MP2/MP3 samples
seani
create some samples for comparison for those that lack the
time/software/inclination, and who *aren't* suffering from insomnia.
http://public.seani.justemail.net/music-files/
1) The music I've used is a fairly unscientific example; I've just picked
half-a-dozen, including some favourites.
They are (Track/Artist/Album):
Bring Me To Life
Evanesence
Fallen
Clair de la Lune (Suite Bergamasque)
The Philadelphia Orchestra -
Ocean's Eleven OST
II. Andante
Johann Sebastian Bach
Violin Concertos BMV 1041/42
Double Concerto, BMV 1043
Concerto for Violin and Oboe BMV 1060
Oxygene Part 2
Jean-Michel Jarre
Oxygene 1-6
Sit Down. Stand Up. (Snakes & Ladders.)
Radiohead
Hail to the Thief
The Road To Hell (part I)
Chris Rea
The Road to Hell
2) The samples are in various formats/bitrates and this should be
self-evident from the prefix and suffix.
The MP2 files were created using tooLame 0.21 with the command line
toolame -p 2 -b 112 -D 4 infile.wav outfile.mp2
or
toolame -p 2 -b 128 -D 4 infile.wav outfile.mp2
depending.
The MP3 files were created using LAME with the latest registered
dbPowerAmp, CBR at 112 or 128 depending.
3) The source files are FLACs generated from the original CDs there may be
the odd ripping error - none were reported AFAICR, but who knows. The FLAC
originals are a bit too large to upload at the moment.
4) I haven't added any AAC files (of any flavour) as AAC encoding seems to
be hosed on the VM I'm using for some reason. Also there seems to be a
profusion of AAC types, and I'm not convinced there's a direct link
between the descriptions used by dbPowerAmp, and those commonly understood
on this group.
5) As I'm paying extra for the bandwidth, the files will likely disappear
after a couple of days.
6) I've listened to the results only briefly, but Evansence seems to
suffer most, more or less intolerable to me at 112 MP2 - I'd prefer
silence. There's also a strange "swishy" quality to the Bach. Oxygene
comes out of it pretty well; certainly a noticeable lack of detail, buy
still listenable (in a very short test).
7) I'm playing through Amarok,
piping my cheap soundcard into an old PrinzSound T2200 (I like the look of
it) connected to a pair of Mordaunt Short Carnival speakers.
hwh
"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2006.01.02....@ergates.house...
> After following the "Limitations of MP2" thread for a bit, I thought I'd
> create some samples for comparison for those that lack the
> time/software/inclination, and who *aren't* suffering from insomnia.
>
>
> http://public.seani.justemail.net/music-files/
Thanks. I listened to a few 112 kbps MP2 ones.
1) Bring me to life, where the lack of higher frequencies is obvious. Flat
sound.
2) The "ladders" track sounds reasonably well, until it gets very busy in
the last minute or so. There the lack of bits to encode the track becomes
very clear.
3) The road to hell does sound strange even in the beginning, I needed the
MP3 track at 128 to be able to hear what it is. Much more detail and better
stereo there. The rest of the track also falls flat on its face at 112 kbps
Mp2.
I did not listen to the others to save on bandwidth.
gr, hwh
seani
>
> "seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
> news:pan.2006.01.02....@ergates.house...
>> After following the "Limitations of MP2" thread for a bit, I thought I'd
>> create some samples for comparison for those that lack the
>> time/software/inclination, and who *aren't* suffering from insomnia.
>>
>>
>> http://public.seani.justemail.net/music-files/
>
> Thanks. I listened to a few 112 kbps MP2 ones.
> 1) Bring me to life, where the lack of higher frequencies is obvious. Flat
> sound.
> 2) The "ladders" track sounds reasonably well, until it gets very busy in
> the last minute or so. There the lack of bits to encode the track becomes
> very clear.
Yes, the more I listen to that, the odder it sounds. When it kicks off in
the last minute, the "bongo-like" sound seems to vary in pitch and almost
seems irregular compared to the original.
