Talk:MP3/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

An Article About «MP3HD» Needs To Be Written

http://www.all4mp3.com/Learn_mp3_hd_1.aspx

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.100.198.113 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What's stopping you? Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Uninformed a$$h0les like yourself. 200.100.74.55 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Really, all you need to do is write the article. That's what's so cool about Wikipedia. Read this guide: Wikipedia:Your first article. Register a username.
Whether you do or you don't want to write an article, MP3HD is not the title of this page, so discussion is about it is only tangential here. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Don’t be a dick. — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
And I disagree. I don’t think MP3HD needs its own article. It should be fine with just a section here. If you don’t think there’s enough information about it here, then by all means, add some. — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What is MP3 HD? MP3 that supports 20 channels, 24-bit or what? My bad, I didn't see the link. So basically it is:

  • The hundredth new lossless audio codec in existence.
  • No word on its popularity/notability.
  • No comparisons made to the current popular FLAC codec.

So why would anyone care to know about it?--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It relates to MP3 and since it comes from the original creators, why not? — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, never mind then.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It should have its own article, definitely. All these similar formats do:

This list appears at Lossless data compression, and MP3HD should appear there, too. Here at the MP3 page, something like a See Also note would be enough, or maybe a quick sentence saying that some of the mp3 designers moved on to this. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, all of those are more or less notable and deserve their own article, except WMA lossless which should be merged with WMA. Since MP3HD is directly related to MP3, it should simply be added here. Nobody knows anything about it, nobody uses it and there are no comparisons to FLAC so as of now it remains an ambiguous format weirdly named after MP3 (the HD having nothing to do with the concept of high-definition.)--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Decoding audio: MPEG versions and layers

Under "Decoding audio": "The MP3 file has a standard format, which is a frame that consists of 384, 576, or 1152 samples (depends on MPEG version and layer), and all the frames have associated header information (32 bits) and side information (9, 17, or 32 bytes, depending on MPEG version and stereo/mono). The header and side information help the decoder to decode the associated Huffman encoded data correctly."

I'm not a specialist but the "depends on MPEG version and layer" bit doesn't make any sense to me. If a file is not an MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 file, it's not an mp3 file. Demian326b (talk)

I deleted the paragraph. 86.68.157.106 (talk) Demian326b —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

Similarity to JPEG

The introductory paragraph includes this statement:

While this has been presesnted as relatively similar to the principles used by JPEG, an image compression format, in fact this comparison is mistaken, [...]

Why is this comparison "mistaken"? It is "relatively" similar, even if the specifics are different. When explaining the general idea of lossy compression at a high level, there are a great many parallels between the JPEG and MP3 algorithms. I believe that claiming that this comparison is "mistaken" is rather harsh. Also, the level of detail included is probably inappropriate for the introductory paragraph.152.17.126.153 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The content in question later became this:

This technique is often presented as relatively conceptually similar to the principles used by JPEG, an image compression format. The specific algorithms, however, are rather different: JPEG uses a built-in vision model that is very widely tuned (as is necessary for images), while MP3 uses a complex, precise masking model that is much more signal dependent.

But I've gone ahead and removed it for several reasons. For one, it's too much detail for the lead, as the commenter above pointed out. Also it's not backed up by any citations or anything in the main body of the article. Who, besides Wikipedia, says that MP3's methods are "often" presented as similar to JPEG's? More importantly, it's dubious that this is even the case. Some Google searches I tried, including the straightforward "mp3 is like jpg" and "mp3 is like jpg" turned up very little, just some forum posts and an obscure computer book, and none of it was really written in a way that implied that they were conceptually similar, rather it was just a mention that they're both forms of lossy compression. If there really is a widespread problem of people mistakenly thinking that MP3 and JPEG are technically similar, it should be possible to find some mythbusting articles in trade publications about it.
So I really don't think it's necessary in the article at all. If the point is to say that JPEG and MP3 are unrelated, I think that's all that needs to be said, and it's something that should be toward the end of the article, because it's not very important to understanding what MP3 is. But first it has to be shown that there's actually a popular misconception that they're related. So for now I say we just leave it out entirely. —mjb (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RE39,080

I'm not sure why someone reverted my recent change concerning the fact that the article's contention that there are no valid patents that expire after 2012, as I explicitly gave a reason in my change log.

Here's the deal with RE39,080. It expires in 2014. It's valid because it's a refile of a patent originally filed in 1988. The refile may have been in 1994, but the original patent was well before that. Don't ask me why it was refiled, whatever the reason was the USPTO obviously considered it legitimate otherwise it wouldn't have been approved.

