Compressed Lossless

[Breepee2]

I was just thinking if the new Hi-MD's are indeed what I want, or just another new thingy.

I keep my music on hard disks. Since I don't want to bother with evolving lossy codecs and reripping every time I pick a new one, I keep my music in FLAC, a lossless compressed audio format (seach google if you don't know what it is). As a matter of fact there a many compressed lossless formats out there, but of course their sound quality is all bit-identical. It just comes down to features, and FLAC was seekable (and open source, always a Good Thing) so I chose that one.

I was thinking, well I have a lot of old MD-discs which I could reformat to about 300MB and put a lot of music on them. In mp3 since that's the better codec these days.

Then I thought, why are 1GB discs so expensive (well, compared to CDR's)? If I could chose, I'd put lossless files on my discs but then the only option is PCM and that would mean buying a lot of 1GB discs and is a little old technology (lossless audio can be compressed to about 55-60%). Then I remembered that an average album in FLAC takes about 300MB, which is about as big as a reformatted old MD! Eureka! In this way I could have lossless audio on old (cheap) MD's just like I used to have them in Atrac SP, but now lossless of course.

Considering even Apple has added it's own lossless format in addition to 'raw' PCM (in an AIFF container that is possible too the iPod) why not Sony in it's 3rd-gen HiMD units? I suppose they'll make a custom form of lossless like Apple, or just go with FLAC (which is very resource freindly when encoding and some mp3-players support it already).

Of course recording wouldn't be an option, since it's VBR and eats lots of cpu-power. It would be a download-only format.

Anyway, isn't this a great idea? Instead of 80 minutes of SP now (almost) 80 minutes of lossless audio (OK, probably closer to 60 minutes, but hey) on an old MD?

[deafplayer]

Sony actually has its own lossless-compression audio format called Sony Perfect Clarity Audio (.pca file extension) that you can use in Sound Forge (at least in v. 7.0)

ive heard it said on these forums that lossess compression wouldn't be able to work on Hi-MD because of the variable compression

but now we know the new ones will support VBR .mp3s, so...

yes i would love lossless support, for listening and also for recording(!!)

[Breepee2]

Sony actually has its own lossless-compression audio format called Sony Perfect Clarity Audio (.pca file extension) that you can use in Sound Forge (at least in v. 7.0)

ive heard it said on these forums that lossess compression wouldn't be able to work on Hi-MD because of the variable compression

but now we know the new ones will support VBR .mp3s, so...

yes i would love lossless support, for listening and also for recording(!!)

←

I dont think processing power and VBR is the issue anymore (mp3 vbr is supported and eats more cpupower while decoding than FLAC). Of course Sony could make a resource-friendly format (or use .pca, but I don't know anything about that). All HiMD units have a shock-memory, right? Should be able to compensate the VBR'ish nature of compressed lossless, and if not, just increase it a little bit.

The longer I'm thinking about it, the better an idea it seems. MD's (even the old ones) would be a bit-perfect next-gen archiving method, and even usable in portables.

Of course recording in compressed lossless would be nice too, but that requires cpu-power which would be very unpractical considering battery-life. Recording in PCM, uploading, compressing, downloading back would be 'easier' I guess.

[8track]

On paper that sounds like a good idea...but how does it sound? I keep me recordings on LP and open reel tape.To me they haven't come up with any digital recording that sounds right. I think CDs sound cold and dead even when taken form an analog recording and that's suposed to be the best digital avilable. Becouse of this I keep the computer out of my audio altogether.How MP3 ever cought on in the first place is beyond me.Strange as it may sound an analog recording dubed in ATRAC(not ATRAC 3) sounds the best of anyting I've come across so far. Hi-SP seems to be about the same. Maby I'm just too picky or my ears are just too used to the sound of vinyl and open reel tape. Does this new FLAC format realy cut the mustard or does it sound like just about everyting else digital (i.e. cold)? Please let me know what you think.If there realy is something better out there I'd love to give it a try....8)

Edited March 7, 2005 by 8track

[Michael1980]

I think you have a very particular taste for analogue. It is quiet interesting actually, haven't used non-digital ways of storing music so can't comment.

