digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

New MP3 Revolutionizes Way You Listen to Music

koreatimes.co.kr — A new file format that offers separate volume controls for each musical instrument, such as guitar, drum, base and voice, is being considered as a new Internet standard.The new .MT9 file format, which a commercial title of “Music 2.0″, was selected as a candidate for consideration at a regular meeting of Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 80hd, on 05/25/2008, -5/+544I'll file this away with all the other mp3 killers that have changed the future with their amazing specs despite a lack of compatibility or public awareness.
    • ultrafez, on 05/25/2008, -4/+43MP3Pro, anyone?
    • Elranzer, on 05/25/2008, -7/+44The problem with all "MP3 Killers" is that they always seem to have some sort of device-restricting DRM attached to the format.

      This is also why the industry HATES the MP3 format (especially Sony, Microsoft and Apple) and basically only adapted it kicking and screaming, so they wouldn't go broke.

      "Screw MP3 format. Our WMA/M4P/Atract3 format offers better sound and higher quality at lower bitrates." (Small print: It also locks the music content to our devices)
      • marx2k, on 05/25/2008, -13/+7ATRAC, not Atract :D
      • Zettabyte, on 05/25/2008, -4/+29The FOSS community hates MP3s as well, because it's riddled in patents. MP3 sucks, it halts technological progress, as well as paying for the royalties for using MP3.
        • KibibyteBrain, on 05/25/2008, -5/+18Plus, mp3 is a pretty horribly lossy format. As in its more of the rule than the exception that certain audible artifacts tend to work into files compressed with mp3 even as the bitrate approaches infinity. This makes sense as its algorithm is relatively simple and not based on advanced audio models like more modern codecs. Don't get me wrong, it does a darn good job considering, but ripping anything to mp3 now is settling for inferior performance in almost every measurable respect.
          Also, no actual compression format does the DRM, DRM is a wrapper around the audio data. There are DRM free AAC and ATRAC files, and AAC in the wild is usually pretty good about even maintaining extension differences. I think fearing more modern file formats, especially considering mp3 is more of a stone age format to start with, just because the standards have an option for wrapping DRM around them is pretty absurd. Heck, someone could make an mp3 based format that had DRM, too. I think this is just people being conservative and not wanting to stray from what works.
          The only real advantage mp3 has over the competition is ubiquity. Everyone who is pushing their own format supports it. But again, this really isn't a GOOD thing. Player makers should make a best effort to support all formats their customers wish to use, and not just what best suits(or what they think best suits) their other business models.
        • RoflcopterFUEL, on 05/25/2008, -5/+8well at least a 320kbps bitrate mp3 file is still way smaller than a flac encode, and the quality is pretty much the same (unless you have AWSOME PEBBLES and bbs on your wall socket!)
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/25/2008, -3/+5WTF, why is the 1st reply getting buried? It's completely true O_o....

          I can't think of anything to add to it, but I wonder why people are burying it.
        • svensko, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3What is the standard of the FOSS community? (not trolling, seriously curious)
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4@svensko: For very High Quality, FLAC is completely loseless - Meaning your audio is kept intact in it's entirety, given you use the same amount of bits per sample (is that what it's called?)

          As an MP3 replacement, OGG is pretty awesome. I use it in place of MP3 for quality and sometimes even size reasons.

          On the Win32 side of things, Most Codec packs can let you play this stuff on Windows Media Player, but you can't burn to CD with it. Luckily, you can use Winamp with all of this native (but the fullspeed burn feature requires some cash :\) As for applications to convert with, there is an endless choice - I'd recommend FFMPEG or Mencoder, both console applications, because they have unbeatable control in the conversion (though the console is understandably annoying for Win32 users.)

          On the Linux side of things, it's near impossible to find a Media Player without the ability to play FLAC or OGG and I still recommend FFMPEG or Mencoder to do your conversions.

          On both sides, you can do some slick audio editing and conversions with Audacity.
      • jtjdt, on 05/25/2008, -6/+10What does http://www.hydrogenaudio.org have to say about this?
        • -=Ross=-, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3You tell me.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2Make a topic or search or something. I'm not interested so I'm not going to.
      • jtanunleashed, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3The issue of DRM is not as simple as the industry hating DRM; 99.9% of consumers dislike/hate DRM; but record labels want a format that can be reliably NOT redistributed free; the open-ness of this DRM-Free format is why it will not go mainstream.

        The 6-channels seem more of a novelty for me; and I doubt record labels will be that keen on supporting a format that allows manipulation of the audio, even if for the time being its only the ability to turn on/off a channel.

        Plus, since only the Music 2.0 Player supports it; consumers can't listen to their music in the diverse way they're used to.

        HOWEVER, if the file does become internationally and internet-ically (?) recognised, I can imagine it would generate a buzz amongst hard-core music fans; the kind who demand an incredibly high bitrate and quality; and generally populate secretive Torrent/WAREZ-type communities. Assuming the new format supports high quality.

        And the other factor is the mysterious filesize for an average MT9 track. Is it more compressed than a MP3, and how many can you fit on, say, a 2GB Personal Media Player (iPod, ZEN, etc)
      • Gizza, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3I would say Apple loves the mp3 format. They wouldn't have sold 1/10th the number of iPods without it.
    • flashback99, on 05/25/2008, -2/+26"The distinctive feature of MT9 format is that it has a six-channel audio equalizer, with each channel dedicated to voice, chorus, piano, guitar, base and drum"

      The feature we've been supposedly all waiting for.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 05/25/2008, -3/+15Maybe, but this seems like it could only appeal to pop/rock music. Which granted is a big portion of the market. Things like classical symphonies would be little more useful to control via 6 channel isolated tracks like this than just a spatially isolated setup. Even then, some more innovated or sophisticated performances would be hard to figure with this. Some bands spend a long time figuring out how to mix their works so it sounds good. The idea of separate instruments might not make much sense for those works.
        MT9 seems like it will more appeal to those doing mixes and the like as they can customize the music to their whims. Also amateur performers could easily learn how to play certain parts on their instruments of choice. As much as this will appeal to music enthusiasts, is this really going to supplement most customer needs? Especially considering these files should end up being quite a bit bigger than non-isolated two channel recordings or the like which currently do a fine job of meetings market demand and will always for most listeners, who use earphones.
        • jgtg32a, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1While I agree with everything you say why do we need that in a portable format? Edit it to the way you want it and then put it in whatever format to listen to it.
    • Wakuko, on 05/25/2008, -17/+2I smell the hairy hand of M$ behind all this bullcrap
      • Yodacola, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2Multiple Sclerosis is a very serious ailment. The hairy hand may be the only thing a "M$" could move, jerk.
    • caLt, on 05/25/2008, -1/+16i want to see an open format replace mp3...even though it's ruling the market, linux distros cannot ship with mp3 support because of ***** patents.
      • Protoss, on 05/25/2008, -1/+22OGG anyone? The entire problem is device support.
        • DontGiveADamn, on 05/25/2008, -1/+8That's why a own a Cowon music player.
          http://www.cowonamerica.com/
          Their players play ogg and flac, so do WinAmp and JetAudio (free download from the above).
        • eminn3m, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2Only problem is it's large/heavy and slow. I had an A3 and returned it for those reasons.
        • stmiller, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4Yes OGG is great, but it is very CPU intensive. Not as good for portables as MP3. This shouldn't be a problem as battery life and such gets better, but it is a concern right now.

