Topic: MP3Pro (Read 2558 times)

Figaro · « **on:** June 09, 2002, 08:08:27 am »

This subject is probably covered in previous messages, but I'll give it a try anyway: does MJ plan to support MP3PRO?
I'm currently using the MP3PRO converter in Nero CD-burning software and I think it's fantastic. At 80 kbps I cannot tell the difference between that and any other codec at 128. That's a lot of disk space saved, both on my hard drive and my Creative Nomad handheld.

SBrandsborg aka Mouseman · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2002, 08:44:27 am »

try WMA

Windows Media Audio offers:
Near-CD Quality now at 64kbps
CD Quality at 96kbps

Dave · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2002, 03:15:40 pm »

To put it bluntly, WMA's sound quality sucks big time. No matter what the articles say.
My ears can tell difference up to 128kbs when comparing same file to a MP3.

ChicoSelfs · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2002, 03:21:03 pm »

maybe is the codec you use, i have a audigy pack with the 5.1 speakers and the wma @ 128 Kbps and a MP3 @ 128 Kbps can't be compared the Mp3 even at 192 Kbps don't have the clearness output that as WMA

zevele1 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2002, 03:41:57 pm »

Dave
I am like you
But maybe i am loosing my balance......WMA are no good and mp3pro the bigest junk i know
They may use the windows 8 codex,or play it on $2,5 plastic speakers
the wma have a metallic sound and the kind of effect 'speakers in the bathroom'.Mp3pro has a very agressive treble,they may put bass in the next version.........

peleton · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2002, 03:57:08 pm »

The other problem with MP3Pro is the licencing fees.

I think this is why we'll never (i hope) see it in MJ.

I for one would not be willing to pay more for MJ just because of MP3Pro support.
(in fact I would almost out of principal NOT pay if any of the money was going to MP3Pro).

but that's just me.

I know some people want to be able to use their files on portables, but if not, then Ogg Vorbis now has VERY good low bitrate results (their trying to pushout Real), and for anything above 128bkps you cna't get better than either Ogg or MPC.

(Lossy-speaking of course) Next Page

my $0.02

peleton.

JimH · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2002, 04:01:17 pm »

peleton,
You have your finger on the problem.

Jim

Fred Glavin · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2002, 08:08:07 am »

Well, there seem to be at least two of us who like the mp3PRO format.
The free Thompson mp3PRO plugin for Winamp works fine with MJ. Just install it
by means of MJ's plugin manager, and configure it. It will then play all mp3PRO files, and all mp3 files too. If you want to use MJ's native mp3 input decoder, you must uninstall the Thompson one.

Fred|PLS|Glavin · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2002, 12:05:48 pm »

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to warn you-- if you do use the Thompson Winamp plugin to play mp3PRO files, you can forget about MJ reading your ID tags. It will not read them, or use them in any way, thereby nullifying much of the usefulness of MJ. If you are not careful, it will screw up all of the ID tags on your mp3PRO files. If you can live with that,the new MJ is a great program. Just do not allow the program to touch your ID tags, or expect it to use them to help you organize your collection, display notes, etc. MJ uses its own mp3 input plugin to do that.

MusicMatch v 7.2 now has native support for mp3PRO, and it is in many ways a good program. Overall, MJ is far superior, but sad to say it does not play nice with mp3PRO. So, you pays your money, and you makes your choices---.

I am sorry that MJ does not fully support mp3PRO, but I understand that Thompson's licensing fees are outrageous. That certainly has to be an important consideration. Having said that though, how is it that MusicMatch can afford do do so, and MJ cannot? MJ is really a much better program, and I would think that with proper marketing it would have as large or larger subscriber base.

One more point and question-- is it likely that MJ will ever support AAC ? This is said to be the best quality codec going, but to date only Liquid Audio has implemented it in a consumer product--namely, its latest Liquid Player. This player , however, sucks, as it will not even allow you to move encoded files to a second computer without a "passport", requiring you to give them a credit card number. This even if the files are ones you rip from your own CD's.
Talk about unacceptable manipulative behavior.That ranks right up there with Microsoft.

JimH · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2002, 12:20:51 pm »

Fred
> I am sorry that MJ does not fully support mp3PRO, but I understand that Thompson's licensing fees
> are outrageous. That certainly has to be an important consideration. Having said that though, how
> is it that MusicMatch can afford do do so, and MJ cannot? MJ is really a much better program, and
> I would think that with proper marketing it would have as large or larger subscriber base.

Musicmatch licensed the MP3 technology from Thomson as part of a transaction that gave Thomson shares in Musicmatch. They got the "up front" deal which costs $2 million.

Musicmatch has burned up about $30 million in buying market share. We got ours the old-fashioned way. Now that they have reduced their spending, the tables are a lot more even and we're gaining ground.

We would happily license both MP3pro and AAC if the fees were affordable.

zevele1 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:22:27 pm »

Jimh

I do not know how works the fees
But can you have a plug-in that you sell 'at cost'?Just to give customers what they want,even if for you it is not a making money operation?

And why,when mp3pro is out since long,out of the blue,mp3pro is today 'the next big thing'?