Therefore it is simply false to claim, as the article does, that all patents expiring after a certain date are somehow dubious. RE39,080 is rock-solid, or at least as rock solid as we're going to get until the validity of software patents are tested by SCOTUS.

I'll revert tomorrow unless the people reverting the change want to go ahead and fix it today. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the original patent for RE39,080 was 05627938, which was filed in filed 22 sep 1994. Look it up in in the US patent database. [1][2] If I am not correct please explain how you came up with 1988. As I understand it, 5,627,938 was filed over two years after the MPEG-1 committee draft (MPEG-1 CD) was publicly available. Therefore, 5,627,938 and RE39,080 can not patent anything that was in the MPEG-1 committee draft because MPEG-1 CD counts as prior art. The specific statement you are reverting is " if only the known MP3 patents filed by December 1992 are considered MP3 decoding may be patent free in the US by December of 2012." The key there is "filed by December 1992", which if you read the reference, (FYI, I wrote the reference) explains that patents need to be filed within one year of public disclosure, and so any patents filed after December 1992 can only address things not covered in the MPEG-1 CD. I hope that explains why I reverted your edit. Jrincayc (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


It does, and having re-read it and re-researched it, I'm having trouble understanding where I found 1988 from too. I'm wondering if I read something that was inaccurate and subsequently changed.
As such I'll leave the text as is... although it probably needs to be clarified that just because a patent can probably be invalidated on the basis of prior art doesn't mean that it doesn't have legal standing until it is. I'd be curious to know if any efforts are being made to appeal any patents filed after 1992 as they will be trouble for any organization without extremely deep pockets until they're invalidated. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to work on clarifying the text. It probably can be improved. The final MPEG-1 specification only gives a general overview of encoding MP3 files, so it may be that all the present open source MP3 encoders would still potentially be patented. It might be worth contacting Software Freedom Law Center if you are curious about any efforts. So far as the US is concerned, I would wait to see how Bilski will turn out, before I would spend much time on MP3 patents. I should have been more clear in my initial revert comment, since the original patent was in 1994, not the reissue. Jrincayc (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File structure image

The image in the File structure section is very wide (1200 px). It is wider than my screen and we should support smaller screen sizes than mine. I tried shinking it a little, but it became quite unreadable, it even isn't very readable as is. Does anyone have an idea what to do with it? One solution I thought of is providing only thumbnail, but that would mean that readers would have to click twice to get the readable version and their browser would have to support viewing SVGs, so this solution isn't nice. Svick (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Security issues: WMA?

Why does the "security issues" section have a description of a problem with Microsoft's Windows Media format? Isn't it a completely different format and even a different codec? Inhumandecency (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's problem with Microsoft's Windows Media library, not the format. The referenced Security bulletin states: “A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that Microsoft Windows handles MP3 media files.” Svick (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Is the link currently in the paragraph accruate? (it goes to Windows Media Format.) Inhumandecency (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The section is about a bug in "Microsoft Windows Media Runtime", not in "MP3". I think the section should be moved to an article about that software. (The closest existing article about it probably is Windows Media Player.) Or, the section could be removed, with the argument that if wikipedia was to mention all bugs in Microsoft software, there would not be room for anything else :) David A se (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Agreed. What does the security section have to do with the mp3 format? --124.188.98.26 (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

I'll be putting some significant effort into this page over the next few weeks to clean it up and hopefully bump up that B rating. I'm also considering creating a separate article for MP3 licensing/legality issues. Need to get a copy of http://oreilly.com/catalog/mp3/chapter/ch02.html --rocketrye12 talk/contribs 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A cleanup is much appreciated! BTW the complete book is available here at utm.edu --TheMandarin (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

layer 3

I am not much of an expert on audio, so I thought I'll ask here. layer 3 is a disambiguation page which points to two major locations - the OSI model layer 3, and to this page. Have you ever heard MP3 referred to as "layer 3"? Is this likely to be a search term to find MP3? --Muhandes (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! The full name is either MPEG-1 Audio Layer III or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III. The roman III is often written as digit 3, so layer 3 could certainly be a search item. On the sideline: the layer 3 disambiguation page no longer exists, so the issue is solved already. Jaho (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Layer III or Layer 3 ?

Hello, official MP3 specifications named this format as "MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III" (using Roman numerals) and not "Layer 3". I think, Roman numerals should be used in MP3 article's infobox.

