My question is above....
Posted Wed 03 Jul 02 @ 7:40 am
Grimm
Mp3"pro" = Crap
And for the 10th(literally) and final time, ATOMIX WILL NEVER EVER SUPPORT THAT CRAP, OVER PRICED COMPRESSION STANDARD!
Btw... Mp3"pro" = Crap
And for the 10th(literally) and final time, ATOMIX WILL NEVER EVER SUPPORT THAT CRAP, OVER PRICED COMPRESSION STANDARD!
Btw... Mp3"pro" = Crap
Posted Wed 03 Jul 02 @ 12:24 pm
jannick
Just read my comment overhere
http://www.atomixmp3.com/forum/display.html?forum=3&topic=8516
and tell me than what you think about mp3pro.... it really isn't crap
http://www.atomixmp3.com/forum/display.html?forum=3&topic=8516
and tell me than what you think about mp3pro.... it really isn't crap
Posted Thu 04 Jul 02 @ 7:06 pm
phatty720
mp3 pro is f'ing shit. it's just a big waste of time and money. yes, i read the other post as well. mp3 is still shit.
phatty720
dave
phatty720
dave
Posted Fri 05 Jul 02 @ 4:11 am
phatty720
mp3 *pro is still shit. (typo)
Posted Fri 05 Jul 02 @ 8:35 am
jannick
You guys all compare mp3 to mp3pro and I think that it's not a fair comparison.
OK, if it's only at 22 khz. ACC (Analog Compact Cassette) or just an ordinary tape depends on what you call it is 22 khz. also and I think that vinyl records especially the ones recorded at 33 rpm are 22 khz. also, but they are famous of their dynamics in the sound, but that's only has to do with the way the sound got treated the analog way, but now with digital recordings you can have better higher frequencies.
I myself am a huge collector of 12 inch singles..... got about 600 of them, no none of that techno shit that wouldn't be noticed playing on mp3 or mp3pro.
No the real stuff made with instruments and not with drum computers atleast most of them and that way are more different to mix
And because this is allready lesser quality and after filtering out all scratches and ticks and other noises I store it to mp3pro.
This suits absolutely fine for me especially at the higher bitrates of 160 kb/s. Anyway this is better than mp3 at 160 kb/s. especially for the purpose I am using it for.
So come on guys and don't say that mp3pro sucks because it opens up a wider world for other people.
I really don't care whether mp3pro will or will not be available in any of the next releases of atomixmp3.
Infact to make you happy I would say..... let's ban atomix from mp3pro and than hope that none of you are downloading music from the internet and that the other guy has got the mp3pro file of that song you so gladly wanted for your new mix.
Well to really fuck up your mix you can always convert it to mp3 (but this is not advisable since mp3pro sucks)
And to play the song in atomix directly would make a very nice soundeffect.
Remember when 12 years ago the mpeg codec was develloped they only thought that it would be suitable for video..... Nobody ever thought or heard about mp3.
Maybe the same thing happens in another 10 years and they will say.... mp3 sucks..... got to have mp3pro:-))
But it's ok you are not going to support mp3pro, but let me tell you one thing..... MP3 Sucks also..... Sucks big because it's still lossy compression and this means that it can never be compared to the original, just impossible, luckilly there are other compression algorythms but they aren't that small as mp3 or mp3pro or real or wma or ogg or whatever soundformat you can come up with.
MP3 is simply grown big because of programs like napster because they are small not for the soundquality
OK, if it's only at 22 khz. ACC (Analog Compact Cassette) or just an ordinary tape depends on what you call it is 22 khz. also and I think that vinyl records especially the ones recorded at 33 rpm are 22 khz. also, but they are famous of their dynamics in the sound, but that's only has to do with the way the sound got treated the analog way, but now with digital recordings you can have better higher frequencies.
I myself am a huge collector of 12 inch singles..... got about 600 of them, no none of that techno shit that wouldn't be noticed playing on mp3 or mp3pro.
No the real stuff made with instruments and not with drum computers atleast most of them and that way are more different to mix
And because this is allready lesser quality and after filtering out all scratches and ticks and other noises I store it to mp3pro.
This suits absolutely fine for me especially at the higher bitrates of 160 kb/s. Anyway this is better than mp3 at 160 kb/s. especially for the purpose I am using it for.
So come on guys and don't say that mp3pro sucks because it opens up a wider world for other people.
I really don't care whether mp3pro will or will not be available in any of the next releases of atomixmp3.
