Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[twriter]

I'm wondering if someone can give me a more in-depth reason why MP3Pro has not been added as a ripping option. In searching, the only thing I've seen is something along the lines of that it's not a popular enough format. Well, it's new, what do you expect? (Such a response is as useful to users who want the feater as Bantam's response about working with JRiver to make the products works together.)

From what little I know (so far), MP3Pro seems to provide a similar quality file in about half the space. At least that seems to be true for the "CD quality" level of 128 when I was ripping with MusicMatch.

I tried a little experiment. I've ripped some of my CDs (with MusicMatch) in MP3Pro format, a format that generates files that play fine on both my new mp3 player (a Nitrus) and my first-generation car CD/MP3 player, a Kenwood.. I took one and ripped it with the MP3plus plug-in or Media Center 9.

Thing is, I have no clue what the settings mean; there's a choice of  Thumb, Radio, Standard, Xtreme, Insane, and Custom, which give no cluse how they match  up to common quantitative settings for standard MP3s (although the library does show the resulting bitrate).

Still, I ripped CD twice, once at Standard and once at Thumb. the results of a 4 minute song:

MP3Pro: 1954 KB (bitrate: 128)
MP3plus (Standard): 5328 KB (bitrate: 175)
MP3plus (Thumb): 2518KB (bitrate: 83)

Oh, and the file extension is .mpc.. Whatis.com reports that to be the same extension as a Microsoft Project calendar file.

Please, no one suggest WMA as a viable alternative. It may be for some, but some want playable, good quality MP3 -format files.

From my experience in the software development world, many users who dont' find the feature they want either suffer in silence or find something else (again, in silence). A few inquiries have popped up here; they likely represent a much larger number of users and potential users who would like to see this feature in current or future versions.

So one question is: how much does user demand drive product features? (For me, basic functionality comes far, far ahead of fluff such as skins.)

I switched to Media Jukebox some time back, despite its slowness in ripping (which seems to be speedier in MC9, thank you very much), because it does so many basic functionality things so much better than MusicMatch (and some things that MM simply doesn't). To me, and probably to many others, MP3Pro is a gaping hole in MC. Will you fill that hole?

[rocketsauce]

In searching, the only thing I've seen is something along the lines of that it's not a popular enough format.

If you change the search parameters to search farther back, say 6 months or a year, you should be able to find more threads on the subject.

it's new, what do you expect?

Depends on what you mean by new. I would say that it's been around for at least 5 years, if not longer.

From what little I know (so far), MP3Pro seems to provide a similar quality file in about half the space.

This is only true if the device (or software) used for playback is designed to specifically support mp3pro. Any device that can play mp3 can also play the "mp3" part of an mp3pro file, but if the device doesn't specifically include mp3pro decoder technology, then you gain none of the benefit of mp3pro's sound quality/small filesize.

I see nothing on the Rio website

http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_templates/item_main_Rio.asp?model=219&cat=53

or in the Nitrus users manual

http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/support/rio/downloads/Nitrus/Nitrus_41000855-002.pdf

or at this website

http://www.mp3prozone.com/products.htm

that says the Nitrus is designed to playback mp3pro. As far as I can tell, it plays only mp3 and wma. So, encoding your files in mp3pro is pointless. You should just encode them in the "regular" mp3 format.

I took one and ripped it with the MP3plus plug-in or Media Center 9

Media Center does not have an MP3plus plug-in. You are confusing it with the MPEGplus plug-in. MPEGplus is a different format than mp3 or mp3pro. It is also known as Musepack or MPC and the file extension is usually .mpc or sometimes .mp+. I can guarantee that neither your Nitrus nor your car cd/mp3 player are capable of playing MPEGplus (.mpc) files.

Rob

[KingSparta]

Why not MP3Pro?

I Think A Better Question Is Why Use MP3Pro

The Format is really not supported thru out the industry in software and hardware

[Monkeyboy]

I thought encoding is limited for mp3pro unless you buy it, I remember when it was introduced it cost, could be wrong but dont really care for it.
Rich

[LonWar]

Please, no one suggest WMA as a viable alternative. It may be for some, but some want playable, good quality MP3 -format files.