> 3) The road to hell does sound strange even in the beginning, I
needed
> the MP3 track at 128 to be able to hear what it is. Much more detail and
> better stereo there. The rest of the track also falls flat on its face
> at 112 kbps Mp2.
>
This is a bit of a reference track for me when trying out new MP3
players/headphones.
I noticed that:
1) The track seems to start in a relatively abrupt manner, not smoothly
as in the original, and indeed the 128k/mp3 version
2) The rain sounds more like a generally irritating hiss
3) The windscreen wipers just sound like blips in the encoded file.
4) The bass sounds did a lot better than I expected.
> I did not listen to the others to save on bandwidth.
Ta. I think I have an alternative host where bandwidth isn't a issue, so
I may transfer.
>
> gr, hwh
hwh
"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
> This is a bit of a reference track for me when trying out new MP3
> players/headphones.
I would use much more than 128 kbps for such a purpose.
> I noticed that:
>
> 1) The track seems to start in a relatively abrupt manner, not smoothly
> as in the original, and indeed the 128k/mp3 version
>
> 2) The rain sounds more like a generally irritating hiss
Indeed it does. With a sort of flutter like analog taperecorder can produce.
> 3) The windscreen wipers just sound like blips in the encoded file.
In the 112k MP2 is is not possible to hear what it is.
> 4) The bass sounds did a lot better than I expected.
Yes, lower frequencies behave rather well in lossy coding. I think that many
radiostations have a better bass response on DAB than on FM, this could be
the processor ruining things on the latter.
>> I did not listen to the others to save on bandwidth.
>
> Ta. I think I have an alternative host where bandwidth isn't a issue, so
> I may transfer.
ok. Perhaps if that becomes possible you could do a 160 and 192 kbps version
to help us decide which of the two can replace FM :-)
gr, hwh
seani
>
> "seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
> news:pan.2006.01.02...@ergates.house...
>> This is a bit of a reference track for me when trying out new MP3
>> players/headphones.
>
> I would use much more than 128 kbps for such a purpose.
>
LOL, I do :-), I meant the source material, as opposed to the 128mp3
file. Generally FLAC for headphones and FLAC or the highest supported MP3
rate, transcoded from the FLAC file.
I've also tried out the CD with a few 5.1 systems.
>> I noticed that:
>>
>> 1) The track seems to start in a relatively abrupt manner, not smoothly
>> as in the original, and indeed the 128k/mp3 version
>>
>> 2) The rain sounds more like a generally irritating hiss
>
> Indeed it does. With a sort of flutter like analog taperecorder can
> produce.
>
>> 3) The windscreen wipers just sound like blips in the encoded file.
>
> In the 112k MP2 is is not possible to hear what it is.
>
>> 4) The bass sounds did a lot better than I expected.
>
> Yes, lower frequencies behave rather well in lossy coding. I think that
> many radiostations have a better bass response on DAB than on FM, this
> could be the processor ruining things on the latter.
>
>>> I did not listen to the others to save on bandwidth.
>>
>> Ta. I think I have an alternative host where bandwidth isn't a issue,
>> so I may transfer.
>
> ok. Perhaps if that becomes possible you could do a 160 and 192 kbps
> version to help us decide which of the two can replace FM :-)
160/192 mp2, I take it?
>
> gr, hwh
Richard Evans
seani wrote:
> After following the "Limitations of MP2" thread for a bit, I thought I'd
> create some samples for comparison for those that lack the
> time/software/inclination, and who *aren't* suffering from insomnia.
Sounds like a good idea.
I had a quick listen to Oxygen on my computer speakers.
(I Can't listen properly on my HiFi at this time of night without
possibly disturbing the neighbours).
With the 128K MP2, I found pretty much the same thing as when I encoded
something myself. The music was there, but I thought it was a little
lifeless. Not as bad as I expected, but still not really good enough.
112k MP2 sounded to me like just a slightly worse example of the same
problem.
The MP3 tracks sounded better as expected. 112k seemed acceptable, and
128k quite good.