Infact to make you happy I would say..... let's ban atomix from mp3pro and than hope that none of you are downloading music from the internet and that the other guy has got the mp3pro file of that song you so gladly wanted for your new mix.
Well to really fuck up your mix you can always convert it to mp3 (but this is not advisable since mp3pro sucks)
And to play the song in atomix directly would make a very nice soundeffect.
Remember when 12 years ago the mpeg codec was develloped they only thought that it would be suitable for video..... Nobody ever thought or heard about mp3.
Maybe the same thing happens in another 10 years and they will say.... mp3 sucks..... got to have mp3pro:-))
But it's ok you are not going to support mp3pro, but let me tell you one thing..... MP3 Sucks also..... Sucks big because it's still lossy compression and this means that it can never be compared to the original, just impossible, luckilly there are other compression algorythms but they aren't that small as mp3 or mp3pro or real or wma or ogg or whatever soundformat you can come up with.
MP3 is simply grown big because of programs like napster because they are small not for the soundquality
Posted Fri 05 Jul 02 @ 8:56 am
phatty720
dude why the hell do you take this so personally? are you on a development team that works with mp3 pro? take a pill man. get over it. and i have looooots and lots of mp3's that are of great quality. is your hard disk THAT low on space? go out and buy a new one. 100 gb disk isn't very expensive.
phatty720
dave
phatty720
dave
Posted Fri 05 Jul 02 @ 11:21 pm
Grimm
Analog and Digital both repoduce frequencies up to 22kHz. But Digital must capture the audio at twice the sampling rate in order to reproduce those high frequencies. Hence, why the digital audio standard is currently 44kHz. This does not mean that digital playbacks frequencies up to 44kHz. It just means that it needs to sample a 22kHz signal at 44kHz to be able to reproduce it.
Mp3"pro" however, only uses a resolution of up to 22kHz, which means the effective upper limit of the frequency that it can reproduce is 11kHz. Thats half of what the original signal (music) is. Even at 160kbps, Mp3"pro" in no way is better then a 160kbps standard mp3 file. It *might* be better then a 112kbps mp3 file, but since its still faking the upper bandwidth, it still can't come close. Mp3"pro" is completely destructive to the audio, and although standard mp3 is lossy, at the higher bitrates (=190kbps, depending on if the person encoding knows what thier doing) the sound is indistinguishable from the original 16bit 44kHz file (encoder dependent, Xing mp3 encoder is crap and will cause anomolies). Yes, the resultent compressed mp3 file will never be bit for bit equal to the original file. But to the human ear that doesn't matter. We dont listen to 1's and 0's, we listen to sound waves. And if the sound waves reproduced are equal to what we heard in the original, then, lossy or not, its the same. Mp3"pro" by its very nature could never reproduce the audio equally. It can come close, but never the same.
And the people who release the lesser known tracks that DJs look for, dont use mp3"pro" for that reason. I've rarely found any of the obscure tracks encoded at less then 160kbps for the exact same reason I encode everything I rip at 320. Quality. Thats something that mp3"pro" can never obtain.
If standard mp3 sucks for you and lacks quality, then you need to learn how to rip and encode properly.
Grimm
Mp3"pro" however, only uses a resolution of up to 22kHz, which means the effective upper limit of the frequency that it can reproduce is 11kHz. Thats half of what the original signal (music) is. Even at 160kbps, Mp3"pro" in no way is better then a 160kbps standard mp3 file. It *might* be better then a 112kbps mp3 file, but since its still faking the upper bandwidth, it still can't come close. Mp3"pro" is completely destructive to the audio, and although standard mp3 is lossy, at the higher bitrates (=190kbps, depending on if the person encoding knows what thier doing) the sound is indistinguishable from the original 16bit 44kHz file (encoder dependent, Xing mp3 encoder is crap and will cause anomolies). Yes, the resultent compressed mp3 file will never be bit for bit equal to the original file. But to the human ear that doesn't matter. We dont listen to 1's and 0's, we listen to sound waves. And if the sound waves reproduced are equal to what we heard in the original, then, lossy or not, its the same. Mp3"pro" by its very nature could never reproduce the audio equally. It can come close, but never the same.
And the people who release the lesser known tracks that DJs look for, dont use mp3"pro" for that reason. I've rarely found any of the obscure tracks encoded at less then 160kbps for the exact same reason I encode everything I rip at 320. Quality. Thats something that mp3"pro" can never obtain.