          Audio in many video games (PC games mostly) is OGG to avoid patent issues. Unreal Tournament uses OGG for the audio, for instance.
        • Tenoq, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1My old iRiver can play OGG, and runs on AA batteries so 'battery life' isn't a problem. Usually get 20-30 hours playback from a single AA, even playing OGGs. Bugs me that more MP3 players aren't available with both OGG support and AA/AAA batteries. Carry a couple of rechargeable ones and you've got way more staying power than pretty much any other audio player on the market.
      • caLt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7I agree. I keep my music in flac format (which is also an open standart). I'd also like to see more devices supporting both of these.
      • sixthree, on 05/25/2008, -2/+5Thank jesus I use Windows Vista.
    • badjoke, on 05/25/2008, -0/+24Hey, at least it's legitimate tech news. Be thankful that we have one less story about cats or iPhone 2.0 rumors.
  • nubtard, on 05/25/2008, -10/+56It's hard enough already getting mp3 files sounding good for both new and old music.
    • dakine42, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1You're not trying hard enough.
    • TotalHalibut, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1That's quite frankly, rubbish unless you have an exceptionally good audio system. And if you do, you should be using FLAC anyway.
    • nubtard, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1@dakine42

      Why should it be so hard?

      @TotalHalibut

      No. Just no.
      • dakine42, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0@TotalHalibut

        Yes. Just yes.

        @nubtard

        It isnt hard, people are just, for the lack of a better word, nubtards.
  • Pogojoe, on 05/25/2008, -17/+670I prefer the creative control left up to the producer or engineer to determine how a track is to be presented to my ears. This sounds like the equivalent of buying a painting and having the ability to change the colours as you see fit...
    • SHUUTOBI, on 05/25/2008, -10/+38Exactly...
    • waydee, on 05/25/2008, -2/+201Nobody would want to release their music in a format like this anyway, it'd make it far too easy to get good quality unauthorised samples from songs.
    • X1NN, on 05/25/2008, -3/+62Couldn't agree more! Customization should have it's limits. Increase sound quality while decreasing file size - now that would get me excited.
      • manitoba98xp, on 05/25/2008, -9/+3AAC (the most recent MPEG audio standard) does that, but nobody seems to care.
        • deskimo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Apple cares. iTMS music is all in AAC if my understanding is current.
        • manitoba98xp, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1@deskimo

          I know that – and I use AAC, in iTunes – my point is (although I suppose I could have stated it more clearly) that most people, like X1NN, who demand a better file format, dismiss AAC with no good reason (usually claiming it's Apple-proprietary).
      • Elranzer, on 05/25/2008, -6/+4WMA, Atract3 and M4P all do that... but also lock your music to the manufacturer's devices. MP3 (and a lesser extent, OGG) are all about freedom and flexibility.
        • noerrorsfound, on 05/25/2008, -0/+25To a lesser extent, Ogg Vorbis? Vorbis is a completely open format (ogg is just the container, which can also hold video) and mp3 is restricted by patents.
        • sholt, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3The AAC format used in M4P itself, however, is not bound my DRM.

          .M4P is just a container format. The data could just as easily be an encrypted MP3 or even WAV stream as an encrypted MP4 stream.
        • Elranzer, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4What I meant about OGG is that it's less supported by devices. MP3 is standardized, DRM-free and is supported on nearly all devices. This gives it a massive advantage over OGG, despite its cult-like status with open-source nuts.
      • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Come on... files size is not really a problem anymore. lossless compression can compress to approx. 50% of the PCM file size.

        That's around 160MB per hour and per channel at 16b/44.1KHz. 320MB for stereo, 960MB for 5.1.

        If we move to 24b/96KHz, which I hope so, that's around 500MB per channel per hour.
        We don't really need all 6 channels from 5.1 for music, since the central channel and LFE (sub) is never used. (this does not mean the sub is not used at all, it just doesn't have a separate channel, it's called "bass management").

        Thats 2GB for 1 hour.

        This is where the future is: 24bits, 96KHz, 4 channels.
        Lossless compression is still to be questionned. (CPU usage, non constant bitrate, etc.)
        • ryan00davis, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2ok, i have 39 days worth of music, at 2gb/hour, that's about 1.9 TB. compared to the 66GB im at now, that's a pretty big difference, especially when it's all on my laptop with the limits in laptop hd sizes
        • jeriqo, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1That's for 24b/96K/4CH, you're not going to see this before a few years... and your laptop will probably have 10TB HD space at this time.

          We've been using 128Kbps mp3 for years.... how large was your HD when it was introduced? 20GB?
    • saxreturns, on 05/25/2008, -13/+16For the most part I agree. However, in the past I have bought albums that were amazing musically but in places very badly mixed. As a sound engineer myself it would be nice to have the opportunity to fix them!
    • InferiorWang, on 05/25/2008, -5/+38Meh, sometimes I wish I could remaster some of my music so it will sound better in my car or on the stereo at work. It would also be good for learning to play music and then playing/singing along. I may be in the minority here, but I've caught myself wishing that something like this existed before. Somehow I doubt it is going to pick up enough popularity to replace mp3 anytime soon, but it sure does open some fun possibilities.
      • Teej, on 05/25/2008, -1/+9Rebalancing individual instruments in the mix isn't "remastering", it's remixing. Mastering is taking the final mixed work and balancing the volume across the album, making final overall EQ choices, and giving the track a professional "sheen". Real high-end professional mastering is done with outboard equipment worth tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars and also requires incredibly experienced ears and ridiculous monitoring.
    • moyness, on 05/25/2008, -10/+3I think It'd be great if you could control which instrument goes into which speakers in a surround sound environment.

      I'm using my soundcard's "dolby surround" feature that emulates a surround sound for Stereo formats like MP3s, and I Gotta say the music experience is tons better, it's less "Flat" than just using stereo output, but with the surround enabled, there's a bit distortion here and there, If this new format works like it says on the article, then I wouldn't mind having those. :)
      • ch33sehead, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Hardware upmix > Software upmix.

        Hell, Hardware upmix >> Software upmix.
    • diggdiggerid, on 05/25/2008, -12/+6I always thought art was supposed to be subjective and "speak" to the viewer, not the guy who made it.
      • therightclique, on 05/25/2008, -2/+11you thought wrong. art is nearly always designed for the guy who made it.
      • hfactor, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3you're thinking of "products", not "art".
    • DarkJesus, on 05/25/2008, -9/+4Agreed.
    • maexus, on 05/25/2008, -3/+15I can't agree with this more. Mixing and mastering is an artform as much as it is a science. I cringe when ever someone tells me that they use an blanket EQ in their music player that drastically changes frequencies in the music. Then pump it through a "sound enhancer" plugin that likely EQ's again and blindly compressed the wave form.
      • shmatt, on 05/25/2008, -2/+8I use a blanket EQ to compensate for my speakers' tonal characteristics and the listening environment. I have a playlist of "EQ songs" that I use to get it perfect. Never needs changing; if a particular song has a problem I make a 'custom' eq setting and assign it in itunes. The EQ isn't there to tweak your music track by track as you play it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having an equalizer if you know what you're doing.
        That being said I see a lot of people thinking EQ is like an extra volume control and boosting every frequency. retarded.
        • maexus, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5I was more referring to those who use one preset for all their songs. Boosting the bass and treble frequencies to their extremes and cutting the mids. A one size fits all flying v which sounds like what you are talking about with using eq as a volume boast.
    • B34tb311y, on 05/25/2008, -6/+1Agreed. Nice analogy.
    • sarixe, on 05/25/2008, -9/+2...........photoshop, anyone?
    • darkamster07, on 05/25/2008, -0/+9Yes. this format would ruin production and mixing as an artistic expression, and depending on the genera, this could really change the way the artist wants to express thier own music; maybe they WANT the vocals to be lower in the mix, etc. I do admit there are some very badly produced albums, especially in underground instrumental music, but isn't that kind of the novelty? I mean look at black metal! if you really hate the production you could just run it through a moderate-severe EQ. I know some will scoff at anything but flat, but the reason tracks are flat (at least they used to be) is so the listener can compensate from a standard base for thier own music system, just a little EQ modifies it enough to sound good, without really changing the music.
      also AAC?
    • Fusi0n, on 05/25/2008, -1/+9However it would make learning drum solo's by ear alot easier ;)
    • electrofreak2k7, on 05/25/2008, -1/+9These files could only be useful to people that mix music together...
    • semoff, on 05/25/2008, -7/+3This is an awesome idea because it lets you hear all the individual parts in a song and how they interact with each other to make the song as you hear it. Musicians will LOVE this too because it will make learning parts to songs (especially those somewhat buried in the mix) much easier.
    • jsully, on 05/25/2008, -2/+10I'd be really excited to be able to mute the guitar or bass track and play along.
    • Berry, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7The same as movies on DVD with alternate endings, giving me the power to decide how the story ends, only leaving me frustrated because I don't know how it "really" ends.
      • JudgeMonkey, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2Just like a DVD would have a default ending during the course of the movie, I would assume the song would have default values for each element.
    • Xiata, on 05/25/2008, -0/+16Instead of releasing this, how about we get to the root of the problem: fire all the audio engineers who insist on clipping to increase volume.

