download a demo MP3Pro file?
temo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 19:11   #17
s1138
Alumni?
 
s1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: joja
Posts: 6,935
Send a message via ICQ to s1138 Send a message via AIM to s1138 Send a message via Yahoo to s1138
at the top of this thread

s1138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 19:14   #18
temo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11
I must be totally blind, I can't see it, I searched the rca page, and the coding tech page.
temo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 19:31   #19
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
Is it really hard to find ?

http://www.codingtechnologies.de/mp3...e/download.htm

About the quality, I find it better than WMA. At 64 kbps the quality is not really equivalent to 128 kbps MP3 but it's really near !

I can't wait for the SBR technologie to be integrated in most encoder/decoder...

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 19:40   #20
temo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11
Sorry I wasn't very clear, I meant an audio demo
temo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2001, 21:44   #21
SNYder
Forum King
 
SNYder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,432
Quote:
Originally posted by temo
Sorry I wasn't very clear, I meant an audio demo
just encode one yourself.

anyway... i found the quality to be equal to, if not better then 128kbs. But there was an aspect of the new format that was much better then normal mp3's. I compared the mp3pro version of a song to an mp3 version, using the latest lmae encoder, and it is extreamly clear that there were far less artifacts and the stability and quality of the encoding was much better. Ofcourse, the treble of the mp3PRO version is just as fucked up as the 128kbs normal mp3 files was, but even there it seems a tad bit better. Once we are able to go up to 96kbs, quality the quality is going to be outstanding for the filesize.
SNYder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 05:52   #22
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
I do not know your encoder, but you should try either Lame or Fraunhofer because with theses goods encoders, the 128 kbps MP3 is a litle better than the MP3Pro @ 64 kbps.
But the quality of the MP3Pro is really amazing...

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 06:04   #23
SNYder
Forum King
 
SNYder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,432
Quote:
Originally posted by SNYder
I compared the mp3pro version of a song to an mp3 version, using the latest lame encoder, and it is extreamly clear that there were far less artifacts and the stability and quality of the encoding was much better.
SNYder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 06:45   #24
ff123
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 19
Results will vary from music track to music track.

I compared against Fraunhofer's FastEnc codec on several tracks and came to the same conclusion as Bruce, that mp3pro at 64 kbit/s sounds worse than FastEnc at 128 kbit/s, but close enough to be interesting.

I also tried Xing on one song (Radiohead - Bones), and mp3pro sounded better than Xing at 128 kbit/s.

mp3pro also sounds better to me than WMA 8 at 64 kbit/s.

ff123
ff123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 08:30   #25
John M
Puts the Cuss in General Discussions
(Forum King)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 3,624
Send a message via AIM to John M
anything is gonna sound better than Xing.

missyob made me post this.
John M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 11:40   #26
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
Yep, Xing suxx and it's known...

I've even found that WMA 4 (not 8 !!!) at 64 kbps was better than MP3 at 128 kbps encoded with Xing...

I'm currently doing a big test of MP3Pro front of MP3 fraunhofer @128, WMA 8 @64 and Real 8 (ATRAC 3) @64 kbps...

I'll post the url as soon as it's done.

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 22:29   #27
AlieXai
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 233
Hrm... I played an mp3Pro file with WinAmp last night just fine. :/ < shrugs >

The quality vs bitrate is really amazing when compared to the current mp3 format and other format like Ogg Vorbis, and WMA. The 64kbps mp3Pro file didn't however sound as well or better than a 128kbps mp3 file
AlieXai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th June 2001, 22:39   #28
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
Here is the test, for now only in english, I'll translate it tomorow : www.bheller.com/MP3Pro/test_du_mp3pro.htm

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 03:21   #29
Spook
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1
Send a message via ICQ to Spook
mp3pro and winamp

Well, I really don't care about this new mp3pro until winamp has a good plugin for it. That's all.

Spook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 06:27   #30
Ranch
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Send a message via AIM to Ranch Send a message via Yahoo to Ranch
Results

Hi Friends,

I try to play a file converted with by RCA mp3Pro (into MP3PRO format) with both RCA and Winamp and i got the following results:

Winamp Playing At:
64KBPS
22KHZ

RCA mp3Pro Playing At:
64KBPS
44KHZ

So RCA player sounds better than Winamp! 64KBPS MP3PRO file's quality is near to 128KBPS mp3 file on winamp.

