MP3 Pro codec demo by Thomson to be released tomorrow!

[impact]

Just what it says. Supposedly, on the 14th of June Thomson will put a demo of their new mp3 codec on their site. From what I have heard, it will be backwards compatible with current mp3 players but will have much better quality and the files will be about half the current size. (that means 64k bitrate is enough for a CD-quality mp3 and for anything beyond 80kbit you won't be able to tell the difference between the mp3 and the original)

If anyone has some more info please share!

added... I just found this press release

A new mp3 coding-decoding (codec) format that will provide improved sound at lower bit rates is now under development for implementation in mid 2001, Thomson Multimedia (NYSE:TMS) today announced. The new codec, dubbed "mp3PRO", provides 128kbs performance at a 64kbs encoding rate, nearly doubling the digital music capacity of typical flash memory. Using lower bit rates, mp3PRO will also offer Internet radio broadcasters the ability to lower their bandwidth costs while at the same time offering CD quality in the consumer preferred mp3 format.

mp3PRO is being developed by Coding Technologies, a company resulting from the cooperation between a Swedish company that specializes in audio compression technology and a spin-off from Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits. mp3PRO utilizes both Coding Technologies' proprietary codec enhancement technology and the pioneering work in the field of perceptual audio coding covered under the basic mp3 patents owned by Thomson and Fraunhofer. Currently, 100 companies license mp3 technology from Thomson and Fraunhofer under reasonable licensing terms that add less than $1 to the cost of a typical consumer mp3 player. More than one billion mp3 files are downloaded monthly by consumers with nearly 1 million portable players and 150 million PCs playing mp3 files worldwide.

"While the current mp3 format is quite acceptable, our goal is to never stand still, but to continue to modify the mp3 format to deliver even stronger audio performance," said Mark Redmond, Vice President, Worldwide Audio, Thomson Multimedia. "This enhancement to the very popular mp3 format not only improves sound quality, but compression rates as well."

mp3PRO offers compatibility to both mp3 content and players. Traditional mp3 content can be decoded by any mp3PRO player. Content coded in the mp3PRO format can be played back on any traditional mp3 player. However, to enjoy the quality enhancements of the new mp3PRO format, mp3PRO compatible players are required.

"Our unique enhancement technology and mp3 are an ideal match," said Martin Dietz, President of Coding Technologies. "The new mp3PRO offers significantly increased performance while maintaining the well established mp3 format. Free from compatibility problems, consumers will fully enjoy the substantial benefits of mp3PRO."

The new Codec will first be implemented for Windows 98 and ME, Mac and Linux systems.

This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding prospects for the future that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Among the factors that could cause actual income to differ materially from those expected are the following: business conditions and general economic conditions; competitive factors such as pricing and marketing efforts of rival companies; timing of product introductions; ability of contract manufacturers to meet product price objectives and delivery schedules; legislative, regulatory, and industry initiatives that may affect planned or actual product features and marketing methods; and the pace and success of product research and development. For more information on the potential factors that could affect the company's financial income, please review the relevant SEC filings.

[This message has been edited by impact (edited 13 June 2001).]

[impact]

http://download.ethomson.com/images/...udioPlayer.exe

[impact]

Hello ppl? Don't you want your mp3s to sound better and occupy less space on you hd?

http://www.rca.com/content/viewdetai...45159,00.html?

[az]

It won't sound "better". All it does is try to guess frequencies higher than were encoded, based on the freqs that were encoded. Of course, since this is a guess, it's not accurate, but it's a nice technology for ~64 kbit encoding - won't sound as good as standard mp3 128 kbit, but better than standard 64 kbit

Wouldn't want to do this to my music though If I had the space, I'd have gone with 256 kbit...

AZ

[Topha]

hey az, if you use mp3pro with 128kb, its better than standard and occupies the same space

[az]

Topha that's true - now I only need a good encoder and a winamp that supports it *g

But wasn't MP3 Pro capped at 64 kbit or at a certain frequency? 128 kbit IMHO has a frequency response that exceeds that of the average ear, so an extension wouldn't make a difference, if I'm not mistaken.

