Talk:MP3

Error in header format image
Hi,

There seems to be a slight error in the header format image. According to the standard, the sync word is 11 bits and the version ID 2 bits. In the image, the sync word is 12 bits and version ID 1 bit.

-Kristian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.71.190 (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Network effects vs DRM
The “Licensing and patent issues” section lists among the possible causes of the network effects causing perpetuation of the format the lack of DRM. Is that still relevant nowdays, when Ogg Vorbis and FLAC have no DRM? Is it about AAC or WMA not replacing MP3 as the most popular non-free format? --AVRS (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * DRM is optional in WMA and AAC. There is no license fee associated with Vorbis. MP3 is not the best format from either a technical or business perspective. I propose that the network effect itself explains the continuing popularity of MP3. MP3 was the first compressed format to be widely adopted. Its ongoing success is the result of that early success. -—Kvng 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is that it is not clear how the lack of DRM contributed (or keeps contributing, which I think is implied by the text) to the network effect. Maybe it should be removed from the list? --AVRS (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I may not understand the term "network effect", but isn't the main reason for the popularity of mp3 (apart from hardware and operating system support) simply that it was there a long time before WMA, AAC and Vorbis? --Regression Tester (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think MP3’s network effect consists in the following (which I guess could happen even with a good free codec or format, except for differences in possible lobbying and propaganda, like patents, brands, DRM, price, freedom, quality, compatibility):
 * Many people know the name.
 * Thus, at least in the past, when the alternatives were much less known, they would search for “blabla mp3 download”, so it was prudent to mention MP3 when publishing music — and some would also publish in MP3.
 * Also, if people only know “MP3”, then when they want to distribute audio, they will search not for how to encode audio, but for how to make an MP3.
 * Some hardware players, especially old ones, support only MP3. Thus those targeting owners of those players would publish audio in MP3.
 * There is a large quantity of music in MP3 (which cannot be salvaged from MP3 efficiently). In the past, it seemed OK to buy a player which only supported MP3.


 * So, where does DRM go here? Maybe some users chose MP3 because they had read somewhere that it has no DRM (e.g., in the beginning, the few known alternatives like WMA and RealAudio may have been associated with DRM or vendor lock-in), or because they have tried encoding audio into another format and accidentally created a useless DRMed file. There is no explanation in the article, nor mention of a time range.


 * --AVRS (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Error in "File structure" figure?
The illustration of mp3 file structure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mp3filestructure.svg, indicates that MP3 sync word is twelve bits, all 1. However, some other sources I've consulted indicate that the sync word is only 11 bits:


 * http://www.mp3-tech.org/programmer/frame_header.html
 * http://eyed3.nicfit.net/_modules/eyed3/mp3/headers.html
 * http://mpgedit.org/mpgedit/mpeg_format/mpeghdr.htm

Please advise. Aldebrn (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

576 samples
The "Encoding audio" section states, "During encoding, 576 time-domain samples are taken and are transformed to 576 frequency-domain samples. If there is a transient, 192 samples are taken instead of 576." This needs more context. 576 samples per what ? I assume "per frame", but this needs to be explained in the article by someone more familiar with the technology. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on MP3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090723213246/http://bmrc.berkeley.edu:80/research/mpeg/software/Old/mpegfa31.txt to http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/research/mpeg/software/Old/mpegfa31.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110504042035/http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/discover/intellectualproperty to http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/discover/intellectualproperty

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Patent situation in 2016?
The article only lists a few patents that are still active. I've collected a list from various web articles that discuss MP3 licensing. I can't verify if this list is exact, exhaustive, or if these are related to MP3 or just MPEG-? layer ? formats in general.


 * patent number, expiry date, link to patent
 * 5703999 18.11.16       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5703999
 * 5579430 26.11.16       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5579430
 * 5850456 06.02.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5850456
 * 5878080 07.02.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5878080
 * 6185539 19.02.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6185539
 * 6023490 09.04.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6023490
 * 5960037 09.04.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5960037
 * 6009399 16.04.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6009399
 * 5924060 29.09.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5924060

Some sources:
 * http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264/
 * http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MPEG_patent_lists#MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_3_patents

At least the last source is too optimistic. As an example, it claims that patent 5924060 expired in 2011. You can see from http://www.google.com/patents/US5924060 that they paid the fee (year 12) a bit late in 2011 so it should be valid at least until 2014-2015. Google claims they haven't paid the latest year (16) fee yet so the current situation is not clear, but I can't see why it wouldn't be enforceable until 2017. If you infringe the patent in 2017, you can still be sued until 2019.

2001:2003:F638:A000:BE5F:F4FF:FE76:8CA0 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I verified the expiration dates of the mentioned patents with http://www.patentcalculator.com/Default.aspx and got


 * 5579430 26.01.15       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5579430
 * 5703999 18.11.16       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5703999
 * 5850456 06.02.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5850456
 * 5878080 07.02.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5878080
 * 6185539 19.02.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6185539
 * 5924060 30.03.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5924060
 * 6023490 09.04.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6023490
 * 5960037 09.04.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5960037
 * 6009399 16.04.17       http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6009399

The article should be fixed regarding patent number 5924060. The calculated expiration date halves the time Mp3 is still encumbered by patents. There's only 166 days left before mp3 is totally patent free. 84.231.13.172 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * On fedora legal, Tom Callaway of Redhat wrote: "Red Hat has determined that it is now acceptable for Fedora to include MP3 decoding functionality (not specific to any implementation, or binding by any unseen agreement). Encoding functionality is not permitted at this time." https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/34NPNTJITRHRP2FRKKYGL2YMEUU4BDYF/ So Redhat at least seems to think that MP3 is patent free so far as decoding is concerned. Jrincayc (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Sisvel patents
From the article:
 * Except for three patents, the US patents administered by Sisvel had all expired in 2015, however (the exceptions are:, expires February 2017, , expires February 2017 and , expires 9. April 2017.

Note that these three patents were filed in 1997, so it is highly unlikely that they read on decoding of MPEG-1 layer 3 audio, since the 1997 was well after the 1993 MPEG-1 specification.Jrincayc (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
119.128.5.157 (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jeh (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fraunhofer says on their website patents have expired
Read here https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html

So does that mean ALL patents have expired and no one needs to pay ever anymore? Even the one last patent as wikipedia says that will expire end of this year? -- 5.145.128.4 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

MP3 @ 25
 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Early MP3 history
I remember it differently; the pro version of l3enc was distributed as 'warez' and was the golden standard (most people encoded to 128 joint-stereo), there was also another encoder that was simpler to use but didn't sound as good and created files ending in .!!s (you had to rename them manually to .mp3) but was quite a bit faster than the Fraunhofer encoder. After some time there was a commercial encoder by Xing that took on Fraunhofer with their own encoder. One of the things coming out of this battle was the variable bit rate variant, encoding up to 320 etc.

Just putting it here in talk, as those who were around will probably remember this, but of course there's no official publication that would back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.7.215 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Deutsche" member of ASPEC group
In the section History>Development when the members of the ASPEC group are listed, it says "Deutsche" (as in German, the adjective) right after France Telekom. Was this meant to be Deutsche Telekom? Skylar Mlem (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)