|
MP3pro format....???
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Juricimo |
sorry if posted before...
can someone please explain. how is mp3pro format different than the one format we currently use??? what's so special about it?
thanx,
>JM< |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
The sound quality is better.
The files are half the size of the "regular" mp3.
I don't know about the technical stuff, tho. |
|
|
| uberclkgtr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
The sound quality is better.
|
Replace "better" with "much worse", and you have an accurate picture. The files sizes are much smaller, but this is because the compression is much higher. Usually the sampling frequency is halved in order to get the smaller file sizes too. You don't get anything for free.
Now if you want small mp3s, then for a given file size, an MP3pro (fancy name for v2.0 of the mpeg-3 encoding scheme) file may give you a better sounding file than a normal v1.0 encoded file, but this doesn't scale up. There is a quality ceiling on v2.0 encoding which is lower than v1.0 encoding.
If you want quality-sounding mp3s, stay away from anything with MP3pro written on it.
:) |
|
|
| barryfigiel |
| quote: | Originally posted by uberclkgtr
Replace "better" with "much worse", and you have an accurate picture. The files sizes are much smaller, but this is because the compression is much higher. Usually the sampling frequency is halved in order to get the smaller file sizes too. You don't get anything for free.
Now if you want small mp3s, then for a given file size, an MP3pro (fancy name for v2.0 of the mpeg-3 encoding scheme) file may give you a better sounding file than a normal v1.0 encoded file, but this doesn't scale up. There is a quality ceiling on v2.0 encoding which is lower than v1.0 encoding.
If you want quality-sounding mp3s, stay away from anything with MP3pro written on it.
:) |
I certainly shall thanks to your advice mate!
lateRZ,
barryfigiel |
|
|
| Juricimo |
| quote: | Originally posted by uberclkgtr
Replace "better" with "much worse", and you have an accurate picture. The files sizes are much smaller, but this is because the compression is much higher. Usually the sampling frequency is halved in order to get the smaller file sizes too. You don't get anything for free.
Now if you want small mp3s, then for a given file size, an MP3pro (fancy name for v2.0 of the mpeg-3 encoding scheme) file may give you a better sounding file than a normal v1.0 encoded file, but this doesn't scale up. There is a quality ceiling on v2.0 encoding which is lower than v1.0 encoding.
If you want quality-sounding mp3s, stay away from anything with MP3pro written on it.
:) |
nice! thanx for the explanation. you're right about the mpeg encoding stuff, i think i compared the v2 with v1, i think Lame encoder has those options....
>JM< |
|
|
| Piet |
some mp3pro encoder came with my Nero but when i saw that it said lower file size i never looked at it agian because i assumed lower file size = lower sound quality.
However if the mp3 is from a liveset, i would consider using it because some live sets (ie:Tiesto live @ la rocca - and many others) are recorded badly and have bad sound quality. Because of this, encoding it differently makes almost no noticible difference in sound quality. And a set like Tiesto @ la rocca which is 400 megs + would be smaller using the mp3pro format. This way you gain space on your hardrive, have a shorter download, and one probably cannot tell the difference in quality cause the set has bad sound to start with and only gets ever so slightly worse from the compression.
However if I was turning a cd (which has very high quality sound) to a mp3 i would definetly stay away from mp3pro because you might lose sound quality and it will be more noticable because the cd has such good sound. |
|
|
| flystyler |
| That is a point, it could b helpful for livesets, thatare recorded badly, but for anything else i wont use it, but i imagine sometimes soon someone will work out away to make them smaller, there are always new formats comming out |
|
|
| Tranex02 |
I agree with you guys....
i think they have a brief explanation @ Djmixes2k....
i think i'll to the normal mp3 for now;) |
|
|
| Excite |
| its hard to think that in the 5 years mp3's have been out there hasn't been a better compression format made. |
|
|
| Cable |
its not all that bad, you need a plugin for winamp to take the advantage of the new format, of course i still stick to 192kbps for singles, but it would be cool to download these livesets that arent hi quality to begin with in mp3pro format, i tried reencoding a few sets i downloaded into 64kbps and there is virtually no audible difference in quality...
but the quality loss is quite noticeable in a high quality source like CD/Vinyl! |
|
|
|
|