      This isn't the 80s folk, players have EQs, volume normalization, and other features to make the music better for those who want to hear it the way they want to-- but you can't magically generate the clipped portions that these retards cut off.
      • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2What the ***** are you talking about?
        Give examples please, because I've never heard any professionnal CD which clips to increase volume.
        We got limiters for that.
      • asdfdrum, on 05/26/2008, -2/+0Any competent recording engineer will never deliberately introduce clipping into their mix. An incompetent one might distort parts by accident and not realize it, but clipping is not a method for increasing the volume of a song.
    • Yodacola, on 05/25/2008, -5/+2The analogy is flawed.

      Yes, the artist probably didn't intend for you to alter the recording, but there are artists who do change the colors to how they see fit. Also, musicians do the same thing. I think that taking away the learning curve barrier would make things a lot easier, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the art form. Besides, live performances are where the music is at now anyways.

      One example:
      Innocent X
      http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/velazquez/vel ...

      Screaming Pope
      http://www.artquotes.net/masters/bacon/bacon_study ...
    • jb978, on 05/25/2008, -5/+1that would be awesome, you an american right?
    • deadowl, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Wait, isn't that what defaults can be used for?
    • blaze03, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2You guys are short-sighted. What I see is something awesome for Rock Band 3 / Guitar Hero VI where you can just import your song's MT9 file and it'll automatically generate the tracks for all four instruments (guitar/drums/bass/vocals).

      As of now, Guitar Hero IV has a song creator but you have to recreate the songs you want manually and individually map the chords and stuff.
    • eclectro, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3While normally this sentiment is worthy, the problem with it is that producers are purposefully making CDs "loud" in order to make them sound better;
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
      Which case any adherence to true fidelity seems lost anyway, and the argument against something like the MTA format moot. Just mho.
    • snapcase, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2While I do agree that it should be left up to those doing the recording, this would be very useful for us musicians. It'd be great to be able to turn down the other instruments to single out the drummer for example.

      I could only really see this as a practical format if each file came with default settings that would be the "as intended" settings, that you could then tweak if you wanted. But lets face it, it's too complex for your average user and wouldn't catch on.
    • chambana, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Look even though proprietary, this is an inventive idea and welcome. Yes, a producer and other professionals should set things up and be the song's default way to play, but giving people more access to changing the way they hear music is fine as long as the artist is ok with it. Implementation may be off, but the ability to access volume levels for different instruments is a pretty good idea.
  • jessenoob, on 05/25/2008, -8/+108New MP3 != MT9, it won't be supported by a standard mp3 player most likely.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 05/25/2008, -3/+37Yeah, people made the mistake of getting "mp3" stuck in their head like some kind of brand name, so it'll be harder to get them to accept a new format (and plenty will still continue to call it an mp3).

      Of course, I said the same thing about HD-DVD having name recognition over Bluray and was proven wrong there...
      • diggdiggerid, on 05/25/2008, -1/+32This reminds me of my mom who is convinced I bought her an iPod Zune for her birthday.
      • therightclique, on 05/25/2008, -1/+13you weren't proven wrong at all about HD-DVD. HD-DVD absolutely has a better name than Bluray. The public had zero to do with that format winning. It was all decided by old, fat, rich guys behind closed doors. Sony paid all the right people off.
        • specialK16, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2And the US government was behind 911, etc, etc, etc.
    • hotpuck6, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Ever heard of a firmware update? all DAPs worth buying these can do it.
      sure it would take some time for it to be accepted, but all new standards do.
  • megablue, on 05/25/2008, -12/+137if and only if it comes with no DRM support
    • Culyt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+16FTA: "Unlike other digital formats exclusively used by big companies such as SK Telecom, Audizen allows users to copy the MT9 files, making it a more attractive format. ``It's like having a CD or cassette tape. Once you buy it, you can lend it to your friends. We don't want to be too fussy about DRM (digital right management),'' he said."

      In the end its still a patented royalty technology though. I don't see anything special about it over any other format with multiple channels. I would just prefer a standardised container format with multiple FLAC/OGG streams, although that won't make any standard bodies licensing fees.

      ☢
      • FSHero, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3"I would just prefer a standardised container format with multiple FLAC/OGG streams..."
        That is a good idea. Now, if we could only push some sort of FOSS community/foundation to do something like this _before_ MT9 hits the market. Perhaps Xiph.org...?

        Also, I just wanted to say that having lots of 'channels' for different instruments sounds like a great idea. It would be of great benefit for people wishing to practice playing a musical instrument to their favourite tunes. ATM, I have to use fan-created MIDI files for stuff like this (using Rosegarden on Linux) to transpose or mute individual tracks).
      • Aliminator, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1You show us fancy quotes, but mp3s didn't start with DRM either.
  • tocsy, on 05/25/2008, -16/+163Doesn't the fact that it's ".mt9" specifically make it NOT ".mp3"?

    Either way, if it catches on it should be interesting. Mp3 has a pretty large monopoly on the market right now though, and most people hate change.
    • dha07030, on 05/25/2008, -2/+7Gives new meaning to "I need more cow bell!"
  • smoothmann, on 05/25/2008, -59/+2GAY JAPANESE......RUN!
  • SHUUTOBI, on 05/25/2008, -65/+28Just another medium to sell to people rather than giving them the highest quality lossless file.

    :greedy bastards:
    1. Sell them low quality lossy files.
    2. Sell them a medium quality lossy files
    3. Sell them high quality lossy files
    4. Sell them niche new file type that allows you to change the volume on individual tracks
    5. Sell them flac/apple lossless....
    6. ???
    7. Profit!
    • poxonyou, on 05/25/2008, -2/+11I see your point, but that list...Next time try, 1st, "", 2nd, "" = Profit. Also, in defense of the record companies, selling lossless tracks over the Internet still isn't practical. People may have the drive space on their computers, if they don't buy many albums, but the problem is with the portable players. 200-400MB per album. 2 to 4 albums a GB. Most people have an 8GB flash based MP3 player. I have an 80GB player and it's almost full from standard MP3s, and I don't even have all my albums on it yet.
      • InSectWar, on 05/25/2008, -5/+5That is the worst ??? Profit I have seen in a long time. Fail
      • darkamster07, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2yeah, but ideally you would distribute flac files over the internet, and then give people the tools to convert them to a good format, letting them choose the bitrate so they can choose the size the files will take up. and if not, they could just listen to the flacs, SSD are advancing, there will be more than enough energy efficient space soon
        • poxonyou, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I don't think the average consumer wants to do any work after they buy the entertainment product. For us, it's great, but we're a small minority. I agree they should offer lossless, but also MP3 for the lazy (or busy) average consumer.
    • Dgen_X, on 05/25/2008, -2/+25You missed some steps.