Kind of curious... What's wrong with WMA? I have done a lot of tests and I can not hear a difference between MP3 @ 160 kbps and a WMA @ 96...

I do not know it all, so if you want to share your views...

[Monkeyboy]

for one WMA is a micro$oft thing, so its got a bad rep in my book straight off  
I don't think it sounds as good as mp3, especially at high bit rates.
I havent listend to a WMA in a long time but i'm sure a 96 WMA isnt comparible to a 160 mp3.
I build digital audio equipment and listen to a lot of audio and carry out test in Anechoic chambers etc so I would like to think my hearing is good. I do not encode mp3s in anything less than 192 vbr so do not know what WMA sounds like at low bitrates.. anyone?

another thing, mp3 is much more widely used
Rich

Think I might go have a play with WMA  

[zevele10]

To make short:
-Price JRiver would have to pay to have the mp3pro format is much to hight.

WMA-
If you take the WMA9 ,it is exellent , really.
At same quality level Lame 128 is a shame compared to the equivalent WMA9 format.

The main problem is the DRM that is lurking with WMA.
And some limitations concerning tags and so on.

 MP3plus plug-in or Media Center 9.===== this is MPC , not any kind of mp3 format.

[KingSparta]

for one WMA is a micro$oft thing, so its got a bad rep in my book straight off  

the new versions of the encoders are better than MP3 , and as long as you do not enable security there is no problem with the format.

and it is widely supported.

I don't think it sounds as good as mp3, especially at high bit rates.

try the new encoders, they sound just fine

another thing, mp3 is much more widely used

true, but if they support MP3 they normaly support Windows Media Files even if it does not say it on the device.

I am however with you, I prefer MP3 for some of the same reasons you stated.

[Monkeyboy]

I think i'm just stubborn in my ways because I had to make a choice a while back. My in car cd-mp3 player wont play wma which was the main reason for not looking at it recently.
I just encoded some songs at 64 and 128 in wma and mp3 and the wma does sound much better, I did not realise the encoders had changed that much.
If I get time I might have a proper listen to some high bitrate stuff.
Think i'll stick to what I know though.
Rich

[LonWar]

I remeber reading somewhere that WMA at high bit rates were the same as MP3 but at lower bitrates they were better.

The reason I brought up wma as it is a better alternative then MP3pro...

[Monkeyboy]

I remeber reading somewhere that WMA at high bit rates were the same as MP3 but at lower bitrates they were better.

It seems to be the case after playing for a bit  
Rich

[twriter]

In searching, the only thing I've seen is something along the lines of that it's not a popular enough format.

If you change the search parameters to search farther back, say 6 months or a year, you should be able to find more threads on the subject.

it's new, what do you expect?

Depends on what you mean by new. I would say that it's been around for at least 5 years, if not longer.

From what little I know (so far), MP3Pro seems to provide a similar quality file in about half the space.

This is only true if the device (or software) used for playback is designed to specifically support mp3pro. Any device that can play mp3 can also play the "mp3" part of an mp3pro file, but if the device doesn't specifically include mp3pro decoder technology, then you gain none of the benefit of mp3pro's sound quality/small filesize.

I see nothing on the Rio website

http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_templates/item_main_Rio.asp?model=219&cat=53

or in the Nitrus users manual

http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/support/rio/downloads/Nitrus/Nitrus_41000855-002.pdf

or at this website

http://www.mp3prozone.com/products.htm

that says the Nitrus is designed to playback mp3pro. As far as I can tell, it plays only mp3 and wma. So, encoding your files in mp3pro is pointless. You should just encode them in the "regular" mp3 format.

I took one and ripped it with the MP3plus plug-in or Media Center 9

Media Center does not have an MP3plus plug-in. You are confusing it with the MPEGplus plug-in. MPEGplus is a different format than mp3 or mp3pro. It is also known as Musepack or MPC and the file extension is usually .mpc or sometimes .mp+. I can guarantee that neither your Nitrus nor your car cd/mp3 player are capable of playing MPEGplus (.mpc) files.

Rob

As a matter of fact, I tested with my Nitrus and my old car CD/MP3 player. Both play MP3 files ripped in MP3Pro format.

So what are these supposed "advantages" that you dont' get on playback?