I suspect the story would be worse if I listened through my HiFi.
BTW. I wasn't sure why the MP2 tracks also had .mp3 extensions. Is this
to make it easier for people to play them back, by fooling their media
players?
Richard E.
Richard Evans
seani wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:08:26 +0100, hwh wrote:
>
>
>>"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
>>news:pan.2006.01.02...@ergates.house...
>>
>>>This is a bit of a reference track for me when trying out new MP3
>>>players/headphones.
>>
>>I would use much more than 128 kbps for such a purpose.
>>
>
>
> LOL, I do :-), I meant the source material, as opposed to the 128mp3
> file. Generally FLAC for headphones and FLAC or the highest supported MP3
> rate, transcoded from the FLAC file.
Forgive me for not knowing something.
What is FLAC?
Sounds like something I would like to know about.
Richard E.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Free Lossless Audio Codec:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac
There's an MPEG-4 lossless codec (MPEG-4 ALS) that's just been released
as well:
http://www.acnnewswire.net/article.asp?Art_ID=31029&lang=
http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mp4als.html
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_radios.htm
seani
>
> BTW. I wasn't sure why the MP2 tracks also had .mp3 extensions. Is this
> to make it easier for people to play them back, by fooling their media
> players?
I don't think any MP2 files have MP3 extensions. They are prefixed XXX-YYY
where XXX is the type, and YYY is the bitrate. The XXX prefix is just
for ease of sorting.
I've just checked, and I can't see any MP2 files with MP3 extensions?
Things do get a little blurry late on :)
>
> Richard E.
seani
Try www.dbpoweramp.com for a free ripper that supports FLAC. It's the
same one I used to do the transcoding FLAC->MP3
I generally don't use CDs anymore: all my music is stored as FLAC,
tagged appropriately and either played or transcoded as necessary
before transfer to a portable device if required. That way I only rip
once, and the CD and cover notes get stuck in a file as a backup.
At the moment, depending on the codec, it takes approx 14hrs to
transcode the whole lot, but it all happens as a batch job using
another free dbpoweramp utility.
seani
been moved to:
http://box.net/public/seani/folders/154467.html
at hwh's (possibly tongue-in-cheek) suggestion they now include MP2
versions at 160 and 192, again encoded from FLAC originals with
toolame, using the settings suggested by Nicholas Croiset. I've also
added OGG at 112/128.
I am told that there are no bandwidth limits on this location, so feel
free to compare them all.
The host is a free trial that lasts only a week, so the files will
revert to their original location after that.
I'll be adding a samples of a reading from LOTR at various rates for a
comparison of spoken word material.
Richard Evans
I downloaded two such files
mp2-128-oxygene-part2.mp2.mp3
&
mp2-112-oxygene-part2.mp2.mp3
Perhaps your computer is set to hide final file extension.
I prefer to have mine set to show as much info as possible.
Not a problem, but thought I'd point it out.
Richard E.
seani
This is odd. I'm of the same mind; I don't hide any information. The files
are generated in WIN2K running under VMWare on a Linux box. The directory
where the files are kept is actually a Linux directory made to look like a
network share.
From the WIN2K view of things, none of the MP2 files have an MP3
extension. From the Linux view of things, none of the MP2 files have an
MP3 extension. None of the MP2 files have an MP3 extension when loaded up
onto either of the file sharing servers.
How are you saving the files? Is it just with right-click-save-as, or are
you opening the directly with a media player, and then saving them? I'd
suspect they're being renamed on the fly, or the app. is not displaying
the names correctly.
hwh
"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
>> I would use much more than 128 kbps for such a purpose.
>>
>
> LOL, I do :-), I meant the source material, as opposed to the 128mp3
> file. Generally FLAC for headphones and FLAC or the highest supported MP3
> rate, transcoded from the FLAC file.
That's good.
>> ok. Perhaps if that becomes possible you could do a 160 and 192 kbps
>> version to help us decide which of the two can replace FM :-)
>
> 160/192 mp2, I take it?