      1. Low quality
      1.5. profit
      2. medium quality
      2.5. profit again
      3. high quality
      3.5. profit some more

      and so on...
    • PatrickBrown, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3I don't think the "???" is necessary. It is obvious where the profit is coming into play, as indicated by Dgen_X.
  • Oetzi, on 05/25/2008, -24/+147awful idea.
    • frazw, on 05/25/2008, -4/+5I don't think it's awful just unnecessary for the majority, in which case it is unlikely to take off if it comes at a higher price point and is not universally adopted by digital music player manufacturers quickly.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/25/2008, -1/+19Yep. And they brought their own reality distortion field ... FTA:
      "The new format [...] is poised to replace the popular MP3 file format as the de facto standard of the digital music source, its inventors say."
      Yeah. And pigs will fly.
      Seriously - this is about as likely to happen as multi-layer Photoshop files replacing GIFs and JPEG as a standard format for presentation purposes on the web and elsewhere.
      Also, this article sounds confused to say the least. First it claims that this format will allow songs to be split up "by instrument". Later, we learn that it is rather a kind of equalizer for the frequency ranges of instruments.
      Huh?
      A typical, complex studio production - e.g. Hip-Hop - will have 20 to 40 tracks. Prog-rock may easily double that. There is no way you could deliver all these with acceptable file sizes.
      If, however, this file format really just provides a pre-configured equalizer for a stereo file, it won't help much. Many instruments cover large frequency ranges, so an EQ cannot mute or boost a single instrument from a stereo master.
      • flashback99, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Yeah and most productions go through $2000+ dollar hardware equalisers and compressors on each channel. Wtf is a lame software equaliser going to do anyway? - Anything but improve sound quality.
    • domokunt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Custom Guitar Hero tracks.
    • smashingmonkey, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Even world-class musicians know enough to let professional mix their music for them.
  • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -10/+21am i the only one that sees a big disconnect here: no matter how skillfully music is tweaked in the studio and even with advanced formats such as this: the speakers in the computer the phone and the ipod or similar suck

    so no matter how divine the sound signal and sound format you only end up hearing a fraction of it

    so when are the hardware makers going to do something about that

    how hard can it be compared to the benefit to the consumer and to the bottom line
    • daengbo, on 05/25/2008, -3/+25Umm ... hardware makers HAVE done something about it. Good equipment costs good money. Break out your wallet.
      • zzz@tkz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2Indeed, no way in hell my 6.1 surround sound system is anywhere near "suck"...and it's on my computer (and I can use them for my iPhone, granted losing the surround sound and going back to 2.1, but still sounding great).
    • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -7/+2great good to know

      which hardware makers and how much $
      • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -7/+3don't just tell me how much smarter you are than i am

        tell me what i need to know or it doesn't count
        • flashback99, on 05/25/2008, -3/+7So just because you can't be bothered to do some research on your own, the information you can't be bothered to find must be invalid.

          You sound like an arrogant ***** *****. Nobody is going to help you. That's me telling you what you need to know.
        • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -8/+2don't confuse me with you

          your interpetation of me is obviously seen through the lens of your own attitude

          this is known as projection

          maybe no one on digg will tell me but digg is by far not my only resource

          someone will tell me exactly what i need to know

          it could have been done within the last hour right here

          instead i get attitude

          there is an over abundance of attitude on digg which is only logical 'cause if you all were really all that and a bag of chips you would be working for google and not have the time nor inclination to make digg a lifestyle

          google rules because they give you information without attitude and free
        • Ramble, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5Find it yourself you lazy git, I'm not here to fetch your information for you.
        • flashback99, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3Read ALL the comments to your thread skyz. Digg is trying to tell you something. It's up to your whether you want to accept it or be douche.
        • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -4/+1as i said ramble: that attitude is the difference between you and google

          their attitude makes them worth 600 billion

          and when you want some music: write it yourself


    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/25/2008, -1/+12Where is the problem?
      - Don't buy ***** $5 computer monitors (just as you shouldn't poke sticks in your eardrums).
      - Replace your iPod's ***** earphones immediately with something decent (Behringer and Sony offer a few gems, starting around $40).
      - If you have the money and maybe want to make some music yourself and/or work/play with multitrack sources, get a decent FireWire or USB 2.0 audio interface for your computer and connect it to a good receiver and speaker *digitally*. I have a set-up here that cost less than $1000, and it sounds sweet.
      All the products are there. As daengbo said: Just break out your wallet. Quality will cost you. Not an arm and a leg, but don't expect pro-level products for a few bucks.
      • krazy9000, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2anything made by Behringer is automatically crap. That's pretty much all Behringer produces. No "gems" whatsoever!
        • Stochio, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Then I gave in when I wanted a simple headphone amp. So I tried the Behringer. It was the hissyiest piece of garbage I've ever used. Promptly returned it and bought a Rane.

        • therightclique, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3not at all true. they make decent stuff for the price range they're in. of course there's ridiculously expensive stuff that sounds better.
        • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1While it's true, Behringer studio monitors are Not that bad, and are excellent for the price.
          For less than 300 euros, you'll never get something close by buying "hi-fi" equipment.
      • nowisnothing, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Behringer takes current industry leading products, rips off the design BLATANTLY and rebuilds them with dirt cheap parts, labor and little to no quality assurance. People who rave about what a good deal Behringer gear are generally tight asses who are trying to justify their unwillingness to shell out a little more cash for the real stuff. /rant
    • telepheedian, on 05/25/2008, -2/+3Microsoft has tried at it. The Zune 80 comes with rather nice canalphones, has a pretty good output vs. the iPod. It's no Cowon, but it's a pretty good stab considering that you can't get Cowons at the local Wal-Mart.
    • Abomonog, on 05/25/2008, -9/+4It has been done already. You can grab a pair of lossless speakers that are PC compatible for about $40,000 a pair.
      • FunkstarDeLu, on 05/25/2008, -3/+3"lossless speakers"?
        "PC compatible"?
        "$40,000 a pair"?

        ***** OFF.
    • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -3/+1thank you all of you who offered me what you know

      it is appreciated
      • skyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1i realy just don't see why my computer phone and music player does not already have these audio enchancements better and built in

        i am a songwriter so for me and what i do it is an issue i want deustch gramaphone quality on everything asap
        • flashback99, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4It's one thing to have expensive gear, but it's another thing to know how to use it. And that comes with experience.

          Truth be told you don't need expensive equipment, you need practical equipment, and loads of experience in getting it to sound good.
    • darkamster07, on 05/25/2008, -3/+3agree, they should just kill off earbuds completely IMO, they sound terrible. infact don't bundle any phones with players, make listeners choose, they may find that you can get amazing sounding headphones for cheap- I have koss ktx-pro 1s, they are not only open for better sound, but have titanium drivers and a great frequency range: $16 on Amazon.
      as for home stereos, most sound good enough and are cheap enough: you can get two dual-driver sattalite speakers with a nice sub from logitech, more than enough for anyone, for around $40
  • drcreek, on 05/25/2008, -2/+88Sorry, I've worked in recording studios, this sounds like a good working file if it's lossless. Could be the 8 track tape of file formats, however as a consumer format it goes against the purpose of a mixed track, why would an artist go and make a track for you to listen to if your just gonna go and change it?
    • CapeKid, on 05/25/2008, -4/+23The exact same reason people release games that can be modded. Yet no one ever complains about that. Music engineers still have to do the default "mix" then people can further change things if they want to. This makes it great for karaoke as mentioned in the article. But also great for people learning an instrument to hear only the one they want and play along, or to drop that one out of the mix and play along. More control for the consumer is always good.
      • Bersy, on 05/25/2008, -7/+3"More control for the consumer is always good"

        Sometimes, it is. Always? No.
      • darkamster07, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4if you could own the mona lisa and tweak the paiting with photoshop would you? exactly

        people need to stop listening to juiced music, this will only make it worse
        • brettmurf, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I would. I don't understand how that one sole work of Da Vinci's is the de facto standard for quality art.
      • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Music is art.
        You don't want kids nor diggers to mess with your masterpiece.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+9Radiohead released "Nude" from their last album "In Rainbows" in stem format. You can purchase five tracks and rearrange/remix them. There even was a contest for the best mixes.
      However, I think this will only appeal to a few thousand (semi-)professional producers worldwide who would like to know how their colleagues work. The average consumer will neither have ambition nor talent to rearrange a professionally mixed track. Several artists (e.g. Todd Rundgren) have tried such "interactive" formats and failed (commercially). It just seems there is still a considerable gap between producers and consumers, despite all the "Here comes everybody" theories.
      I'm not saying this out of arrogance, but I did a little research on the subject for an online-remixing project. I was surprised how few people actually wish to change a piece of music. Either they don't like it and accordingly ignore it, or they love it as it is. I still have to see a non-musician saying "Gee, I'd sure like to re-position the bass in that song ..."
  • alski707, on 05/25/2008, -7/+32Why would bands / producers want their music to be easily sampled, ripped off by other bands, and completely butchered into something unrecognisable by people with no musical talent?