AZ

[impact]

Actually, it can't 'guess' the frequencies, you have to recode everything with the mp3PRO to get the advantage. Also this demo player only supports encoding at 64kbit - and sounds really good, as good as a regular 128kbit mp3... also, when another encoders are out that support higher encoding rates, the mp3s will sound even better. As they say, from 80kbit up the difference will be undistinguishable... and after a few test mp3s I am beginning to believe that it's true.

[az]

I admit the tech has some points for it, especially when space/bandwidth is an issue - I really don't think it will make that much of a difference at 128k, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

BTW, AFAIK, the same tech will be used in AAC, which is, as I understand, the official successor to MP3. I will NEVER use a codec that tells ME when to copy and when not to copy music, that forces me to open a net connection and click a link to be able to even PLAY the music I've got. I hate "content protection" - hell, I BOUGHT content, I want to be able to use it.

AZ

[xortam]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by az:
... I will NEVER use a codec that tells ME when to copy and when not to copy music, that forces me to open a net connection and click a link to be able to even PLAY the music I've got</font>

Doesn't sound very practical for playing music in the car. Though I suppose it won't be long now before Net connections in the automobile will become commonplace.

[Indiana]

Doesn't really matter to me. I've bought a Philips Expanium portable MP3-CD player (for holidays, car, ....) so I'll stay with the "old" mp3 LAME @160Kbps or VBR @~150Kbps encodings.
Space is not that much of an issue here (considering the 700+MB you can fit on one CD, plus taking into account the price for a CDR).
Although I agree that 128Kbps in most cases is too low quality to deserve being called CD-like - you still have quite some annoying aliasing in the trebles.

[DentyCracker]

I am impressed by the 64 kbps quality of mp3pro, it played back great on wmp7 too as well as mantis techdemo. 128 kbps with this encoding should be like 256 kbps at normal mp3. I am not convinced that lame does a good job with all types of music. On some types 128 lame sounds better than some encoders at 192, and with other types it is the opposite.

[Indiana]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by DentyCracker:
I am not convinced that lame does a good job with all types of music. On some types 128 lame sounds better than some encoders at 192, and with other types it is the opposite.</font>

The same applies for the Fraunhofer codecs as well (at least the older ones that are , errm.., "included" with DivX;-).
I tested this quite thoroughly and found that LAME does a equivalent if not better job for the kind of music I'm normally encoding than the old Fraunhofer codec. While the Fraunhofer codec seems to be a bit better at low bitrates, Lame beats it for HQ-encoding and 160-256Kbps. It seems to have less distortion esp. in the trebles (these are the MP3 artifacts I really hate). Plus it's multiple times faster.
With 160Kbps you normally don't hear many artifacts no matter if you're using Fraunhofer or Lame.

[xortam]

I haven't done any MP3 listening besides what I grab off the Net and play through my PC speakers (AR). What applications are you using the encodings for? Can you discern the difference between say 128 kbps encodings on your PC and in the auto. I would think that MP3 is just fine for the noisy automotive environment. Are you comparing these encodings on a high-end home audio system?

[Rags]

Let's do a Fran. 192 VBR vs. a Lame 192 VBR, then let's see which one you think is better. After many blind tests by me, and about a dozen other subjects, the results were the same EVERYONE picked the fran codec. In fact, everyone picked the fran codec at 192 VBR over Lame 256 CBR.

Rags

[az]

In test done at c't, people couldn't discern a 256kbit mp3 from a CD over VERY good headphones (Sennheiser Orpheus), and those were regular people a well as producers and other people having to do with audio in their jobs. The only person who nearly always picked mp3 as sounding worse was one with a hearing problem, and since MP3s psychoacoustics are made for normal hearing people, they failed for him. Slightly OT, but I thought I'd share it with you

AZ