Yup, perhaps minus the 16k for the data channel that DAB seems to consume
from the total bitrate.
This is to give us the chance to see if 160 or 192 might be enough to
replace analog services :-)
gr, hwh
seani
See my follow-up to the original post for the new location of the files,
including those at 160 and 192. Attempts to convert using 144 and 176
failed:
BitrateIndex: 176 (or 144) is not a legal bitrate for version 1
> gr, hwh
hwh
"seani" <ing...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1136278454.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> at hwh's (possibly tongue-in-cheek) suggestion they now include MP2
> versions at 160 and 192, again encoded from FLAC originals with
> toolame, using the settings suggested by Nicholas Croiset. I've also
> added OGG at 112/128.
Thanks for that. I must say the 160 kbps MP2 sample of road to hell still
sounds rather disappointing to me but not nearly as bad as the 112 kbps
version. The rain noise etc. are still more noise than source material.
The 192 sample is better, but still not really good.
The OGG sample of the same track has better higher frequencies, but they
sound a bit artificial in a way. Artificial like the higher frequencies in
AAC+ sound artificial.
The 128 k MP3 version has reasonable stereo but still the higher frequencies
are not properly dealt with. The 192 k MP2 bit sounds more, erm, refined in
a way, albeit with errors, like at about 23 seconds before the end, where
distortion is still very high. OGG does this part relatively well.
I would like to see what this track does with Lame at VBR and the highest
quality setting and see which parts are coded at which bitrate. How much
bits would Lame use for the rain etc and will it use 320 kbps frames for the
difficult parts? I think this really shows how difficult it is to code at
low bitrates.
Could you put the flac version on the site as well?
gr, hwh
(nothing between the lines!)
hwh
"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
> See my follow-up to the original post for the new location of the files,
> including those at 160 and 192. Attempts to convert using 144 and 176
> failed:
>
> BitrateIndex: 176 (or 144) is not a legal bitrate for version 1
Ok, thanks anyway. The difference between 160 and 144 is likely to be less
than between 112 and 128.
I commented on the other thread.
gr, hwh
seani
I've tried to upload flac versions of the files a few times, and the
result is always a timeout. I'll try again.
You should be able to see
mp3-vbr-128-320-the-road-to-hell-part-i.mp3
This is an MP3 encoding using VBR, min rate 128, max rate 320.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Yup, perhaps minus the 16k for the data channel that DAB seems to
> consume from the total bitrate.
> This is to give us the chance to see if 160 or 192 might be enough to
> replace analog services :-)
Replace FM with 160kbps MP2???????????????????????????????????
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Yup, perhaps minus the 16k for the data channel that DAB seems to
> consume from the total bitrate.
> This is to give us the chance to see if 160 or 192 might be enough to
> replace analog services :-)
Remember to add plenty of audio processing, add some transcoding and
then subtract a load for data.
Otherwise you get idealised results which bear no or little resemblance
to reality.
seani
>
> I've tried to upload flac versions of the files a few times, and the
> result is always a timeout. I'll try again.
This time, success!
flac-the-road-to-hell-part-i.flac
I'll have a go at a few of the other flacs
hwh
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> schreef in bericht
news:sfUuf.69815$7p5....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> hwh wrote:
>
>> Yup, perhaps minus the 16k for the data channel that DAB seems to
>> consume from the total bitrate.
>> This is to give us the chance to see if 160 or 192 might be enough to
>> replace analog services :-)
>
>
> Replace FM with 160kbps MP2???????????????????????????????????
It says: "IF" and "MIGHT"
So far, my answer is no.
gr, hwh
hwh
"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2006.01.04....@ergates.house...
Wow, after the compressed ones, this really is a revelation! No distortion
in the parts that the encoders have problems with.
The VBR MP3 is almost as good, with higher bitrate frames in the last
minute, several frames at 192 or 224 kbps. (the odd even higher frame is not
noticed by Winamp, they can be seen when encoding a track). No wonder then,
that this track sounds very bad at low bitrates. But even in the quiet
beginning, where 128 or 160 kbps is used, the difference with MP2 (even at
192) is obvious.