    Its bad enough that so much music is already considered nothing more than background noise by so many, all this sounds like is a way to dumb it down even further.

    Just give us DRM free lossless encoding, that’s all we need or want.
    • Culyt, on 05/25/2008, -4/+6"completely butchered into something unrecognisable by people with no musical talent?"
      That sounds like what most mainstream bands / producers produce now days.

      And there hardly making a mixing format, its just allowing for volume controls for each instrument.

      You could make a song acoustic or remove an anoying beat (and add your own) but thats about it, and you can do this already to some extent.

      ☢
      • waydee, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6If you can control the volume of individual tracks you can sample individual tracks - the only place a format like this has is in the recording studio and well, theres already plenty of formats and physical mediums in use there with this functionality.

        This could be useful if record companies wanted to release a song in a mixable format for a price premium but there are already ways of doing this. For these files to be available at a reasonable price (e.g. for those people who want to learn to jam along with a single track, karaoke etc.) they would have to rely on trust that people weren't going to just grab high quality samples from them... and you know how much record companies trust their customers.
      • mitchlourens, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2how did you make that little radioactive symbol?
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6Well, to play devil's advocate for a minute, some musicians do allow others to "butcher" their tracks - see e.g. Radiohead's "Nude" remix contest, and Peter Gabriel did something similar a few years ago with "Shock the Monkey".
      If you have the guts to do it and a great song to start with, you can only win: Either people will produce ***** remixes (thereby proving it still takes a great artist/producer to make a great song), or they will do something interesting, so your work gets more exposure, plus revenues if the remix sells.
    • Abomonog, on 05/25/2008, -3/+1But we have that already. It called the raw wave format or .wav if you only know it by its extension.
    • AmnioticEntity, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Alski707 said, "Just give us DRM free lossless encoding, that’s all we need or want."

      dugg.
    • djghosttrain, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3"Why would bands / producers want their music to be easily sampled, ripped off by other bands, and completely butchered into something unrecognisable by people with no musical talent?"

      you're a moron.
      sampling is the backbone of hip-hop and plays a big part in contemporary popular music. while this "new mp3" idea is clearly never going to work outside of the studio, your reasoning is pissing me off. it takes skill to manipulate and reinvent sample, and if you can't discern or recognize talent in sampled music, that's your problem.
  • iguanapunk, on 05/25/2008, -22/+194Finally I'll be able to listen to songs by Kanye West and not have to listen to his embarrasing attempts at rapping!
    • sakuraz, on 05/25/2008, -2/+12....But then you'll be admitting that he can compose!
      • xz9925, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1lol what makes you think he composes his own music..
    • Kevin108, on 05/25/2008, -3/+88But then you'll just be listening to Daft Punk!
      • FunkstarDeLu, on 05/25/2008, -31/+4Which is just as bad...
      • krwlngindark, on 05/25/2008, -6/+2But then you'll just be listening to Edwin Birdsong. Idiot.
        • MrMacMan, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I give you credit for a nice reference but there are lots of samples...
          George Duke, Anthony and the Imperials, Billy Joel, Barry Manilow... just to name a few.
    • Stochio, on 05/25/2008, -6/+2That's harder. You can do it faster.
    • wannapiece, on 05/25/2008, -7/+11who's Kanye West?
    • WomensUnderwear, on 05/25/2008, -11/+4the only embarrassing thing here is your comment
    • mdcraig62, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3zing!
  • sjmulder, on 05/25/2008, -11/+1Sounds like open source.
  • hypdotspec, on 05/25/2008, -4/+39"A new file format that offers separate volume controls for each musical instrument, such as guitar, drum, BASE and voice, is being considered as a new Internet standard.The new .MT9 file format, which a commercial title of “Music 2.0″, was selected as a candidate for consideration at a regular meeting of Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG)"

    BASE ftw... heh.
    • Kevin108, on 05/25/2008, -1/+11All your... Ah, forget it.
    • SadBeef, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3i can't believe youre the only one who pointed this out.
  • krinn, on 05/25/2008, -6/+831. File patents
    2. Promote new music format
    3. Wait until it becomes popular
    4. Start suing people
    5. Profit!!

    Been there and done that with MP3, we're not falling for this scam again.
    • Culyt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1They don't need to wait, there just going to hit people for the money upfront.

      I wonder who is deciding if its going to become and 'internet standard' because the MPEG group wasn't w3 last time I checked.

      "the MT9 technology can earn big for both Audizen and ETRI, a governmental research institute. ETRI said that it holds three international and six domestic patents for the technology and is planning to file two more this year."

      The file format doesn't say what codecs it uses so if its embedded MP3 then its going to have more patents (although they expire in 2011 for playback)
    • bitcloud, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5I just like how the article says " is being considered as a new Internet standard."

      by whom? I'm not considering it... isn't that OUR job?
    • MAGZine, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but they don't show #4 in their business module/press releases... it could hurt the adoption of the file format.

      Instead, they replace #4 with ?????? (helps them keep under the radar)
    • celkin, on 05/25/2008, -2/+4***** THE RIAA!!!
  • jaymzz, on 05/25/2008, -4/+20I think producers are just getting lazy.

    "Mix it any way you want, I'm gonna go roll in my big pile of money."
    • Culyt, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5Maybe they will just sell you the instruments soon ☺

      I think society would be better as a result, it would be like the hippie movement all over again ☺

      ☢
  • reginaldino, on 05/25/2008, -2/+31maybe now i can hear the bassline to "...and Justice for All"
    • Abomonog, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3It's not very exiting. Identical to the rhythm guitar. That's why you can hear it.
      • Kronos6948, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Not really. They purposely mixed down Jason's bass playing in the songs to mess with him. There are differences between what Jason plays compared to what everyone else plays. If in doubt, get the music book. You'll see the differences.
    • repick3, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Rock Band has the bassline to "...And Justice for All"
    • Evildudetx, on 05/25/2008, -0/+8***** hearing the bass, you should FEEL it.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 05/25/2008, -3/+20The karaoke industry will never let it happen.
    • telepheedian, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5More like, the karaoke industry will embrace it. No more cheap renditions of songs, just buy the mt9 version to get the real instruments. They could sell the players.
      • DomZy, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2You'd just "mute" the vocal tracks to get an instrumental version, which is why the karaoke industry would be up in arms about it
  • peestandingup, on 05/25/2008, -2/+19Producers/artists arent gonna give consumers the ability to drastically change how their tracks sound, period.
    • Culyt, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2Unless their like NIИ who give hi-resolution raw waves out for people to remix.

      This isn't going to allow people to drastically change how their tracks sound, its just volume controls on specific instruments, remixing isn't part of it at all.

