Print

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

[lalittle]

Remember that perfect gapless playback of MP3s may not be possible. (depending on the mp3)

What about the situation I asked about in this thread:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=32174.0

According to the latest information, the newer LAME encoder embeds metadata into the file that tells how much silence was added during encoding, allowing "true" gapless mp3 playback on players that utilize this metadata.  Based on what I've read, this actually works on the players that support it.

Is this something that MC is going to support?  I figured that since MC already uses the LAME encoder by default, it would make sense to support the extra metadata.

Thanks for any information on this,

Larry

[GHammer]

I'd think gapless would be useful when listening to a complete album that flows song to song.

I'd also think if I were overly concerned with gapless, I'd rip to a lossless format that plays gaplessly.

Personally, I rip things like that to a single file and tags it accordingly. No question that it will play correctly.
I also do not notice gaps when using APE in MC in any event.

If MC started supporting LAME gapless playback, are people going to go re-rip their CDs?
Are those who don't know what version or even what program compressed their MP3s going to ask why their MP3 don't play gaplessly?

But the original problem was pops and clicks between tracks. I do not have those using APE files here.

I do get some 'trash' when I stop playback or close MC however. This is usually after playing for awhile (>45 minutes).

[lalittle]

I'd think gapless would be useful when listening to a complete album that flows song to song.

I'd also think if I were overly concerned with gapless, I'd rip to a lossless format that plays gaplessly.

I've done this in the past, but given that I need mp3s to be able to transfer to handheld players, this requires either 1) ripping multiple copies of albums in order to accomodate both tasks, or 2) doing "conversions" when synching.  Since conversion adds considerable time to syncs, it would be VASTLY more convenient to offer gapless playback with mp3s, which would eliminate the need for "multiple inventory" and make conversion unnecessary.  Given that this is apparently possible now, I'm rather confused by what seems like a "resistance" to this as a solution.

If MC started supporting LAME gapless playback, are people going to go re-rip their CDs?

Since the LAME encoder has been supporting this for a while now, this would only be necessary for earlier rips, and only for albums where gapless playback is an issue.

Are those who don't know what version or even what program compressed their MP3s going to ask why their MP3 don't play gaplessly?

They might... but why would this be an issue?  If they ask, you explain to them that the feature is only supported on rips using the newer LAME encoder, which MC uses by DEFAULT.  They then have the choice to re-rip if they want -- problem solved.  I don't understand why this is even brought up as an issue.  Is it really being suggested that people asking this question is a reason to not support this feature?  Are you saying it's better to offer NO gapless playback with ANY mp3s just because it won't apply to mp3s created with other encoders.

MC has always been about offering more power and features than the competition.  I'm at a loss why anyone would be "resistant" to this feature when it would really make a difference to a lot of people, and when the competition is already starting to support it.  Gaps between mp3s has always been a VERY common complaint by people.  Now that the ability to fix the problem exists, doesn't it make sense to offer this?

Like it or not, mp3 files are still THE most common format for compressed music.  They're the ONE format that is guaranteed to work on every handheld player and every audio program in existance.  The abiltiy to have gapless playback with mp3s is now available via the new LAME encoder that MC ALREADY uses by default.  Given all this, I'm honestly completely confused why nobody from JRiver has offered a response or opinion on this.  Is this something that's being "looked into"?  I'm not trying to bug anyone with these questions -- I only keep asking them because it seems like an incredibly obvious feature to support, and nobody from JRiver has commented on this.

Thanks for any information on this,

Larry

[hit_ny]

Has anyone tried the new gapless play with a player that can support it. What's the impression ?

[modelmaker]

My solution to gapless with mp3s is to set the crossfade to .5 sec. I very rarely notice the crossfade.

[Alex B]

My solution to gapless with mp3s is to set the crossfade to .5 sec. I very rarely notice the crossfade.

I am now listening to "Queen: Live at Wembley". It has only seamless track changes. I encoded it years ago with LAME 3.91 to separate track files. I experienced a bit with the cross-fade settings. Cross-fade smooth 0.2 s is quite good and I can't hear any obvious gaps.

Listening to: 'Another One Bites the Dust' from 'Live At Wembley' by 'Queen' on Media Center 11

[lalittle]

I played with the crossfade options, but even with a .1 second crossfade I still heard the seams in many cases.  Even though it's not "super" obnoxious, it's still distracting depending on the songs.

The "remove silence" option just doesn't work for me.  I simply run into too many examples where the "jump" to the next song is jarring, or when I actually lose a small piece of the audio that is supposed to be there.

Larry