Thanks for the posting of the files. Everyone can now try for himself what
influence bitrates have on sound quality.
gr, hwh
DAB sounds worse than FM
I'd settle for 160kbps AAC. ;-)
hwh
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> schreef in bericht
> I'd settle for 160kbps AAC. ;-)
Ok, you tell everyone to use that and if they do I'll listen to their output
:-)
gr, hwh
seani
For some reason, the flac uploads have worked first time. The original
flac for each is now uploaded.
Richard Evans
seani wrote:
I was right clicking and selecting 'Save Target as' from Netscape 7.1.
Yes it is odd. Perhaps my old operating system is doing something daft.
(it's Windows ME)
Richard E.
Richard Evans
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
>
>>seani wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:08:26 +0100, hwh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"seani" <se...@ergates.house> schreef in bericht
>>>>news:pan.2006.01.02...@ergates.house...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is a bit of a reference track for me when trying out new MP3
>>>>>players/headphones.
>>>>
>>>>I would use much more than 128 kbps for such a purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL, I do :-), I meant the source material, as opposed to the 128mp3
>>>file. Generally FLAC for headphones and FLAC or the highest
>>>supported MP3 rate, transcoded from the FLAC file.
>>
>>Forgive me for not knowing something.
>>What is FLAC?
>>Sounds like something I would like to know about.
>
>
>
> Free Lossless Audio Codec:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac
>
> There's an MPEG-4 lossless codec (MPEG-4 ALS) that's just been released
> as well:
>
> http://www.acnnewswire.net/article.asp?Art_ID=31029&lang=
> http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mp4als.html
Thanks.
I'd like to read up on that.
Unfortunately my job is killing virtually all my spare time this week.
I'm like thinking through problems like this, and actually once thought
about experimenting with developing a lossless compression system
myself. I had a few ideas, but alas these days I can never find the time
to actually write the code. I'll hopefully look it up soon and will be
fascinated to find out how they actually did it.
It would be good if some day somebody manufactures some kind of music
player based around lossless standards rather than mp3. Perhaps that
will happen as hard drives get larger.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> hwh wrote:
>
>
>>Yup, perhaps minus the 16k for the data channel that DAB seems to
>>consume from the total bitrate.
>>This is to give us the chance to see if 160 or 192 might be enough to
>>replace analog services :-)
>
>
>
> Remember to add plenty of audio processing, add some transcoding and
> then subtract a load for data.
>
> Otherwise you get idealised results which bear no or little resemblance
> to reality.
Another thing. Or am I missing something?
Presumably the samples encoded started off with a sample rate of
44.1Khz, while DAB uses a sample rate of 48Khz.
Does the TooLame encoder convert the sound into 48Khz sampling, or does
it encode using 44.1Khz??
If so then does that make much of a difference to the final sound quality??
Richard E.
seani
>> How are you saving the files? Is it just with right-click-save-as, or are
>> you opening the directly with a media player, and then saving them? I'd
>> suspect they're being renamed on the fly, or the app. is not displaying
>> the names correctly.
>
> I was right clicking and selecting 'Save Target as' from Netscape 7.1.
> Yes it is odd. Perhaps my old operating system is doing something daft.
> (it's Windows ME)
>
> Richard E.
If you get a chance, try downloading them again from the new server. When
they've downloaded, don't play them, just look at the file properties in
Explorer first.
In any case, no other reports, so it must be a bit of an oddity.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> I'd like to read up on that.
> Unfortunately my job is killing virtually all my spare time this week.
Killing time sounds like a great job. Where should I apply? :-)
Rod.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>> hwh wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yup, perhaps minus the 16k for the data channel that DAB seems to
>>> consume from the total bitrate.
>>> This is to give us the chance to see if 160 or 192 might be enough
>>> to replace analog services :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Remember to add plenty of audio processing, add some transcoding and
>> then subtract a load for data.