      ☢
      • 888gavin, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2That's basically what remixing is, slowing down/speeding up a song, and changing the volume/pitch of the instruments.

        ☭
      • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2NIN methods wouldn't scale to the whole music industry, anyway.
  • andrew522, on 05/25/2008, -2/+13I'll stick with MP3, FLAC, and APE, myself. That MT9 just looks like a novelty, not actually capable of gaining mass acceptance.
    • aliguana, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2well, MP4 was put together 10 years ago, and it's still a minority format (iPods aside). Things like APE and FLAC and OGG too. Even if the MPEG group agreed to go with it, don't expect your music player to actually be able to play it until at least 2015. Let the MPEG group worry about it, they get paid to worry about it. The rest of us... just carry on doing what we do.

      (From a technical standpoint, it won't be better than FLAC. It may have a more efficient compressor than FLAC, but if it's not lossless then you can safely stick with your FLACs until people start releasing larger-than-16-bit audio cds. From a lossy perspective.. I can't see it being more efficient than MP4/AAC. Maybe for Blueray soundtracks, but not for audio.)
      • ohmysac, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1My music player plays all four of your mentioned formats. You can get a 4gb one (theoretically upgradeable to 36gb) for around 50 bucks or so. Rockbox ftw.
        • aliguana, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1doesn't AAC drain the battery if you use the Rockbox firmware?
        • ohmysac, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I never really noticed any bad battery drainage regardless of the format being played. My player usually lasts around 12 hours or so of solid playback. Recent versions of rockbox have incorporated some power saving features. It shuts components off if they aren't being used.
      • bexamous, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2FLAC technically supports 655350Hz 32bit 8-channel audio. Generally the highest I see people using is 96khz/24bit/2-channel rips of vinyl or 48khz/24bit/6-channel rips for hdrips from blurays.
    • bitcloud, on 05/25/2008, -2/+3I'll just stick with MP3... it's versatile, small enough, compatible with everything, as high quality as I want..

      hey I can even get 4 mp3 tracks (guitar, bass, drums and vocals) and mix them in ableton live... whoah did I say that out loud? I haven't even had a chance to file the patent!
      • DoTheFandango, on 05/25/2008, -2/+4mixing 4 mp3s = loss of frequencies = making a song that will sound horrible in fidelity.
        mix lossless or die.
  • Corr0sive, on 05/25/2008, -10/+1Does it not go threw my ears?( i didnt want to read it)
    • DivisibleByZero, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4Throwing your ears? That must hurt.
  • blipblipbeep, on 05/25/2008, -17/+0Well i want to change the subject. As u see I want to let u all know that i am here I mean that i think u are all laved ( soz bout spelling.) please cant we all just get along i am about to loose my mind with all this fighting and economic trouble we are experiencing at the moment pl z just cant we all try to make better. i am tired Ive had enough plz plz lets all be friends no matter what option we have. all we need to do is say that's it Ive had enough i don't want to fight any more i just want to love don't u get it.

    Love lancer plz sobb the world the earth man we all live here. thats all of us.
  • QuadSix50, on 05/25/2008, -2/+7This has potential for modifications before a final mixdown IMO. Say you have certain levels already set for a recording project. You now have the ability to be able to send a quick sample to either the musicians involved or the producer (or what have you). Sometimes, using words like "hotter" or something of that nature don't quite convey what they want it to sound like. Being able to send a quick copy of the audio like this and having the receiver send you back a file with the quick mods that might be applied at to the final product would definitely help reduce the amount of time spent finalizing a recording project.
    • MtheoryX, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2I'll grant you that in a few isolated circumstances like that, sure, what you are proposing seems acceptable.

      But to go so far as to say it's going to replace .mp3 as the defacto file format for consumers, as the article mentions? Ridiculous.
  • blipblipbeep, on 05/25/2008, -10/+0Well i want to change the subject. As u see I want to let u all know that i am here I mean that i think u are all laved ( soz bout spelling.) please cant we all just get along i am about to loose my mind with all this fighting and economic trouble we are experiencing at the moment pl z just cant we all try to make better. i am tired Ive had enough plz plz lets all be friends no matter what option we have. all we need to do is say that's it Ive had enough i don't want to fight any more i just want to love don't u get it.

    Love lancer plz sobb the world the earth man we all live here. thats all of us.
  • AlexanderCurtis, on 05/25/2008, -3/+8This would be great for an experienced engineer who wants to mix and master crappy indie releases.
    • bitcloud, on 05/25/2008, -5/+1too many words..

      try just:
      "who wants to mix and master crappy indie releases?"
  • annoia, on 05/25/2008, -3/+54Wow, you have discovered .mod/.xm... How revolutionary!
    • SmellyGeekBoy, on 05/25/2008, -0/+18Wahey! Someone else actually old enough to remember trackers and all that... This "revolutionary" technology was pretty big in the early 90s you know!
    • bitcloud, on 05/25/2008, -0/+12badass.. thanks for the reminder...

      *searches for axlfoley.mod*
    • SquigglyP, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Trackers are still going strong. Milkytracker is awesome.
    • virinix, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2I remember downloading the axelf.mod, anyone remember the , 1989.mod, 1991.mod 1992.mod, etc. series? I remember hearing the 1988 or 89 one and waiting every year for the next one in the series to come out. I remember using having both an Apple2GS with ensoniqTracker (4 and 8 channel MOD-only player) and ModZap. There was only 1 .S3M player avail for the Apple2 that worked that I can recall.

      Moved onto PC, and the S3M format started becoming popular, with trackers like screamtracker. I remember the first time I started to play with Screamtracker, FutureCrew's custom format and tracker. And finally the evolution to the much more complex and perfected formats such as .XM.

      It makes me shed a tear when some ripoff of one of these historical trackers could be used almost outright to get the exact same output lossessly as this new bogus MT9 format. You could do the exact same thing with a specialized XM player. And the worst part is, I had to read this far down on the page until I saw a post even referring to the godfather of these ideals, the old school mod/s3m/xm days of the 80's and early 90's. History does repeat itself, but if I see a company trying to profit off of what is essentially a XM file format rework I will no longer have any faith in this generation.
  • jrcarscadden, on 05/25/2008, -2/+5I honestly don't see the practicality of creating this, from an engineer's point of view. It's only revolutionary if it's able to do this while still retaining the average file size of your run-of-the-mill mp3. Otherwise, it will just be six times bigger because it's really six tracks of audio bundled together. Bouncing that from Protools would take 6 times longer. So a three minute song would take eighteen minutes to completely render for this file format. Better hope no big mistakes exist.

    But then again, if your client's paying by the hour, such a format might be a bit more profitable. Client's usually pay the engineer for a reason - they trust them.
    • asdfdrum, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Dugg for truth.

      "The distinctive feature of MT9 format is that it has a six-channel audio equalizer, with each channel dedicated to voice, chorus, piano, guitar, base and drum."

      Sounds like it's just a six-band EQ set to common freqencies of those instruments, giving the power of the recording engineer to the consumer. Uh oh.
  • zongamin, on 05/25/2008, -3/+9***** ***** idea
  • kris33, on 05/25/2008, -3/+14.midi 2.0?
    • arkmtech, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5Exactly - This isn't any new or revolutionary idea. It's being done now, and has been for over 20 years since the time when Commodore64 and Amiga computers were all-the-hype in the consumer market.