The advantage I want is a similar sound quality in a smaller filesize.  MP3Pro provides that. It provides also greater compatibility with playing on MP3 players.

I presume that this is because the resulting files are MP3 files, just with a better encoding scheme. As a result, they should *play* on any MP3 player.

Getting them endoced, however, is another matter.. So the questions still remains: why not include an MP3Pro encoder with MC?

[KingSparta]

I did do a test in my wifes car down to 24kbps stereo, she could not tell the quality loss. the same files on my Stereo she could.

>> Both play MP3 files ripped in MP3Pro format.
in the early docs of MP3Pro I think that was one of the statements, not sure if it was true on all devices of the time.

[LonWar]

A normal mp3 player will play the file, But it will not be the same quality.... To get the full quality out of MP3pro, you have to use a device capable of mp3pro.

[rocketsauce]

As a matter of fact, I tested with my Nitrus and my old car CD/MP3 player. Both play MP3 files ripped in MP3Pro format.

MP3pro is a combination of two technologies...MP3 and SBR (Spectral Band Replication). Any MP3 player is capable of playing back the MP3 part of an MP3pro file, but unless the player specifically is designed to play mp3pro, the SBR part will be ignored and you gain none of the sound quality/filesize benefit of the format. Therefore, it would be pointless to use MP3pro.

It's explained here fairly clearly:

http://www.mp3prozone.com/basics.htm

mp3PRO, is composed out of two components, the mp3 part for the low frequencies and the SBR or "PRO" part for the high frequencies. Since the "PRO" part requires only a few kbps, the format could be done in a way that it is still compatible with the original mp3 format. This fact allows existing mp3 players to play mp3PRO files. They simply ignore the PRO part. To learn whether your mp3 player is capable to play mp3PRO files, please check with its manual or manufacturer.

Rob

[zevele10]

Think about playing a video not the standart of your video player:
It works , you get sound and image.
But black&white image

[Keyth_Owen]

First of all, why not WMA?  Because of the accursed digital rights B.S., and the fact that even when it's "turned off" the files still resist being altered sometimes. I used to have my whole library in WMA format, and ust got sick of dealing with tagging problems and not being able to edit the file in any way I wanted.  

BUT... Although MP3Pro is nice-sounding when supported by hadware, it's not widely supported, and doesn't look like it will be in the near future.  The bonus in space is fast becoming a moot point because the price of storage is getting lower and lower, and the size of storage devices is getting higher just as steadily.

For my money, the only way to rip anything is in MP3 using High Quality VBR.  The difference is noticable, and the file size is still quite manageable.  Messing around with WMA and MP3Pro is just a way to shave a couple bytes, but the compromise in actual sound quality is too obvious in my book.

Trust me- Skip MP3Pro and go straight for VBR MP3.  Even at mid-quality, it's better.

[LonWar]

First of all, why not WMA?  Because of the accursed digital rights B.S., and the fact that even when it's "turned off" the files still resist being altered sometimes. I used to have my whole library in WMA format, and ust got sick of dealing with tagging problems and not being able to edit the file in any way I wanted.  

My Library consists of .ape for home use, WMA for my portable.. (ran out of room) and MP3 for my car..(Doesn't support wma).

Now I used to use wma lossless and have used normal wma for a few years and have NEVER had anytype of tagging or any other problem.

[zevele10]

You mean ,you rip to WMA 9 lossless.
You do the tags , put the sleeve ect ect.

And when you convert to mp3 ,you still have all of it?

I did use WMA9 instead of APE thinking that if a Ipood look a like player playing lossless , it would be WMA9............

And the player out is playing FLAC , not WMA9....

Now , go offline , in Explorer just click on any wma format song- Not even play , just click-- and the click will make your computer calling to go online

[twriter]

As a matter of fact, I tested with my Nitrus and my old car CD/MP3 player. Both play MP3 files ripped in MP3Pro format.

MP3pro is a combination of two technologies...MP3 and SBR (Spectral Band Replication). Any MP3 player is capable of playing back the MP3 part of an MP3pro file, but unless the player specifically is designed to play mp3pro, the SBR part will be ignored and you gain none of the sound quality/filesize benefit of the format. Therefore, it would be pointless to use MP3pro.

