MP3 is dead.

[billrobbo]

The creator of the ubiquitous MP3 Codec, Karlheinz Brandenburg, has officially said it is an outdated format and the Fraunhofer Institute has dropped all licensing because newer compression algorithms are more efficient and do not degrade the music.

Read more here.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

That it's dead or dying on administrative fronts is certainly a start. But I would personally like to see the MP3 format die in practice. Given how deeply entrenched its smelly carcass has become, that's not likely to happen any time soon. And while public awareness of SQ has been raised, public desirability of SQ has not. We can only hope that cheaper storage and lossless, space-efficient codecs will override bragging rights for who can shoe horn in the most (SQ-compromised) songs.

 

[ShpongleDMT]

Meh, I haven't used MP3 for many years now and stick with FLAC. I even use a Sony NWZ-A17 Walkman so I can take my high res files with me.

 

[AudiocRaver]

Memory and storage are already extremely cheap, I think mp3 is partly habit, partly people don't know better, partly it does not matter ENOUGH to them to make a difference in their choice.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I'd be shocked if 99% of the buying public knew the difference (technically or sonically) between MP3 and other audio formats. I certainly couldn't speak intelligently about it versus other forms of comparable digital audio files. Interesting that its "dying" though...

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

You make a good point. How many normal people refer to their music as MP3's? I'm pretty sure they usually say "music files" or just "songs."

 

[Todd Anderson]

I guess it depends on what generation they are... my teenage daughters certainly aren't aware of MP3. But, I'd guess a lot of folks that experienced the boom of the "MP3 Player" probably think of all digital music as "MP3"?

The designations of these various digital music files are a real disservice to the masses... truth is, they're confusing! We'd be much better off with a each file type fitting into a certain kind of classification, such as "High Definition." People may not understand exactly what HD means, but they know what it looks like. You could have general category ranks that each kind of file falls under "HD Music" "CD Music" "Streaming Quality", etc... and lose all of the fancy file names.

Would make it way easier for everyone to grasp (and, frankly, care about)!

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Another good point! Sometimes it takes a different pair of eyes to see the forest through the trees. Some of the best ideas are the simplest, and I think your (Todd's) classification method really foots the bill.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I'm not sure how many of you can look at lists of Hi-Res file types and associate them with certain sounds... or have a deep understand of their technical differences, but I fall into a middle ground camp. Not easy to admit it, but it's true. I see and recognize them, but... wow... it can get rather confusing, rather quickly. I certainly couldn't hold a round table discussion on the merits of FLAC versus Apple Lossless. Perhaps someone that does have a deep knowledge base could start a Hi-Res Primer thread and begin dishing out knowledge.

 

[tesseract]

Never used it, but have heard it in action. Good riddance!

 

[AudiocRaver]

Never listened to an ALAC that I know of. Mainly because I never installed iTunes. Never had a reason to.

Ii like Todd's idea of a comparison matrix.

 

[Sonnie]

I think as long as those who aren't that concerned about "critical" quality (kids, teenagers, moms) are buying MP3's... places like Amazon will keep selling them. They are listening on their phones with $5 earbuds... they could care less about the quality. They want cheap... and they can get it with MP3. If other formats drop in price and these particular people can get just as many songs loaded in their limited space, they might eventually swap over. I still use MP3 in my truck.

 

[AudiocRaver]

Remember also that for some, music is more a social environment element / enhancer than a quality audio experience.

 

[billrobbo]

I know it's not a critically listening space but my car supports FLAC. This means I don't have to rip my music twice or convert it to play it while I'm travelling.

 

[Jack]

I agree with most on this panel in that mp3 is widely used even if new forms of it may be dropped. Further, I am not sure that the nomenclature for these products are of use to the consumer as much as price. The format could be most any combination of letters and numbers as long as it is cheap, usually one or two bucks a song.
High Rez is a good nomenclature for what could be better sounding files but then we would need further definitions of High Rez, which truth be told, I am in strong favor of doing. ALAC, FLAC or WAV are most probably the best formats when it comes to the CD Quality or High Rez files. These are considered lossless files and theoretically should provide the best quality playback "IF" the best quality source is used. To me High Rez would be a 24 bit/ 96khz release or even higher to my in home limit of 24/192. Am I alone in this belief, not really but I am surely in the minority of music buyers.