      MOD/XM/S3M/IT/C64 files, which even two decades later are still hugely popular within demo-scene circles across the globe, would really only be different from MT9 in that they cannot utilize (to the best of my knowledge, anyhow) compressed MPEG3 audio samples, and that MOD/XM/S3M/IT/C64 music has the ability to repeat a small sample of audio at different rates/frequencies to give the impression of an instrument being played. (Sometimes poorly... lol)

      Leave it up to the music industry to bring nothing new to the table - surprise, surprise.
      • bitcloud, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1and ahm.. hate to be a wet blanket here, but hasn't anyone ever heard of multitrack sequencers?

        if bands want to release multitrack recordings they already can. people can play them in ableton live, or any number of freeware sequencers..

        they don't (unless they're running a remix comp).. because IT'S A STUPID IDEA...
  • Bob042, on 05/25/2008, -2/+222"...a commercial title of “Music 2.0...″
    Stop it.
    • MAGZine, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7It wants to be like Web 2.0
      "Hip and full of awesomeness" (Only at the beginning though, then it does downhill, just like MySpace.)
  • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/25/2008, -3/+38Sorry for sounding like a snob, but mixing is an art form in itself. I can do a decent mix of an average ten track pop song, but everything beyond this requires a lot of talent and experience. Sound engineers *are* artists.
    So "improving" a track at home will - for most songs and most users - end as a disaster. It's like giving TV viewers three color knobs for improving the quality of a Spielberg movie.
    This might, however, be interesting for musicians wanting to understand/play a track, but if they are not total amateurs, they will either know how to isolate instruments using a good EQ or work with MIDI files.
    I don't see this making waves on the mass market.
    • QuadSix50, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1DAT tapes didn't succeed in the mass market either, but they did quite well in the pro and semi-pro field for a long time. I see the same potential for this file format in the same field.
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Hmm. If you really want to work with other peoples' tracks, there are already enough formats ...
        If you want to do serious work, you'll use uncompressed WAV files and wrap them in your particular sequencer's (Cubase, Logic, Sonar, Live) format.
        Due to the complexity of the audio production process and the many specific features of each DAW, I'm afraid that's as close as we'll get to a "standard".
      • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Pros don't need a dedicated format for that, they know how to mix separate files.
    • sumguy231, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3I recognize that good mixing is an art form, but this barely qualifies as "mixing". It's just an overblown equalizer, really. I don't think you have to be "not a total amateur" to think "hmm, I can't hear the vocals here that well" and crank the volume up on it.
      • darkamster07, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3sometimes the vocals are supposed to be low in the mix...
      • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1equalizer?
        It's a mixer.
    • akcom, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1QFT
    • Theycallmetak, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1You're right, mixing IS an art form, and sorry to say a lot of producers and engineers are ***** up the good times. The analogy of three color knobs and Spielberg is not accurate as that assumes the engineer is doing a good job in the first place. Most are not Spielberg.
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2Well, there are two kinds of ***** up:
        - People who don't know better (= poor sound engineers).
        - People who know exactly what they are doing - and intentionally (or because they are told) produce over-compressed junk that will "sound better" on ***** radios and MP3 players.
        The market could sort out those that are incapable.
        On the other hand, the mainstream market (consumers and record companies) *asks* for ***** (compressed-to-death) tracks. This problem will not go away unless people ask for dynamic, vivid mixes. But how should people do this when they have grown up with junk?
        It's a chicken-egg-problem.
    • westyvw, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Dont be sorry. Current mixing sucks. There is only one technique left: Dynamic Range Compression - make it sound LOUD. You can really tell on music made in the past that has been remastered specifically for MP3. What an abortion that is. No nuance, no subtlety, often making it difficult to hear the individual sounds.
      Even todays music is made in this fashion, and even the hard core tunes actually sound better before the engineer screws with them.
      For a great example video of this phenomenon please see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
  • motters, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6The trouble with this standard is that it contains patents, so just like other audio formats you could end up with unscrupulous organisation launching lawsuits against people distributing tunes in this format. To be a solid internet standard it really needs to be free from any onerous royalty payment requirements.
  • krazy9000, on 05/25/2008, -2/+7All this does is use a multi band eq to isolate different freq. ranges. You can do this now to some extent with Itunes, winamp, etc. They aren't using the actual master tracks. It's a silly gimmick that will never gain ground.
    • Abomonog, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2What they are proposing is going to require a multitrack file that can hold anywhere from 4 to 256 separate audio tracks. A 4 minute rock tune would make a small file whereas a symphony running the same length of time would produce a file weighing in at 100 megs or more. Essentially we'll be getting masters with effects applied but no final mixdown.
      • krazy9000, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Nowhere in that article do they mention separate audio tracks. They only mention the EQ...

        "The distinctive feature of MT9 format is that it has a six-channel audio equalizer, with each channel dedicated to voice, chorus, piano, guitar, base and drum. For example, if a user turns off the voice channel, it becomes a karaoke player."
        • rjc309, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0No, I believe they ARE masters. I think they just meant fader instead of equalizer.
  • boomernet, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7I thought I was going to be a lone voice thinking this was a terrible idea, but it seems like the consensus. This idea will lead to revolutions in Korean private karaoke rooms and be ignored by the rest of the world I predict.
  • CreativeGuy, on 05/25/2008, -11/+20All you "we need lossless" people need to STFU already. You dumbasses wouldn't know lossless if it bit you in the ass. It's a buzzword you saw somewhere and now you're running around like a jackass throwing it out there in every digital music conversation - and you have no idea what you're talking about.

    The only way you're going to get "lossless" music is if you stand there in the studio while they're recording it. Because once it leaves the recording booth, you're already losing bits. No commercial player of any kind exists that allows for playing music to such a high quality that you could hear the difference anyway.
    • krazy9000, on 05/25/2008, -0/+9I can easily tell the difference between a 128kbps mp3 file and the actual .wav file. Even at 160kbps and 192 the differences are apparent. Once you start getting higher than that though, it becomes harder to tell.
      • kRYPT, on 05/25/2008, -1/+6128kbps CBR is considered "FM-Radio" quality.. suitable for streaming over the 'net, casual listening on poor headphones at work and during noisy commutes.

        192kbps (and higher) VBR is "lossless" as far as my ears can tell (on the sound systems I have available to test)..
        • RoccoMcTaco, on 05/25/2008, -3/+0It also depends on the encoder. LAME is awesome, does a great job for 128kbps; others I can hear a difference between 128 - 192. Same with VBR = yek. I still think ogg is under-rated.
          But yeah, other than being in a studio, the best lossless is vinyl and tape, if we're going to get snippy about it.
        • kRYPT, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4Why the VBR=yek? Are you thinking the old, nasty Xing VBR encoder or something (if I recall, it would add ringing to the higher frequencies)? LAME's --alt-preset-extreme averages out to ~200kbps on most songs and sounds great.

          If we're going to get snippy about it, the best (and in fact the only) lossless is performed live, without the help of any amplification or recording devices:
          - As soon as you amplify, using any technique, you have distorted the signal because perfectly uniform gain across the entire frequency spectrum is not possible (would require an infinitely wide filter).
          - As soon as you record, on any medium, you have lost frequencies above the nyquist (vinyl is not immune, there are physical limitations of the medium due to the rather high noise floor compared to other technologies.. "warmth" my ass).
        • mbelleghem, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1nyquist's theorem only applies to digitally encoded signals. there's no such thing as a 'nyquist' for analog media per se... consider VHS or CED Videodiscs - both 100% analog and well into the mhz range for encoded signals.
      • Ramble, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Same, my limit is just over 192kbps, but given my lovely recording of Wagner in FLAC (it's current format) or 192kbps MP3 I'd go with the FLAC.
      • SadBeef, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1V0 ftw.
    • mbelleghem, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4Not sure where you got the idea that you're at the top of the 'knows stuff about audio' pile on Digg... in my experience, there's a fair few people on here who know quite a bit about audio and music production, including quite a few that I'm certain know plenty more than you, given the inaccuracies in your post. (here's a freebie - bits only affect dynamic range, which is but one small component to be considered when evaluating digital audio generational degradation - and virtually all signals leaving a recording 'booth' on the way to the mixer are analog, as the ADs are in the board, not in the 'booth') So maybe dial the holier-than-thou back a little bit.