>>
>> Otherwise you get idealised results which bear no or little
>> resemblance to reality.
>
> Another thing. Or am I missing something?
>
> Presumably the samples encoded started off with a sample rate of
> 44.1Khz, while DAB uses a sample rate of 48Khz.
Indeed.
> Does the TooLame encoder convert the sound into 48Khz sampling, or
> does it encode using 44.1Khz??
I'm pretty sure it allows you to change sample rates.
> If so then does that make much of a difference to the final sound
> quality??
I don't think it changes it much.
seani
For more frustration at being unable to find the time, try:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm#Lossless
several other lossles codecs available and descibed there.
> I'm like thinking through problems like this, and actually once thought
> about experimenting with developing a lossless compression system
> myself. I had a few ideas, but alas these days I can never find the time
> to actually write the code. I'll hopefully look it up soon and will be
> fascinated to find out how they actually did it.
>
> It would be good if some day somebody manufactures some kind of music
> player based around lossless standards rather than mp3. Perhaps that
> will happen as hard drives get larger.
>
The Rio Karma has out-of-the-box support for FLAC, but only a 20Gb
disk. If you're reckless enough, you can prise it apart and fit a new
disk. I'll be trying this with a pin-compatible 30Gb disk on my own,
when it arrives.
With appropriate use of a Dremel, some owners have doing 60Gb upgrades.
The downside is:
1) Fewer tracks
2) Longer PC->Karma transfer times
3) Slightly shorter battery life. The larger the file, the more disk
access required to load and play it. This is balanced out somewhat by
the fact that decoding a FLAC is less computationally expensive.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>> Forgive me for not knowing something.
>>> What is FLAC?
>>> Sounds like something I would like to know about.
>>
>>
>>
>> Free Lossless Audio Codec:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac
>>
>> There's an MPEG-4 lossless codec (MPEG-4 ALS) that's just been
>> released as well:
>>
>> http://www.acnnewswire.net/article.asp?Art_ID=31029&lang=
>> http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mp4als.html
>
> Thanks.
>
> I'd like to read up on that.
> Unfortunately my job is killing virtually all my spare time this week.
>
> I'm like thinking through problems like this, and actually once
> thought about experimenting with developing a lossless compression
> system myself. I had a few ideas, but alas these days I can never
> find the time to actually write the code. I'll hopefully look it up
> soon and will be fascinated to find out how they actually did it.
There's plenty of research papers / articles available on the Internet,
so I'd thoroughly research current methods before doing anything
yourself.
> It would be good if some day somebody manufactures some kind of music
> player based around lossless standards rather than mp3. Perhaps that
> will happen as hard drives get larger.
There's already MP3 players that support lossless codecs, such as FLAC,
and you can use Apple Lossless on the iPod.
On the subject of broadcast applications though, one problem with
lossless is that it's inherently VBR, whereas broadcasting links are
CBR, and there's an interesting lossless to lossy hybrid called MPEG-4
Scaleable Lossless Coding (SLS):
http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/technologies/mp04-sls/
and as the name suggests it allows scaleability from lossless down to
lossy, and importantly it allows for CBR:
"In this broadcast chain, one main feature of the MPEG-4 SLS
architecture can be used: In every stage where no post-processing but
only a lower bit rate is required, the bit stream is just truncated, and
no re-encoding is therefore required."
So such a codec would solve the current transcoding problem, but it only
solves the problem if you use AAC for final transmission -- yet another
advantage of using AAC. Presumably HE AAC can also be used, because the
SBR info could be extracted from the near-lossless audio stream at the
input of the encoder.
MP2 would still be stuck with its transcoded links, of course...
Richard L
Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
If merely beating time would suit you, I read that the English
National Opera is in need of a new music director.
--
Richard L.
Mr. Harris
news:pan.2006.01.05....@ergates.house...
>
>>> How are you saving the files? Is it just with right-click-save-as, or
>>> are
>>> you opening the directly with a media player, and then saving them? I'd
>>> suspect they're being renamed on the fly, or the app. is not displaying
>>> the names correctly.