It's explained here fairly clearly:

http://www.mp3prozone.com/basics.htm

mp3PRO, is composed out of two components, the mp3 part for the low frequencies and the SBR or "PRO" part for the high frequencies. Since the "PRO" part requires only a few kbps, the format could be done in a way that it is still compatible with the original mp3 format. This fact allows existing mp3 players to play mp3PRO files. They simply ignore the PRO part. To learn whether your mp3 player is capable to play mp3PRO files, please check with its manual or manufacturer.

Rob

So let me try to understand this: If I rip a song to MP3 at a bitrate of 128 and the same song to MP3Pro at a bitrate of 128, they will sound the same on players not capable of recognizing the Pro features?

I'll try to test a couple myself when I get a chance, not that my dance music-addled ears could probably tell the difference.)

[rocketsauce]

If I rip a song to MP3 at a bitrate of 128 and the same song to MP3Pro at a bitrate of 128, they will sound the same on players not capable of recognizing the Pro features?

The highest bitrate that mp3pro supports is 96kbps. But since mp3pro uses SBR for the high frequencies, I would guess that a 96 or 128kbps mp3 could sound a little better as it might at least still have some of the high freguencies that would be missing if the SBR part of the pro file is being ignored.

Rob

[twriter]

If I rip a song to MP3 at a bitrate of 128 and the same song to MP3Pro at a bitrate of 128, they will sound the same on players not capable of recognizing the Pro features?

The highest bitrate that mp3pro supports is 96kbps. But since mp3pro uses SBR for the high frequencies, I would guess that a 96 or 128kbps mp3 could sound a little better as it might at least still have some of the high freguencies that would be missing if the SBR part of the pro file is being ignored.

Rob

Hm, yeah. "CD quality" in MP3Pro is 64kbps but in MP3 is 128kpbs. So then a "CD Quality" MP3Pro file will sound essentially the same as a standard MP3 file on a player that not designed specifically to handle the MP3Pro format?

[skeeterfood]

Hm, yeah. "CD quality" in MP3Pro is 64kbps but in MP3 is 128kpbs. So then a "CD Quality" MP3Pro file will sound essentially the same as a standard MP3 file on a player that not designed specifically to handle the MP3Pro format?

No, a 64kbps MP3Pro file will sound essentialy like a 64kbps MP3 file on a player that does noy support the MP3Pro extensions.  It "should" sound closer to a 128kbps MP3 file on a player that does support the extensions, if you believe their claims.

-John

[rocketsauce]

So then a "CD Quality" MP3Pro file will sound essentially the same as a standard MP3 file on a player that not designed specifically to handle the MP3Pro format?

?

No, that doesn't really make sense. The only reason a 64kbps mp3pro might sound as good as a 128kbps mp3 is because it is being played in a player that supports the format. If you're playing back a 64kbps mp3pro in a player that doesn't support the format, it will probably sound like a 64kbps mp3 or possibly even worse.

Anyway, once again, the point is that since you don't have an mp3pro capable player, there is no benefit in using that format. If you want decent sounding 64kbps files on your Nitrus, you're probably going to have to use wma. If you still only want to use mp3, then you'll probably have to live with higher bitrates. There are various settings that can be used to get decent sound quality at relatively small filesizes, though.

Rob

[jcrist]

Somone said 128kbit WMA sounds better than 128kbit LAME.  WMA is a file format, LAME is a program.  So you can't compare 128kbit WMA to "128kbit LAME"  I realize you are inferring MP3 when you say LAME but there are so many ways to encode an MP3 using LAME you can't compare to WMA just referencing a bitrate.  I'm guessing you referring to 128kbit ABR (Average Bit Rate) enoded MP3's when you refer to LAME.  If you are referring to CBR (Constant Bitrate) then of course WMA is going to sound better.

Assuming you are referring to 128kbit ABR encoded MP3's using LAME, there is no clear evidence that WMA offers any significant advantages from what I've read.  In fact it has one large drawback, it isn't as widely supported as MP3.  As far as sound quality, they are very similar.  All tests I've seen, LAME ABR encoded MP3's slight edge out WMA.  Here is a very good test here if you want to do a little reading:

http://ff123.net/128tests.html