Hum...... Winamp Better Bring it on!!!
Ranch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 07:20   #31
Kevin
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 582
Send a message via AIM to Kevin
I beleive MP3Pro has an assload of royalties you have to pay to be able to use it to decode...

Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 08:12   #32
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
Yes, but as Winamp already uses the fraunhofer decoder for classic MP3 files, why not add MP3Pro...

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 09:12   #33
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 11:23   #34
Sebastienbo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7
Comparing

Yesterday a new realeased version cam out of the MP3pro decoder & encoder @ thomson

I did the test :

song in WAV was 38.5 Mb
song in mp3 128 kb/sec was 3,45 Mb
song in MP3 Pro (not high quality) was 1,75 MB

I putted those 3 in the playlist of the new released player
and gues what now I can't her any difference at all between the MP3 and MP3 Pro

Try it like I did and you will see, and mostly hear it :-)

Happy encoding time :-)
Sebastienbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 18:06   #35
mpzoo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1
First Glance

Well, it would seem that we have an issue to deal with here...
MP3 as we know it has been a relatively-free codec as we see it. The fact is though that royalties are being paid to use the codec in different fashions - encoding and decoding (both of which FH dips its fingers in).
With the advent of WMA (which no-one wants to touch) and AAC (which doesn't fit right with users) there is competition in the market. My guess is that RCA will be reasonable with the royalties again at this point to ensure that they don't lose appeal and market share to capitalise of prospective growth. If they are able to gain the majority of the market interest now, then they are setting themselves up for a nice winfall for later on (hmm... Microsoft Syndrome) - but at least it is better than having Microsoft owning it!
On the other side of the fence there is good old OGG. Now, what's to happen with that? Well, if the manufacturers get behind OGG and their compression technology gets better then we may have a show!
Either way things are getting better for the end-user.
I'd like to see WinAmp take on MP3Pro and incorporate it's technology into it's player if the deal is reasonable to licence the technology and won't effect the end user.
If the licencing of MP3Pro to WinAmp causes NullSoft to start 'selling' WinAmp I will look for another alternative and I think others may too.
In the same breath, I would not be surprised if RealNetworks will somehow get involved and/or MusicMatch.

Cross your fingers cos we are in for some interesting times ahead!!

MPZOO
mpzoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 18:27   #36
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
I don't think that real network will go into MP3Pro, because they own Xing... (you know, the worst encoder ever ).

But Musicmatch will surelly go for it !

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 19:05   #37
Seraphic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 6
Send a message via AIM to Seraphic
As you all know, MP3pro is being compared closely to WMA8. This is fair enough, but there are two main differences.

1. CPU Usage: MP3pro uses around the same CPU time as MP3. WMA8 is far more CPU intensive than MP3, proves fairly sluggish even on an AMD K62-400. The codecs need to be improved if you ask me.

2. Security: MP3pro is unlikely to include any form of security or protection upon release, as its a simple rewrite of the orginal MP3 codec to include new technologies. WMA8 has protection already up and running. Record companies are obviously going to go with the more secure format.

The future, in my opinion? Either OGG or MP4 (AAC).

Seraphic.
Seraphic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 19:16   #38
Bruce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 163
Send a message via ICQ to Bruce
Untrue !

About CPU usage, the MP3Pro uses much more CPU than classic MP3. And a litle bit more than WMA.

A+++
Bruce
www.bheller.com
Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 20:45   #39
Seraphic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 6
Send a message via AIM to Seraphic
Trust me, Mp3pro has the same cpu load as regular MP3, and WMA far more. This proves true on Windows 2000 and Windows XP. You may get different results on your system, but they are definative on mine. Another thing - I cannot seem to get Mp3pro to play properly with my SBLive! drivers on WinXP for some reason, though the CPU load is still measurable via Task Manager. I have not tested CPU load on WinME, though WMA seems more sluggish than MP3pro.

Seraphic.
Seraphic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2001, 20:48   #40
Seraphic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 6
Send a message via AIM to Seraphic
MP3-VBR

I believe that MP3-Variable Bit Rate encoding has been greatly overlooked when it comes to encoding. It provides fantastic quality sound and good compression.

Seraphic.
Seraphic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

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