To replace mp3 you need to win on at least one of these fronts:

  * licensing/royalties
  * quality per bit
  * power consumption to decode

The article addresses none of these, but instead talks about being able to remix an song to suit your tastes because all of the instruments are on different tracks.

This is just silly. Rounded to one percent, no one wants to do this to their music. Add to that, it isn't really possible because in any modern musical production there is audio processing that happens to groups of tracks on the way to a final mix and then more processing on all of the tracks combined. The final product is not a linear combination of the inputs.

A poorly thought out gimmicky feature is not going to replace mp3.

Oh, the labels will have to support it since it will require completely new production techniques and if the cost doesn't cause them an aneurism then the idea that you can go in and rip out a drum line to sample will.

Also, for the few of us that might want to remix a track, a limit of 6 tracks is grossly inadequate.

Definitely. For example, a lot of music I like has clipped peaks so that the bulk of the song sounds louder on the radio. If that's the game they want to play, fine... but when I'm at home on my expensive audio system, I want the un-clipped version. I already like your music, so you don't have to market to me anymore. If I want it to be loud, I will turn up the volume. </rant>

Feel free to prove me wrong in two years, but I feel this will /never/ (and I mean never in the information age sense, i.e. a few years) gain the traction of or simply replace mp3s.

mp3s have been at a point where an everyday listener is simply not able to distinguish between a 192kbps mp3 on a player with subpar audio hardware and the master recording. iPods, audio players and generic computer speakers make the distinction even less significant. I'd even argue that the industry is actually hoping to move in the opposite direction and bring music to phones and other channels of lesser bandwidth and will try to bring down quality (and size) to a level at which simply won't annoy and keep people buying.

The multi-track technology is purely a gimmick. Most artists do not want you messing with the levels of their tracks or make creative adjustments to their music. That's their job after all. Not to mention artists had a fit when iTunes started selling songs individually and took away their ability to distribute an album as an atomic piece of music. Also, I don't know how RIAA will look at bars being able to buy a song and use it for karaoke (the use the article mentions) without additional licensing.

Calling this an 'mp3 replacement' is as sensationalist as you get.

This article actually looks like a pretty good example of a PR hit. The article says that the Guardian says that LG and Samsung are "interested" in the technology. Click through to the Guardian, and it's the company themselves that claims LG and Samsung are interested.

I'm not implying that this is bad or anything, just interesting. The technology sounds cool, FWIW.

There's absolutely no reason you couldn't trivially whip together a little ogg or mp3 file format that packs in an arbitrary number of tracks.

If I'm not mistaken, several audio collaboration tools already do this.

Article -> meh.

Theres only one thing that could allow a format to overtake mp3: 10x better compression without reduction in quality, or drastic power requirements for playback.

Convincing the labels to back this format is a long shot, unless the DRM is there. The multitrack feature would also require some pretty significant interface updates to software and devices.

Maybe they can include MT9 with standard mp3 for players that can't use it.

Multi-tracks is a cool idea, although I don't see a huge market pining for this. Not sure why they are limiting it to X tracks though.

Yes, I was thinking about the six-track limit, too. Most recording artists (big and small) use way more than six tracks, and mix down to two for the consumer market. Creating a separate six-track MT9 file would add additional work, costs, and complexity.

It'd be a neat feature to add to mp3s (technical difficulties/impossibilities aside), but it's not enough to propel a whole new format.

What's more, content producers, especially ones like the RIAA, don't like you playing with their stuff too much, so I doubt you'll be able to get much content for this anyway.