Listening to: 'L'Auberge des Trepasses' from 'Au Coeur de la Tempete' by 'Banlieue Rouge' on Media Jukebox

JimH · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:30:48 pm »

MusicMatch is listing it as an important new feature.

Ilmar · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:57:06 pm »

Zevele:

I agree with you wholeheartedly WMA and MP3Pro are so bad I would not waste my money on an add in.

One of the irritating things about trying the MJ beta was having to manually remove from the list of formats, the Windows Media and Real player formats and their playlists each and every time.

That MusicMatch views MP3Pro as an important feature says more about MusicMatch than MP3Pro.

Where there are "open source" universal formats with high quality output, why would anyone want to pay to use proprietary lossy formats that are inferior except where low bitrate, low quality reproduction is required. If disc space is at such a premium, better to put the money to another hard drive or some CDRs.

Ilmar

Neanderthaler · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2002, 10:59:50 am »

IIlmar, I disagree whit you, This is really a personal judgement, and I do like the MP3pro format
It gives the same qlty as the normal MP3 128, and even if it does not, I can not hear the difference, and is that not were it is basicly all about?
The other thing is that I would like to have the mp3pro plug in
I am one of many just like you that really likes MJ, and think that they should support each format the customer is using.
Not the encoder, because I can do that with Nero, but for playback it would be efficient, since than I dont have to switch to a different program, which I really dislike!
I also believe that getting the plugin can cost MJ some money, but so what?
It is an investment which they easely gain back without raising prices!!

Chico · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2002, 12:16:25 pm »

Ilmar >Where there are "open source" universal formats with high quality output, why would anyone want to pay to use proprietary lossy formats that are inferior except where low bitrate, low quality reproduction is required. If disc space is at such a premium, better to put the money to another hard drive or some CDRs.<

A very good point Ilmar. Even if disk space isn't at a premium, it is a good idea to invest in a burner. Usually, it is isn't a question of IF your hard disk will go belly up, but when.

Neanderthaler,
You have to consider all of the various formats out there and think about what it would take for MJ to cater to them all. Not only is there the monetary aspect (ie. royalties), but just the shear magnitude of the task would make it daunting at best. Seems there are more against MP3Pro than advocate it here. I'm sure if the tables were turned and J River received an enormous amount of request for MP3Pro, they may think about paying the royalties and develope a plug-in for it. Right now they have to concentrate on the most popular and realistically priced of the formats.

Fred|PLS|Glavin · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2002, 02:42:12 pm »

Jim:

Check out this link:
http://gracenote.com/corporate/mp3pro.html
Gracenote is offering mp3PRO licensing with what at least sounds like much more reasonable terms than
Thompson. I don't know if it would actually work out that way, but it can't hurt to check it out.

JNKH · « **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2002, 03:05:59 pm »

Hi MJ,

I think MP3PRO is very important. It really saves disk- especially for the portables or handheld. The memory is expensive, and the ROI is huge.

If there is a way to testdrive 3rd party MP3PRO encoder into MJ, it will be fantastic- maybe some instructions to do so using the encoder plug-ins?

I've tried the Musicmatch MP3PRO, and it is really good.

Matt · « **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2002, 08:05:47 pm »

Media Jukebox can support any external command line encoder. Check out "External" from the encoding options.

And for whatever it's worth, MP3Pro seemed like 90% marketing and 10% technology when we did in-house testing. I'd use WMA or AAC instead for low bitrates.

Take care.

-Matt
JRiver, Inc.

yughi · « **Reply #18 on:** June 16, 2002, 02:22:25 pm »

I might be a purist in sound. But both WMA and MP3Pro don't enter my house. Since I found Ogg I have always used it..I now even rip at 192kbits. The quality is one of the best...and there is no license to it ( well an open license ). There are even radio stations on OGG now.

WMA is from microsoft....that tells enough.
MP3pro, well tried it and disliked the extreem loss of quality. Sorry but I have musician ears and I do hear the difference.
VQF, I tried it once...lol....I won't say a thing.
Ogg, extreem good..and because I hear so good I really need it. The sounds stay crispy fresh and perfect...on 160kbits the loss in sound is so minor that even I don't hear it. And at 192kbits you have the perfect sound.

peleton · « **Reply #19 on:** June 16, 2002, 07:58:22 pm »

yughi:
I agree completely!

However I understand that sound people are willing to put up with lower quality sound for the sake of disk-space, or portables.

I would like to suggest to these people to give Ogg a try. (you may not have bothered before as it has NO marketing)
The newest version (pre-RC4) now has enchenced low bitrate options. -So quality/size is now better than MP3Pro/WMA at low bitrates.

Also, it is only a matter of time before it is supported in hand-helds.

hmmmm... that got a bit more "preachy" than I meant. Next Page

sorry

p.

Chico · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2002, 10:21:00 am »

That's assuming the the portables OS supports OGG.
I know that my Nomad JB does, but I'm not sure about the other portables.

portable · « **Reply #21 on:** June 17, 2002, 10:31:09 am »

Wel the Portables that support OGG are rising, slowly..give it a few months!

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: MP3Pro (Read 2558 times)

Figaro

Dave

zevele1

Fred Glavin

Fred|PLS|Glavin

zevele1

Neanderthaler

Chico

Fred|PLS|Glavin

JNKH

yughi

Chico

portable