>>
>> I was right clicking and selecting 'Save Target as' from Netscape 7.1.
>> Yes it is odd. Perhaps my old operating system is doing something daft.
>> (it's Windows ME)
>>
>
> they've downloaded, don't play them, just look at the file properties in
> Explorer first.
>
> In any case, no other reports, so it must be a bit of an oddity.
Your server's MIME types are probably set incorrectly, "seani". It's not
uncommon to find incompetent server admins these days, though; The
Guardian's "Ricky Gervais" "podcasts" were being reported as mp3 audio by
the web server, despite them being an AAC bitstream inside an m4a wrapper.
This caused all manner of problems with my Gecko-based browser, requiring me
to re-download the files using Internet Explorer.
Regards,
Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris
news:YLDuf.58202$Cj5....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> seani wrote:
>> I've just checked, and I can't see any MP2 files with MP3 extensions?
>> Things do get a little blurry late on :)
>
> I downloaded two such files
>
> mp2-128-oxygene-part2.mp2.mp3
> &
> mp2-112-oxygene-part2.mp2.mp3
>
> Perhaps your computer is set to hide final file extension.
> I prefer to have mine set to show as much info as possible.
His server is probably reporting the wrong MIME type, and Netscape is
blindly following it.
You can help yourself by using a decent web-browser rather than the piece of
shit that is Netscape.
Regards,
Mr. Harris.
seani
Ah, that's a good point, thanks. I'll have sniff at the traffic.
I was more concerned that I'd misrepresented an MP3 file as an MP2 file
somehow :-)
Richard Evans
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
> There's plenty of research papers / articles available on the Internet,
> so I'd thoroughly research current methods before doing anything
> yourself.
That was something I gave up on months ago. Programming simply takes too
much time.
Also my main reason for considering it was to see if it seemed feasible.
So not much point now, it obviously is feasible.
>
>
>
>>It would be good if some day somebody manufactures some kind of music
>>player based around lossless standards rather than mp3. Perhaps that
>>will happen as hard drives get larger.
>
>
>
> There's already MP3 players that support lossless codecs, such as FLAC,
> and you can use Apple Lossless on the iPod.
>
> On the subject of broadcast applications though, one problem with
> lossless is that it's inherently VBR,
It could however be utilized to store music on hard drives, which would
take one piece of transcending out of the loop.
(If broadcasters could be persuaded to store their music this way)
> whereas broadcasting links are
> CBR, and there's an interesting lossless to lossy hybrid called MPEG-4
> Scaleable Lossless Coding (SLS):
>
> http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/technologies/mp04-sls/
I'll have to have a look at that over the weekend, and see if I can
understand it.
>
> and as the name suggests it allows scaleability from lossless down to
> lossy, and importantly it allows for CBR:
>
> "In this broadcast chain, one main feature of the MPEG-4 SLS
> architecture can be used: In every stage where no post-processing but
> only a lower bit rate is required, the bit stream is just truncated, and
> no re-encoding is therefore required."
Sounds interesting. Just hope it is within my level of understanding.
>
> So such a codec would solve the current transcoding problem, but it only
> solves the problem if you use AAC for final transmission -- yet another
> advantage of using AAC. Presumably HE AAC can also be used, because the
> SBR info could be extracted from the near-lossless audio stream at the
> input of the encoder.
I'll take your word for that.
So come on DRM+, DAB2 or DVB-H. We need AAC.
>
> MP2 would still be stuck with its transcoded links, of course...
Well. Looks like MP2 is never going to cope properly with current
demands in Digital Radio.
About time they gave it a proper burial service.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
Mr. Harris wrote:
>
>
> His server is probably reporting the wrong MIME type, and Netscape is
> blindly following it.
>
> You can help yourself by using a decent web-browser rather than the piece of
> shit that is Netscape.
Well I'd agree that Netscape does have it's problems.
