is there anything better than MP3?

[john121]

hey, just wondering after all the years of MP3, is there anything better than this? (besides WMP files)

 

[Letters]

Some games use the .ogg files now... I don't really know if they're better or not, though...

 

[Direwolf]

AAC files are better, along with many other almost lossless formats. They're not in wide use are aren't nearly as easy to get ahold and play though.

 

[DoctorGordon]

mp4

(still in development though)

 

[Ikerous]

Better as in file size
or sound quality...?

 

[blahblahblah]

AAC files are better, along with many other almost lossless formats. They're not in wide use are aren't nearly as easy to get ahold and play though.

AAC is the audio format used by iTunes. A 128 kbps in AAC format is the same as a 160 kbps mp3 format. That means higher quality for the same amount of space.

 

[Phisionary]

a well done mp3 is (IMO) the best tradeoff if you have space to spare. a big plus is everything* plays them...
LAME is a great encoder, put it on extreme (vbr, usually between 160-220 kbps)

*-Not all portable players or mp3 discman players
play vbr (variable -bit-rate) mp3, and some support only
limited rates, below 190kbps, or 220kbps, whatever)​

ogg is primarily for lower bitrates. a 64 kbps ogg is roughly equivelant to 128kbps mp3 I believe. 92kbps is really rather clean. But from the ones I've heard, they still don't quite reach mp3 clarity.

best of them all, but only for those with space to spare, is a lossless codec. exactly the same as the original media, but only encodes to 45-50% or original size, or 2:1 compression. compare this to 7:1 high qual mp3, 10:1 regular mp3, and ... 15-20:1 ogg.
FLAC is the only one I've used for lossless encoding.

 

[Steve]

Okay, so i work for a radio station, right? One day, i was talking to my production manager about MP3s, and he said they're shit. All our stuff is run off of computers, and all of our files are MP2s. He said the MP2s produce a better sound quality than MP3s. Now, i'm by no means an expert or even educated about this sort of stuff, and feel free to correct anything my PM said.

 

[Phisionary]

hmm. I'm not sure, but he *might* be talking about mpg2 audio? I don't know if mpg2 audio is compressed. It may be an uncompressed audio which is superior for professional purposes (converting, stretching, modifying, etc. compressed audion results in problems and more quality loss).

That might not be what he is referring to though.

 

[Steve]

hmm. I'm not sure, but he *might* be talking about mpg2 audio? I don't know if mpg2 audio is compressed. It may be an uncompressed audio which is superior for professional purposes (converting, stretching, modifying, etc. compressed audion results in problems and more quality loss).

That might not be what he is referring to though.

now that you say that, i'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about.

 

[Triggerhappy41]

if you want quality, you can use the raw wavs :cheers:

 

[Phisionary]

nah. If you want max quality and you are only using them on your system (i.e. not modile players) use flac and save half the space.
It'll also do 24 bit audio (DVD-audio discs) and, hmm.... multichannel maybe? lossless... no quality loss. like a zip, but better compression and realtime play. seeks very well from winamp.

Edit: oh, and IIRC, mpg2 audio (refering to my last post) is what is used for audio tracks on DVD's.

 

[CyberSh33p]

I have a lot of music in .ogg form, its just as clean as mp3s

 

[Parrot of doom]

Your manager is correct, mp3s are shite. When a lossy compression codec is used, and the station's output is carried digitally to the transmitter (which may also be digital), you get compression artefacts, and conversion artefacts, both of which serve to make the audio sound shite.

mp3 is years old, stick to AAC or WAV if you can.

BTW record companies, why should I pay £1 for a compressed version of a song, give me an uncompressed alternative and I'll use your download system, until then I'll be pirating anything I choose (although I do buy the good stuff).

 

[Bad^Hat]

mp3 @ 192 = gud enuf 4 me.

 

[redundant]

FLAC is my favourite. Free Lossless Audio Codec. The name says it all.