[dex Otaku]

Does this new FLAC format realy cut the mustard or does it sound like just about everyting else digital (i.e. cold)? Please let me know what you think.

I'll forgoe the philosophical debate on analogue vs. digital. This is well-known in the audio world as a personal preference based on perception [an inherently individual experience] and nothing more.

Lossless encoding means:

bits in = bits out

The end stream is identical to the source stream [assuming perfect error correction and whatnot].

In the end, with this as with all recording methods whether analogue or digital, the rule is simply GIGO; Garbage In, Garbage Out.

A simpler answer might be to say that FLAC sounds identical to PCM, since you're listening, bit for bit, to the same thing. The only difference is in the manner of storage.

[8track]

Ok I get it. Thx for the reply. I think I'll give it a try....8)

[Guest tony wong]

Sony actually has its own lossless-compression audio format called Sony Perfect Clarity Audio (.pca file extension) that you can use in Sound Forge (at least in v. 7.0)

ive heard it said on these forums that lossess compression wouldn't be able to work on Hi-MD because of the variable compression

but now we know the new ones will support VBR .mp3s, so...

yes i would love lossless support, for listening and also for recording(!!)

←

variable bitrate shouldn't be a problem now to Hi-MD

[ROMBUSTERS]

speaking of which wheres Atrac3+ VBR?

[Breepee2]

Probably isn't there (yet) because of compressing complexity. Then again, to be frank, Atrac has had it's time. Better develop Atrac 4 which maybe could compete again with other lossy formats like Vorbis or Musepack or Lame at least.

But I think the future lies in compressed lossless. Space becomes less of an issue each year. With compressed lossless you win about half of the space for free, seems ideal to me. When a HiMD-player with compressed lossless comes out, I'll be buying one instantanious

[Guest tony wong]

Probably isn't there (yet) because of compressing complexity.

←

I don't agree

I do think next gen(3rd) will have lossless compression attached

[Breepee2]

I don't agree

Why? Compressing VBR means having a relativily large datapool in the ram to compress and write to disk. With CBR the datapool doesn't need to be large and can be written directly to disk. OK, it could be done, but it would eat you batteries and requires a pretty fast CPU and more ram. Would make it too expensive I think.

I do think next gen(3rd) will have lossless compression attached

←

If it does, I probably get a heart attack of delight

[Guest tony wong]

Why? Compressing VBR means having a relativily large datapool in the ram to compress and write to disk. With CBR the datapool doesn't need to be large and can be written directly to disk. OK, it could be done, but it would eat you batteries and requires a pretty fast CPU and more ram. Would make it too expensive I think.

←

I don't agree is simply because they don't include just because there are too many codec on the chips already

baby, u r not in a supermarket, with a trolley going around everywhere and put anything u want into the trolley

what we've got is a small basket only

[Breepee2]

I don't agree is simply because they don't include just because there are too many codec on the chips already

baby, u r not in a supermarket, with a trolley going around everywhere and put anything u want into the trolley

what we've got is a small basket only

←

errrrrr... right...., have you actually read my post?

And I understand they cant support unlimited codecs, but supporting a codec isn't really all that difficult. I'm not sure how big the codec base is now, but there's probably room to add (a chip with) 100kb of FLAC support or something like that. And supporting some lossless codec makes sense, since there's no codec alike already supported. Adding another lossy codec would make less sense, since there are already 2 (3 if you count Atrac3Plus seperate).

Edited March 7, 2005 by Breepee2

[BobS]

The reason VBR has not been part of MD is that MD is a recorder. How would you figure how much recording time you had left ? With VBR their is no way to know remaining time since it would vary. Not a good situation at a recording session. Knowing how many megabytes are left is of no use except to download mp3s

[Guest tony wong]

errrrrr... right...., have you actually read my post?