 

[billrobbo]

I have purchased a few titles from HDTracks in FLAC even though I have the CD as they are remastered at 24/96 or higher. The big problem is that a lot I would buy are "Not available for download in your country" which is a real disappointment.

 

[Jack]

I have purchased a few titles from HDTracks in FLAC even though I have the CD as they are remastered at 24/96 or higher. The big problem is that a lot I would buy are "Not available for download in your country" which is a real disappointment.

I did not know the downloads were country specific, thank you for bringing that up.
The other and maybe more sinister problem with certain download sits, is we really dont know where the tracks are sourced. Are they really high rez taken from the original high def source or are they merely up converted 16/44.1 tracks. I wrestle with this a lot when picking music and in my opinion, more often than not, the advertisements are true in that the tracks sound better. In some cases, they just sound louder and frankly the original release sounds better. A good example would be the Beatles catalog released some time ago on a thunb drive that came in a nice green apple. These tracks, imo, have been ruined in that as I mentioned, they are now louder and much less musical, Another example would be the Bat out of hell album by Meatloaf, the down load is thin sounding and seems to have no dynamics.

The other side of the coin are albums like Crime of The Century by Supertramp and Tea For The Tillerman, Cat Stevens, Norah Jones, Come Away With Me or even Eric Clapton, Slowhand. These are all tremendous HIgh Rez Downloads and should be sampled by all of us interested in what high Rez sounds like.

 

[AudiocRaver]

As you suggest, Jack, without knowing the pedigree of a hi-res track, it is hard to say if it will be better or worse than a lower-resolution version. Was it "remastered?" And what does that mean? What other changes might have occurred in the process, compression, other changes in dynamics? Volume other qualities modified? Was it simply upsampled? Not that upsampling is automatically bad. But it is not automatically better, ether.

Hi-res could end up losing favor as a designation on its own. It would mean a lot more along with other descriptors that make it clear what the steps were getting from A to B.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

I suppose hoping for a standards committee is an unreasonable expectation at this point in the game!

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

I don't have the antipathy toward MP3 that many do. Remember that when it became pervasive, memory was much more costly than now, and it served a purpose. Also remember the very limited quality we once had to listen to, with cheap tape players, AM and FM radio, etc. MP3 was a step that made sense and other than not pushing the technology as hard as it might have, has not really done any harm. The mainstream user really does not care about quality as much as convenience. The fact that it was so lossy may have accelerated the attention to better options.

 

[ShpongleDMT]

I have purchased a few titles from HDTracks in FLAC even though I have the CD as they are remastered at 24/96 or higher. The big problem is that a lot I would buy are "Not available for download in your country" which is a real disappointment.

Have you tried using a VPN that routes through a country that is authorized?

 

[Todd Anderson]

I have purchased a few titles from HDTracks in FLAC even though I have the CD as they are remastered at 24/96 or higher. The big problem is that a lot I would buy are "Not available for download in your country" which is a real disappointment.

Why are there regional restrictions? That's crazy!

 

[Todd Anderson]

I don't have the antipathy toward MP3 that many do. Remember that when it became pervasive, memory was much more costly than now, and it served a purpose. Also remember the very limited quality we once had to listen to, with cheap tape players, AM and FM radio, etc. MP3 was a step that made sense and other than not pushing the technology as hard as it might have, has not really done any harm. The mainstream user really does not care about quality as much as convenience. The fact that it was so lossy may have accelerated the attention to better options.

This is all so very true... and you're right, convenience, convenience, convenience.... that's what it's all about. I'd say the true "audiophile" is in a distinctive minority on this earth.

 

[billrobbo]

Have you tried using a VPN that routes through a country that is authorized?

If there was an album I really wanted I may have done, oops, I mean I might consider that.
I live in Australia and we have no comparable provider here so I really don't know what the issue is. It's almost like they want people to search the torrents for it.

 

[Todd Anderson]

So the internet has boundaries????