mp3hd | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 688 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614087
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
mp3hd
 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2009-03-27 16:18 [#02282667]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



will this replace FLAC?

LAZY_TITLE



 

offline ph from United States on 2009-03-28 00:10 [#02282756]
Points: 411 Status: Regular



you mean .wav


 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2009-03-28 03:20 [#02282777]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Followup to ph: #02282756 | Show recordbag



no i don't. it's an uncompressed/lossless format smaller
than a .wav, like .flac.

unlike .flac however it is compatible with all mp3 players
and mp3 software apps.

rtfm.


 

offline Aesthetics from the IDM Kiosk on 2009-03-28 03:31 [#02282778]
Points: 6796 Status: Lurker



Thanks Jeroen!

"unlike .flac however it is compatible with all mp3
players and mp3 software apps. "

So true!

I just downloaded the package and I still have to test is
with my mixapplication. If this work I sure will use this
instead of flac from now on.


 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2009-03-28 03:51 [#02282779]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



the major downside of course is that current mp3 players
don't have the mp3hd decoder, so while it will still be able
to play the file, it will simply leave out the 'HD' content.
In this sense, it wouldn't make any sense to fill your mp3
player with huge files that sound the same as your old
mp3s.



 

offline Aesthetics from the IDM Kiosk on 2009-03-28 04:06 [#02282782]
Points: 6796 Status: Lurker | Followup to J198: #02282779



A small update from the manufacturer will solve that.


 

offline michelnicholas from 'Round the Bend... on 2009-03-28 04:28 [#02282784]
Points: 392 Status: Lurker



yeah, i'm sure apple will jump right on that....


 

offline ijonspeches from 109P/Swift-Tuttle on 2009-03-28 06:50 [#02282801]
Points: 7846 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



its not much smaller:( but id tags and mp3-player
compatibility maybe will make this popular.
i wouldnt mind having lossless portable and apple
surely wouldnt either, selling HQ mp3s and bigger
i-pods too...



 

offline ph from United States on 2009-03-28 12:45 [#02282841]
Points: 411 Status: Regular



you mean .wav, like a wav file, right, a wav file, that's
what you mean, right? .wav, right?


 

offline ph from United States on 2009-03-28 12:55 [#02282846]
Points: 411 Status: Regular



actually the supposed file sizes on the site look alot like
FLAC, so the only advantage would be the .mp3 extension?

well, thanks for the info anyway.


 

offline ph from United States on 2009-03-28 12:59 [#02282848]
Points: 411 Status: Regular



oh and for music, a 320kpbs mp3 (universally compatible)
would be far from easy to detect side by side from lossless


 

offline ph from United States on 2009-03-29 12:50 [#02283058]
Points: 411 Status: Regular



no rebuttal at all??
what the hell.
I was fascinated by the format.


 

offline Advocate on 2009-03-29 12:53 [#02283059]
Points: 3319 Status: Lurker | Followup to ph: #02283058



hey ph, i like your style. you talk a lot without saying
anything.

keep it up!


 

offline ph from United States on 2009-03-29 13:10 [#02283064]
Points: 411 Status: Regular



advocate, you should be like the usual neutral norwegian who
has lost his viking spine.


 


Messageboard index