If standard mp3 sucks for you and lacks quality, then you need to learn how to rip and encode properly.
Grimm
Posted Sat 06 Jul 02 @ 12:02 pm
phatty720
word
Posted Sat 06 Jul 02 @ 5:34 pm
jannick
Man, I'm not taking this personally.
Just told you before and I will tell again..... I really don't give a .... whether or not MP3Pro is going to be supported in any of the next features.
I only think that it would be nice if this is supported in atomixmp3.
It's just that I can get a bit angry by they way people react on mp3pro..... I think that some people are happy with this and will use it for special purposes.
It's just not the case that it must be inside any new version, but you'll see the list and how many people are asking about it so maybe it would be a good thing to do.
If you don't like it don't use it..... for the people that do like it they can use it.... it's their decission not ours.
We are human beings right???? And everyone wants to make their own choices of what they want to use.
And please don't bring up arguments like it will use too much cpu, because only the beta plugin for winamp is using way too much cpu power, and maybe their might be a way for the devellopers for the user to choose the decoder whether or not it would be mp3pro.
I hope you understand my problem with the answers given in my responses about mp3pro. Just don't like that anyone tells me what to use because I am quite happy with mp3pro for the purposes I am currently using it.
Thanks guys and please don't take this personally..... I know that I'm not taking it personally.
Just don't think that mp3pro is all that negative..... and no I am not a develloper for any corporation that has to do with mp3 or mp3pro.
Just told you before and I will tell again..... I really don't give a .... whether or not MP3Pro is going to be supported in any of the next features.
I only think that it would be nice if this is supported in atomixmp3.
It's just that I can get a bit angry by they way people react on mp3pro..... I think that some people are happy with this and will use it for special purposes.
It's just not the case that it must be inside any new version, but you'll see the list and how many people are asking about it so maybe it would be a good thing to do.
If you don't like it don't use it..... for the people that do like it they can use it.... it's their decission not ours.
We are human beings right???? And everyone wants to make their own choices of what they want to use.
And please don't bring up arguments like it will use too much cpu, because only the beta plugin for winamp is using way too much cpu power, and maybe their might be a way for the devellopers for the user to choose the decoder whether or not it would be mp3pro.
I hope you understand my problem with the answers given in my responses about mp3pro. Just don't like that anyone tells me what to use because I am quite happy with mp3pro for the purposes I am currently using it.
Thanks guys and please don't take this personally..... I know that I'm not taking it personally.
Just don't think that mp3pro is all that negative..... and no I am not a develloper for any corporation that has to do with mp3 or mp3pro.
Posted Sat 06 Jul 02 @ 7:28 pm
jannick
And it's exactly what I am trying to say..... my records sound the same in mp3pro (by ear and sennheiser headphones) than the wav file.
Maybe this has to do with the way I am recording my files.... I use a program called algorithmix soundlaundry advanced to filter out all the unwanted noises and this works fine especially when you hear the original.
But maybe this program is not good to do the job and it filters out too much so that my mp3pro will sound the same as the filtered wav file.
But I think since this program is also used for forensic research and by professional dj's and record collectors I think that I rather stick with this program.
But it's my decission and I only archieve my music for myself.
Still every 12 inch record has an a-side and this song I'll put to audio cd directly from the edited and filtered wav file.....
Simply don't want to start a collection of thousands of audio cd's that I practically never listen to.
By the way.... better not make mp3's of your mixes, that is if you are mixing with mp3 made in atomix because that would be a shame it's a good way to share your mixes, but not for archieving them for yourself.
Maybe this has to do with the way I am recording my files.... I use a program called algorithmix soundlaundry advanced to filter out all the unwanted noises and this works fine especially when you hear the original.
But maybe this program is not good to do the job and it filters out too much so that my mp3pro will sound the same as the filtered wav file.
But I think since this program is also used for forensic research and by professional dj's and record collectors I think that I rather stick with this program.
But it's my decission and I only archieve my music for myself.
Still every 12 inch record has an a-side and this song I'll put to audio cd directly from the edited and filtered wav file.....
Simply don't want to start a collection of thousands of audio cd's that I practically never listen to.
By the way.... better not make mp3's of your mixes, that is if you are mixing with mp3 made in atomix because that would be a shame it's a good way to share your mixes, but not for archieving them for yourself.
Posted Sat 06 Jul 02 @ 8:01 pm