And I understand they cant support unlimited codecs, but supporting a codec isn't really all that difficult. I'm not sure how big the codec base is now, but there's probably room to add (a chip with) 100kb of FLAC support or something like that. And supporting some lossless codec makes sense, since there's no codec alike already supported. Adding another lossy codec would make less sense, since there are already 2 (3 if you count Atrac3Plus seperate).

←

I don't like to repeat and repeat on same topic : P

--->can u leave out MDLP/SP in 1st gen? : no

--->can u leave out all these ATRAC3plus in 1st gen? : no

--->can u leave out PCM support? : a matter of choice

looking backwards to days in MD, how many codec u remember model in that age support?

do u see it's already an improvement to include more codec in the chips?

and, I'd like u to know, to support one codec on recording side and in playback side is 2 different in current MD/Hi-MD design

whereas, recording use 1 chip, playback use another

that will mean, on the recording chip, 1st gen only have SP, ATRAC3plus, PCM

on 2nd gen, ATRAC3plus, PCM, mp3

u see the difference now?

[Breepee2]

I don't like to repeat and repeat on same topic : P

Perhaps it's an idea to say it clear the first time. I still can't understand what you're trying to say. But I think I can deduce it's way offtopic

What does it matter to you how many codecs are supported? Just pick the one that you want to use, for some thats Atrac3Plus, for some MP3, and for some lossless compressed. Everybody is happy

I can't really see any disadvatages to a FLAC-like codec.

[Guest tony wong]

Perhaps it's an idea to say it clear the first time. I still can't understand what you're trying to say. But I think I can deduce it's way offtopic 

What does it matter to you how many codecs are supported? Just pick the one that you want to use, for some thats Atrac3Plus, for some MP3, and for some lossless compressed. Everybody is happy

I can't really see any disadvatages to a FLAC-like codec.

←

yes, no disadvantages.....

but man, look, there is only limited resources and we can't include everything in

Sony Hi-Md unit isn't like the low price mp3 player from china

it have to consider about the problem of sound quality

what Sony usually produced now is low power eaten unit, and most power is used by the chip and motor

well I can tell u if too many codec supported the possible outcome would be power will last much shorter

and include too many new things onto one series(gen) may mean delay of a whole new series

it takes much longer time to check the new unit if too many new functions added, especially codec, u understand?

the problem is sound quality

if u just skip this problem, then u can include everything u want and push out some bad quality product into market

that's what Sony don't want to do(I can guess)

[added]missed point : and I would like u to know, 2nd gen model already support vbr mp3

Edited March 7, 2005 by tony wong

[Breepee2]

Sony Hi-Md unit isn't like the low price mp3 player from china

it have to consider about the problem of sound quality

And that's precisily why the low-price mp3players don't support the kind of codec I want and why it would look so good on high quality units like MD-players/recorders.

what Sony usually produced now is low power eaten unit, and most power is used by the chip and motor

well I can tell u if too many codec supported the possible outcome would be power will last much shorter

Supporting a codec doesn't use power, only playing it, and true, FLAC-like codec would eat more motor-power (between HiSP and PCM I estimate) but chip-power would be about the same (just a matter of good programming).

Only a few kb's extra are needed to store th codecs data, and maybe a bit larger buffer (RAM) memory to do the calculations in. Nothing spectacular.

and include too many new things onto one series(gen) may mean delay of a whole new series

it takes much longer time to check the new unit if too many new functions added, especially codec, u understand?

I do, but I must add that adding I codec isn't really all that difficult. Of Sony was to adopt FLAC, the hard work is already done. Complete source, written specific for portables is freely available. But I'll admit its an issue (marketing related perhaps), but nothing very complex or difficult to overcome.

the problem is sound quality

if u just skip this problem, then u can include everything u want and push out some bad quality product into market

that's what Sony don't want to do(I can guess)

Of course not, but I don't see how sound quality is degraded by adding a new codec. In fact, it's supposed to be better, considering is bit-perfect.

[added]missed point : and I would like u to know, 2nd gen model already support vbr mp3

←

I'm perfectly aware of that, but I don't see the relevance?

