MP3...in Surround Sound 247
A number of people sent in the latest news from the fine folks at Frauhofer that they are expecting to have surround sound working for MP3s by July. The details are pretty sketchy in the article, but supposedly it won't be much more space per MP3s, and existing players will work with it.
Re:How hard will it be to convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
386, Now with 24-bit Colour! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How hard will it be to convert? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd just add extra headers and increase file size. If you want to dynamically alter sounds in 3d space dependant on temporal and frequency factors a plugin might be more appropriate. How often do you listen to all of your mp3 collection?
Re:386, Now with 24-bit Colour! (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I'll sit out on this one thank you very much. I like music and everything, but stereo is more than adequate for me (If I want 6 channel sound, I'll just watch a DVD...)
Re:Bait and switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:386, Now with 24-bit Colour! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are far better options around for multi-channel audio now.
Previous extensions, like mp3-pro, not successful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Previous extensions, like mp3-pro, not successf (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it's worth, MP3Pro also wasn't really backwards-compatible, even though it claimed to be. In a format that didn't support the extensions, it cut off the entire high end and it sounded like absolute shit. It remains to be seen if the same issue will be seen in these surround MP3s, but if it really doesn't add too much, like the article is implying, I don't imagine it will be a cataclysmic failure.
Besides, there aren't that many surround-sound audio CDs to rip yet, so something like this wouldn't gain in popularity until a more popular codec has already superseded it. I wouldn't worry about it gaining any type of dominance.
Re:Nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
MP3: Everything supports it, which is very appealing for consumers.
OGG: Few products support it, not very appealing for consumers.
This is the old VHS/BETA debate again. Each one has various advantages over the other, but MP3 has already won mindshare and, as a result, is ubiquitous. In the end, consumers don't really care that Apple has to pay Fraunhofer $1 (or whatever) for licensing iPod's MP3 tech instead of $0 for OGG. After all, you'll never see Apple advertising a regular iPod for $299 -OR- you can get an iPod which doesn't play MP3 for $298.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
This might be a smooth way to sneak in DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
LK
Another proprietary multiplexing algorithm ? (Score:2, Insightful)
But it is exactly what the Ogg Vorbis is working on. Please, don't adopt this standard ; I am sick of patents and licenses issues on video and audio codecs and algorithms. The industry will probably choose the MP3, because they feel more confident with protected formats, as well as with proprietary softwares. But this doesn't mean they make good choices. The MP3's first aim was voice encoding, not music one ; but it was choosen even instead of better solutions.
WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ipod? (Score:3, Insightful)
i dont get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't forget... (Score:5, Insightful)
No licencing fees doesn't mean just that. It also means no overhead like getting a licencing deal set up, signed, making sure it's paid on time, in right amount, used only in accordance with the terms and so on. I'm seeing this first hand how much time is spent fiddling.
Just the process of going to someone with the authoroty to sign contracts and spend money in the company's name is wasting time, and time is money. That everyone, everywhere can use it for whatever is in itself probably worth as much as the licencing costs themselves.
Kjella
Re:Binaural Explained (Score:3, Insightful)
But you need a slightly different mix for binaural vs. stereo devices (due to differences in delays and placement of the drivers). And to produce a proper stereo soundstage, you need to be really careful about speaker placement (especially with regards to reflection and overlapping), and you need to buy speakers which have power, precision and a wide enough cone across the entire spectrum to maintain a soundstage for all listeners regardless of head position.
By adding more speakers into the mix, you decrease the need for such tight controls over environment. Which means you can get by with less power and lower quality speakers -- and that the immersion effect is not limited to the guy in the middle of the soundstage keeping his head relatively still
Personally, I'm strictly stereo (I go by the Jolida [jolida.com] adage, "Why use 6 speakers when you can't get 2 right?"). And it's occasionally a problem for movies...not because the sound is bad, but because when I watch movies with my wife, she puts her head on my shoulder, essentially eliminating half of the one channel. If I did have a 5.1 setup, I'd get fill in from the rear channel and the effect would be reduced.
Besides, there are a lot of bassheads who can't distinguish between realistic sound stage and a bunch of poorly positioned speakers and a bone-shaking thumpbox. If what you look for in sound is measured in Watts...