 

[john121]

found a website for FLAC
http://flac.sourceforge.net/

 

[Gray Fox]

This is all nice and all, but as far as I know with the most boxes you can't hear the differance, so my question is what kind of a box do you need to be able to play the most clear sound and that it sounds like that.
I remember a few years ago I saw on Discovery a couple speaker boxes that looke like big shells and they were supposed to be the next big thing but they costed a couple of thousend dollars. Oh yeah and is it possible to find earphones or earplugs that can you can hear that extra quality with.

 

[Phisionary]

very high quality mp3 will be indistinguishable from orignal quality to all but the most sensitive of ears. 192 is good enough for most. FLAC or AAC is a better option because it retains all the original information. IT's pretty damn big for downloading though, so I don't see it taking the place of compression (for the pirated stuff at least) for another few years at least. On your own system, if you have lots of space, lossless is better. It can be re-recorded onto a disc without popping or artifacts, and can be compresses to a lossy format at a leter date if you wish.

There are certainly speakers that provide very great levels of clarity. You can get a 'high fidelity' system, which uses different forms of amplifiers and circuitry. A home system tends to go for about five grand I think. Short of that, buy good speakers, make sure they are placed correctly, using matched amplifiers and stuff. I'm not an audio expert you'd have to talk to someone else for specifics. Edit: Some standard multimedia systems provide very good quality also, usually $200 and up.

If you want good headphones, you can buy professional quality. i.e. studio headphones, full enclosure, I prefer closed to blcok external sounds, but opens can sound better I hear. Buy from a good brand (I bought Sennheiser, they make good ones, if you buy $100+). Usually very good ones run from about $150 to $500. Of course, they do go much higher, but realistically you'd have to be a real 'phile to go for that.

You can get high quality earbuds, but they aren't very common. Apple iPod buds are supposed to be very good. They use neodynium magnets, let's them have better response characteristics...

 

[Matthias]

ogg vorbis encoding is superior in quality to mp3 - for the same bitrates ogg encodings sound better . In addition to this ogg is an unpatented, free format. Technically you owe money to fraunhofer every time you encode an mp3.

 

[Fat Tony!]

when you listen to a mp3 do you hear any difference? No you do not. It much more compressed then the original recording therefore better. WMAs arent that bad though.

 

[OCybrManO]

Fat Tony, if you can't hear the difference between the source and the compressed MP3 version (well, first, I'd recommed some expensive earbuds/headphones) then you don't need to bother with lossless formats like FLAC. The reason Vorbis is better than MP3 is that you can significantly cut down on the file size and still get the same audio quality of an MP3... or you can choose to have slightly better quality with slightly smaller files... or you can have files of the same size with much better quality. It just is better.

Vorbis and FLAC (if I want ultra-high quality) are the only formats I use when ripping/storing music. Why? They sound better (or equal) with less data than their competition, my MP3 player supports them, and they are both Open Source projects. It's a win-win-win situation for me... but if you are into pirating music, I think MP3s are still much more common in P2P networks (just because it was the standard for such a long time).

 

[Phisionary]

i still don't think ogg matches the quality of mp3 (I admit it's been a while since I compared, the encoders may have imporved). it can get very close and does so with higher compression. the LAME mp3 codec has been in development for something like 5 years, built off an existing mp3 technology. compare to the .ogg codec which has been used for less than half that. The quality does not come from the format standard but the codec implementation. Compare LAME (IMO the best) or fraunhofer to Xing (was widely used in the past). Xing was definitely inferior. the artifacts and high-frequency distortion were very noticable. Most people moved on to better codecs as the demand for archival-level digital solutions increased.

so, I'm just saying that .ogg may have wonderful potential (oh, heck, maybe it's as good, I haven't used for months) but last time I tried it wasn't mp3 quality.

and IMO: WMA is crap. At least with the MS codec, it never sounds great, and .ogg surpasses it at probably all bitrates.

 

[Fat Tony!]

Why does everyone use mp3s? And is there software to convert music to these "uber" new formats?

 

[Parrot of doom]

when you listen to a mp3 do you hear any difference? No you do not. It much more compressed then the original recording therefore better. WMAs arent that bad though.

LOL. My Roksan Xerxes turntable sounds better than my Arcam Delta 70.3 cd player. And my cd player sounds infinitely better than any mp3. Its not our fault you listen to music on a pc.