However I don't trust Internet Explorer. I found that web sites seem to
be able to change IE settings without even telling you, let alone asking
your permission.
I've heard there are other browses available, but haven't got around to
trying any of them. I find I'm reasonably happy with Netscape for now.
Richard E.
Richard L
Richard Evans <R.P.Evan...@NTLWorld.com> wrote:
> It could however be utilized to store music on hard drives, which would
> take one piece of transcending out of the loop.
> (If broadcasters could be persuaded to store their music this way)
They're probably doing that already for some types of music, e.g.--
http://www.fredrikullen.com/sorabji.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Studies
But I fear you have been derailed again by that spell-checker of
yours....
--
Richard L.
Richard L
Richard Evans <R.P.Evan...@NTLWorld.com> wrote:
> I've heard there are other browses available, but haven't got around to
> trying any of them. I find I'm reasonably happy with Netscape for now.
Try Firefox, Richard. And for email and news, Thunderbird.
http://www.mozilla.com/
--
Richard L.
Richard Evans
seani wrote:
Just tried again from the files at their current location.
This time I got the correct name.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
Richard L wrote:
OK.
Just downloaded them.
Will give them a try when I have a bit more time.
Richard E.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>> There's plenty of research papers / articles available on the
>> Internet, so I'd thoroughly research current methods before doing
>> anything yourself.
>
> That was something I gave up on months ago. Programming simply takes
> too much time.
>
> Also my main reason for considering it was to see if it seemed
> feasible. So not much point now, it obviously is feasible.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It would be good if some day somebody manufactures some kind of
>>> music player based around lossless standards rather than mp3.
>>> Perhaps that will happen as hard drives get larger.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's already MP3 players that support lossless codecs, such as
>> FLAC, and you can use Apple Lossless on the iPod.
>>
>> On the subject of broadcast applications though, one problem with
>> lossless is that it's inherently VBR,
>
> It could however be utilized to store music on hard drives,
Yep, my CD collection is all stored on my hard drive in FLAC format.
> which
> would take one piece of transcending out of the loop.
> (If broadcasters could be persuaded to store their music this way)
I take it you mean "transcoding"? I'm not going to have a go at you like
Richard L does, but I agree with him that you should turn your automatic
spell checker off.
>> whereas broadcasting links are
>> CBR, and there's an interesting lossless to lossy hybrid called
>> MPEG-4 Scaleable Lossless Coding (SLS):
>>
>> http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/technologies/mp04-sls/
>
> I'll have to have a look at that over the weekend, and see if I can
> understand it.
>>
>> and as the name suggests it allows scaleability from lossless down to
>> lossy, and importantly it allows for CBR:
>>
>> "In this broadcast chain, one main feature of the MPEG-4 SLS
>> architecture can be used: In every stage where no post-processing but
>> only a lower bit rate is required, the bit stream is just truncated,
>> and no re-encoding is therefore required."
>
> Sounds interesting. Just hope it is within my level of understanding.
It shows a diagram near to the text, and the diagram shows that because
it's scalable you can just reduce the size of the lossless enhancement
layer, and you avoid transcoding. When you use MP2 for transmission
(emission) you might start with a WAV file / CD, then they might encode
to high bit rate MP2, then transcode to lower bit rate MP2 for emission.
MPEG-4 SLS avoids having to transcode, because you go from lossless to
128kbps AAC simply by reducing the lossless enhancement layer at each
stage.
>> So such a codec would solve the current transcoding problem, but it
>> only solves the problem if you use AAC for final transmission -- yet
>> another advantage of using AAC. Presumably HE AAC can also be used,
>> because the SBR info could be extracted from the near-lossless audio
>> stream at the input of the encoder.
>
> I'll take your word for that.
> So come on DRM+, DAB2 or DVB-H. We need AAC.
Indeed.
>> MP2 would still be stuck with its transcoded links, of course...
>
> Well. Looks like MP2 is never going to cope properly with current
> demands in Digital Radio.
> About time they gave it a proper burial service.
Indeed.