[Guest tony wong]

Only a few kb's extra are needed to store th codecs data, and maybe a bit larger buffer (RAM) memory to do the calculations in. Nothing spectacular.

pay attention to : recording and playback should be on a different side

......sony do it all in 1 chip?

makes development more differently even(well I can guess that's not what Sony doing now)

remember : recording and playback on Hi-MD/MD unit is a totally different thing

supporting on playback one kind of codec doesn't it can record in that codec from digital or analog input

(where the unit will do the encoding)

ok, let's just wait for the next gen( or next next next next next gen? )model that will support "lossless compression"

well, u always forgot the reason why today MD can play longer time than old old old model is because research development on the chips for eat less power

well, like u say, increase the buffer size in the chip(they should be doing it inside the encoder chips)may decrease ur playing time to half

is that what u want?

or u will want them to release that new model with new codec support(never planned b4) after a year just for same long playing(recording?) hours

[Breepee2]

Like I said, FLAC recording is probably a bridge too far for the time being but FLAC playback is very easy.

And about the power: FLAC is already power-friendly. Apple made Apple Lossless to be resource-friendly. I'm sure Sony has enough manpower to come up with something smart to cope with more power consumtion. I don't consider that an issue.

[Andy]

To elaborate on an earlier point by someone else:

With lossless encoding, you don't know how much space it will take up on disc in advance, this means that you can't say exactly how much time is left. This doesn't mean that the situation is hopeless and the idea should be scrapped - lossless codecs have (or should have, if they are designed with sanity in mind) a mode which says "I can't compress this very well at all, and if I try, then it will end up larger than what I started with, so this next section is just raw PCM data" - which means that the worst case (recording random noise), the space taken up is just a touch bigger than it would be as PCM (you have to account for the space taken by the message).

It would be possible to use this figure as a "recording time remaining", however, the time remaining would usually be decreasing at a rate slower than 1s per second which might look weird .

If Sony want to make MD an option for everyone, they should support all existing MD formats, MP3 (and VBR mp3), AAC, WMP, OGG, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, and any more that you can think of - if you can think of a format that they don't support, then why should you jump through hoops to get it to play back? They just need to do the work to support it a single time (before manufacturing the player), yet if they don't, then every time you need to play something in one of those formats, then you have to do something extra. More work first saves so much work later.

The other equally good option is that sony opens up the firmware and gives good documentation, so instead of them doing the work, the people who want to do neato tricks with their players can do it - and share it with everyone else who might not be so technical.

[atrain]

& when they've jumped through every hoop & made every suggestion posible the 'portable' is the size of a vcr. i think everyone's seen that episode of the simpsons where homer built a car...

what i wish for is ease of use combined with the current features. stuff like user intuitive software & gui, easy problem diagnosis, continuing adoption of cutting edge technology [within these parameters eg. OLED improving screen & batt life].

chasing the tail of a market leader by poorly copying features for no reason is the major portable strategy atm, the dell dj is a good example, md is a niche format, the best i feel we can hope for is to remain a viable niche, esp in the live recording & collectable media camps.

[Breepee2]

& when they've jumped through every hoop & made every suggestion posible the 'portable' is the size of a vcr.

Adding one single codec won't increase it's size, but adding the features you want will definitely affect size. And adding of kind of codec not there yet seems more functional to me than putting lots of energy in looks.

[dex Otaku]

The truth is that Sony market netMD and HiMD as portable players, not as recorders.

The majority of the market they're aiming at don't know that lossless compression exists, let alone how it works, and most of them also don't care.

Given the option, most of them would probably never use it [just as they'll never use PCM] as they increase in quality is not worth the loss in capacity [i.e. recording time, not physical capacity for data].

Remember: Sony are marketing these units to a demographic that they think HiLP 64kbps or 48kbps will be of sufficiently quality for. Try telling that same demographic that 700-900kbps [average rates for stereo lossless] is better quality, and they're likely to laugh at you.