      At any rate, just one of the reasons some of us get excited about lossless compression is that it gives you a 'ground zero' to start with, whereby you can compress to any other format with only one generational loss. It's easy to identify content that's been twice compressed.
    • roebeet, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4I totally agree with you that some lossy formats can be very difficult to discern from the original lossless format it came from (CD Audio, for example). OGG / WMA / AAC are a technical improvement over MP3, and only lower kbps on all can be noticeable to the non-audiophile.

      But, it's not a buzzword. Lossless means getting the best audio quality that's available for a recorded music track. Plus, lossless means you aren't locked into any one format, as time goes on. I like having a FLAC file, for example, that can be re-encoded to AAC for an iPod, WMA for a Zen or Zune, or OGG for a Cowon player. And I'm set for any future lossy or lossless format, in the future.
    • virinix, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1You shouldn't forget that half of hearing is psychological. People who work in the industry, such as my self can hear the difference as clear as day. As time progresses your mind is trained to focus on which is normally ignored. Compression artifacts are as obvious as day, and a person such as myself can instantly and somewhat unwantingly hear all the numerous corruptions to the audio that is introduced with some of these compressions.

      A good example I have found is car stereos. I can generally tell with reasonable accuracy the bitrate of MP3 it is being sourced from just by listening to a few seconds of blaring audio out of their windows. I have been always able to hear the imperfections and they are VERY obvious to the trained ear. The only audio compression format I find that does the absolute best job of hiding the damage is higher bitrate Ogg, which is as close to psychologically lossless as you can get.
    • pizdabol, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0I agree - people shouldn't care so much about lossless. Unless you're doing some audio editing or forensic audio analysis, it's not important. A high quality encoded mp3 (192 and above) produces nearly perfect sound - certainly not enough to tell the difference the human ear from the original thing.

      The other thing is - the people who want lossless are the people who wear stupid iPod earbuds. Which brings me to the next point - it all depends on how good your speakers are. You can have your "lossless" FLAC - but it's eating up 8 times the space, and you're not hearing the difference because you need to have some amazing hardware to be able to tell the difference. I think the whole Lossless hype comes from the fact that people want the best of everything. They stopped feeling comfortable with mp3s the minute they found out that they're "technically not perfect".
  • smek2, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5I don't know, i'm actually quite content with good ol' MP3. I don't feel the need to control the volume for individual instruments nor do i feel the urge to buy new technology yet again. Just because you can invent and could build something new, doesn't mean it is really needed. That is, by the consumer. The vendors and producers actually depend on customers to constantly buy new stuff, because of profit reasons.
  • ahughes, on 05/25/2008, -1/+18The last thing we need is ANOTHER media file format. Can't we all just agree on a standard?
    • ligyron, on 05/25/2008, -2/+4No. Even I, one regular person, use multiple media formats for different purposes. There are multiple formats because each serve different purposes
    • domokunt, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4Will MP3 do?
    • roebeet, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Blame the hardware manufacturers for that. MP3 is the closest thing you'll get to a standard, imo. Unfortunately, it has design limitations that really make it outdated, today.

      I'd love to see OGG Vorbis become a standard, but so far it hasn't really caught on.
  • wefandango, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2not all music is produced using the exact same EQ distribution. terrible idea.
    • jeriqo, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1EQ distribution does not mean anything actually.
      Voice will share frequencies with guitars, for intance, and pretty much anything actually.
  • ben7337, on 05/25/2008, -1/+6How does this make any sense? not only does it seem to only support a few different instruments and likely will place any instrument that does not fit it's standard into random streams, but also it uses 6 audio channels! last I checked mp3 uses 2 (or 1) and the more audio channels, the more space the file takes up. Even for low quality mp3's this would likely triple to sextuple the amount of space to store a song, that or result in lower audio quality. Though perhaps the file type has some way to handle instruments better and work with just one instrument type better than mp3 handles them all at once. I personally am a fan of FLAC reaching the consumers as a new standard in the next 10 yrs.
    • roebeet, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Dugg for FLAC. However, I doubt if it will become a standard in ten years, but I suspect some other lossless format will be. Chances are, ALAC will be the standard in the Apple camp, and WMA lossless will be in the Microsoft camp.
  • aliguana, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4just as Adobe bundle up AAC support in Flash. Doh! Adobe must be kicking themselves....not...

    What the hell are the MPEG group doing looking for "new standards" anyway? They should all get behind AAC/MP4/h.264 instead of trying to find alternatives to it. Oh, unless they don't actually make money off ACC/MP4/h.264.....

    Come on, seperate volume for each instrument? Apple can't even get basic EQ on their iPods, nevermind dynamic volume based on instrument. This is NOT a replacement for mp3/AAC. Just a fun format that people will use for about six months then go back to doing what they were before.
  • mrblue182, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4dugg for no DRM
  • s4g4n, on 05/25/2008, -3/+11Whats wrong with the OGC file format? lol.
    • gannondork, on 05/25/2008, -6/+1It's .ogg

      though OGC would make it more popular.
    • Kyderdog, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1how about no real player will play them
  • Gravyboi, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I think this actually sounds really useful for certain applications. It would be handy for people importing songs to guitar hero type games like frets on fire. Right now the whole track is quietened when you mess up a note. With this format just the guitar or drum part could be silenced appropriately making it more like guitar hero or rock band. It would also be useful for those people making home brewed music and mixes in their basement. Though I could see this being an issue with record companies who wouldn't want to make it even easier for people to make bootleg mixes.
  • rkuchiki, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4MT9? I would have thought the MPEG group would hae called it MP5 or something.
  • FredSanford, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3Why does this remind me of .DT6? Another "groundbreaking" format that was quickly forgotten.

    http://insider.prismdurosport.com/inside-durosport ...

  • shad0w, on 05/25/2008, -4/+14I thought ACC was the new MP3.
    • roebeet, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2I thought OGG Vorbis was the new MP3....
  • tjcutiger06, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a good tool for musicians to study songs or licks, although I'm not sure why the average listener would want such control besides maybe understanding obscured lyrics. Otherwise, why not just let me download the Pro Tools or Cubase files and create my own variation of the song?
    It would be great if the format was backward compatible with older music files, though (I assume it's not).
  • greenlikematt, on 05/25/2008, -2/+14base guitar
    -1
  • greevar, on 05/25/2008, -4/+6The whole failing of the music industry's business model is that they still think that music is a scarce product. With the creation of digital music, this has been eliminated. Music is now an infinite product like air or water. Their business model needs to change to a scarce product. That would be serving content. You see, they need to stop charging for the songs and start charging for the privilege of using their servers to access this content. The thing that would set them apart from all of the file-sharing services is that their content is quality controlled and guaranteed to be malware free. So you won't have to worry that the song you're downloading is a Trojan that's going to infect you machine.

    Now, there are several possible methods for funding this service. One being that the customer pays a monthly subscription fee to access the content and everything he or she downloads is theirs to keep indefinitely, with no expiration or limitations. In this instance, customers can buy a "pass" that has a limited amount of access time prepaid for those that do not want to pay monthly. Another method is that the service is paid for by placing ads on the site that the customer must view before proceeding to the file download. A third alternative, which may be the most controversial, is a service where the artists pay to have their content hosted in order to promote their band and gain exposure. This takes the burden from the customer and leaves them free to discover music they may not try had their priorities are influenced by the money they are paying for the content.

    This business model is already being used in the market. I'm sure many of you have already encountered it. The service known as FileFront is very similar to the service I described above. So, not only is this a more effective business model, but it has already been proven in the market. I just hope the RIAA catches on to this instead of heading into another lawsuit with some other hapless, unfortunate grandmother that has no understanding of the issues being dealt with.
    • Ghengis, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1WTF does that have to do with the article? MPEG (Moving Pictures Expert Group) != RIAA or MPAA.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.