Developers of the MP3 Have Officially Killed It

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ratinox

While Vorbis and Opus may be better than MP3 at 190Kbps and higher bit rates as measured by machines, the differences are beneath human hearing thresholds.

Then they should be labeled "audiophile quality" and cost a lot of money.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ratinox

0Sounds better is true only for bit rates below 190Kbps and especially below 128Kbps where MP3 fails miserably. MP3 (LAME encoder) above 190Kbps is transparent for most sources. While Vorbis and Opus may be better than MP3 at 190Kbps and higher bit rates as measured by machines, the differences are beneath human hearing thresholds.

Ogg Vorbis si better than MP3 and AAC at the same bit rate. You can go for a higher bit rate at a similar size with Ogg Vorbis.

Saying differences past 190kbs are beneath human hearing is just so very wrong. Such differences are able to be heard. Not everyone can hear them, but they are audible.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by ApK

Then they should be labeled "audiophile quality" and cost a lot of money.

Yes, well, an audiophool and his money are soon parted.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Yes, well, an audiophool and his money are soon parted.

I feel sorry for you that you've fallen for "CD quality".

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Ogg Vorbis si better than MP3 and AAC at the same bit rate. You can go for a higher bit rate at a similar size with Ogg Vorbis.

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Vorbis
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Transparency

There is no "better sound" once you've achieved transparency. Below that? Yes, Vorbis can be superior to LAME/MP3. Above? Nope.

Saying differences past 190kbs are beneath human hearing is just so very wrong. Such differences are able to be heard. Not everyone can hear them, but they are audible.

Nobody that I've ever known to make that claim has ever been able to demonstrate it under controlled testing conditions except in specific cases of specific sources (and sometimes specific encoder settings) generating specific, recognizable artifacts. If you know of an exception then I'd love to be pointed at scientifically verified references.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I feel sorry for you that you've fallen for "CD quality".

Er. No. "CD Quality" as a marketing term is not necessarily synonymous with 16-bit linear pulse code modulation (L-PCM).

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Yes, well, an audiophool and his money are soon parted.

Perhaps a green marker pen to run around the edge of your CDs to improve the sound quality? Well worth the $29.99 cost according to some of the golden ears crowd.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Perhaps a green marker pen to run around the edge of your CDs to improve the sound quality? Well worth the $29.99 cost according to some of the golden ears crowd.

Also magic rocks, and that $10K Ethernet patch.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I wonder what that mean? Hopefully not that my various mp3 files will no longer play.

It just means that you can't license MP3-encoding or decoding software/algorithms from Fraunhofer anymore. There are many open source implementations though.

Have you heard of LAME, for example? It stands for: LAME Ain't (an) MP3 Encoder. And officially, it isn't. It's an 'educational implementation' of the MP3 algorithm, 'enhanced with some new features.' In the beginning, LAME wasn't even available as a binary. The reason is that it isn't a program, and thus doesn't infringe copyright, as long as it's not compiled. You had to do that yourself.

Still, later LAME became available as a binary, and has been, for many many years. Nobody ever got intro problems because of it, AFAIK. Never saw any news messages of people being arrested.

LAME is so good and mature that it hasn't been updated for five years. (Just like FLAC: the format is still the same as in 2007, and the first bugfix/code cleanup release came in 2013.) Probably, it'll never change, apart from making it compile with newer compilers or on different/newer platforms.

This is just the encoder part... there are also open source developed decoders for MP3.

In short, the industry will just go open source if they want to have MP3 support. Now they can, because all patents have expired.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... since I have all my audiobooks and music backed up as mp3 files, should I format shift?

Personally, I'd convert these files to FLAC for archiving.

For people who are going to flip and tell me that this is of no use, let me explain. If you convert an MP3, which is lossy, into another lossy format, the quality will degrade.

However, if you convert the MP3 into FLAC, the FLAC file will contain ALL the contents of the MP3-file.... and because FLAC is lossless, you can convert it to any other lossless format without degradation. You can also create lossy formats from that FLAC file, as often as you want, without degradation.

I've done this with some sound tracks I got with games at GOG.com. The newer games have them as FLAC files, but older ones as MP3 in 192-320 kbps quality (sometimes, because FLAC wasn't even available then). To make sure I get _at least_ the quality of the starting MP3 upon conversion in the future, I've converted those sound tracks to FLAC.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Personally, I'd convert these files to FLAC for archiving

Why? They won't sound any better than they already do as MP3 files, they'll just be bigger in size. Now that the MP3 format is patent free, it's actually a better format for archiving than it ever has been.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... since I have all my audiobooks and music backed up as mp3 files, should I format shift?

Format shifting from a lossy format won't do any good. What you'll need to do is to re-rip to FLAC and then you have source files you can convert (or use as is) to any format you want as FLAC is lossless. So when you rip your CDs to FLAC, you get all the bits.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Format shifting from a lossy format won't do any good. What you'll need to do is to re-rip to FLAC and then you have source files you can convert (or use as is) to any format you want as FLAC is lossless. So when you rip your CDs to FLAC, you get all the bits.

This. There is absolutely no reason to convert lossy sources to FLAC.

If you do decide to re-rip from lossless sources to FLAC then I suggest ripping as single files (ie, one CD = one file) and CUE sheets so you not only get all of the bits but also all of the track timings.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Format shifting from a lossy format won't do any good. What you'll need to do is to re-rip to FLAC and then you have source files you can convert (or use as is) to any format you want as FLAC is lossless. So when you rip your CDs to FLAC, you get all the bits.

Except none of my portable devices or my home stereo can play flac files; only my computer can. Additionally, almost all my downloaded music and audiobooks were mp3 files to start with.

Since I retain any original CDs, re-ripping to flac seems pointless. I'd still also need mp3 files to play my music.

I guess I may be an anomaly since I don't stream music from the cloud.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Except none of my portable devices or my home stereo can play flac files; only my computer can. Additionally, almost all my downloaded music and audiobooks were mp3 files to start with.

Since I retain any original CDs, re-ripping to flac seems pointless. I'd still also need mp3 files to play my music.

I guess I may be an anomaly since I don't stream music from the cloud.

I'm in the same position as you. I'm sticking to MP3.