  • MPEG-1 or 2, layer III audio (commonly known as "MP3") - source: RFC 5219
  • layer I, layer II and layer III in the MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards - source: RFC 3003
  • Layer III - source: CD 11172-3

There are also many other sources, that use Roman numerals:

  • MP3: MPEG Audio Layer III - source: Fraunhofer IIS FAQ
  • Both in MPEG-1 and in MPEG-2, three different layers are defined, sometimes incorrectly called 'levels'. These layers represent a family of coding algorithms. The layers are preferably denoted by roman figures, i.e. Layer I, Layer II and Layer III. - source: MPEG Audio FAQ
  • MPEG1,2 and 2.5 layer III encoding - source: About LAME
  • MPEG Version 1, 2 and 2.5 and Layer I, II and III - source: MPEG header
  • MPEG-1 Audio Layer III - source: Afterdawn glossary
  • MPEG Audio Layer I/II/III frame header - source: [3]

--89.173.67.123 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"MPEG-1/2 Audio Layer III" is not acceptable (I just reverted an article edit to that effect) because "1/2" reads like "½" or "one-half". The official specs surely only say MPEG-1 Audio Layer III or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III, right? —mjb (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I corrected this also in my "talk contribution" above. "MPEG-1/2 Audio Layer III" -->> "MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III"
I did not used the text "MPEG-1/2" in the MP3 article. That edit was made by other user.
--89.173.67.123 (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up on patent litigation section -- ongoing!

I've begun to clean up the section on patent litigation involving MP3 technology, at the request of the clean-up needed header.

I've streamlined some of the clunky, misleading references to patent suits and removed what I found to be a gratuitous and inaccurate characterization of the eastern Texas district court. A number of recent analyses of the court have concluded that it isn't actually all that plaintiff-friendly as is commonly charged; also, the section erroneously claimed that trials progress quickly (which doesn't really make sense), while in actually the venue is attractive to patent plaintiffs because cases progress quickly to trial (or settlement).

Anyhow, it was clearly a statement of opinion regarding the court. It's no great secret that patent holders ("trolls" is sure some subjective language) often sue there. But if anybody cares to dispute this aspect of my edit, please let me know and I can cite some sources.

I also removed the "record-breaking" reference to the $1.5 billion jury award in the Alcatel case, simply because the article cited nowhere indicated that the award was record-breaking. If the award indeed was in some way and somebody can replace the citation, please do.

I also removed the last paragraph, which claimed that "the legal status of MP3 remains unclear in countries where those patents are valid." An appeals court confirmed the lower court's ruling for Microsoft, and the Supreme Court hasn't taken the case on: How could the legal status be any clearer? No sources were cited in that last graf, so if anybody wants to revive it, please indicate some ongoing or planned litigation. 

Everybodyever (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Patent holders declined to enforce license fees on free and open source decoders?

I added {{not specifically in source}} to a footnote on this article. MP3#Licensing and patent issues has long said "... patent holders declined to enforce license fees on free and open source decoders, which allows many free MP3 decoders to develop." Around 2007, in edit 141257614, User:Dejvid changed the {{fact}} tag there to a footnote pointing to a blog entry by Glyn Moody, now archived in the Wayback Machine. It was nice of him to try to source unsourced statements. But Moody seems to me to say something different than the article. I thought from the Wikipedia article that the patent holders sat down and decided not to charge anyone license fees. But actually, Moody only wrote that "LAME ... seems to be tolerated by the patent holders". He further mentioned the possibility that they still could change their minds and sue. How can we improve the sentence in the article to make it completely accurate? Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

mp3 unhealthy?

I heard from julian treasure that compressed music can be unhealthy. i would like to invite you all to research if that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0bi0 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I read something about that lately too. I don’t remember gathering that it was unhealthy per se, just that listening to highly compressed music can cause some strain and fatigue. I’ll have to look it up again.… — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research, nor a summary of anything that was written on the internet. So it's not a good idea, unless you have sufficient reliable and unrelated sources. I doubt if you can produce them; one single weblog doesn't seem good enough to me. Well, that's all I found, and you don't come up with anything.
  • Not in this article. This is about MP3, not about (the health effects of) compressed music in general.
  • But first of all, play yourself a nice piece of music, sit back and relax a bit. Listening to music is good for your health, trust me!  ;) Jaho (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
That’s just the thing. I was going to see if I could find a reliable source for the aforementioned hypothesis or theory. Jesus, have a little more faith. XD — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 19:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Listening to compressed music could be fatiguing as long as we mean "dynamic range compression". Data compression (ex. mp3) has absolutely nothing to do with that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.89.221.64 (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Design limitations need references

The list of design limitations is clearly a collection of interpretations (likely inferred from the standard itself). But unless the source of those limitation-claims is directly referenced, and such reference(s) validly and explicitly state(s) the limitations, then the list is presumed to be original research. Hence the citation needed. As an example, if the standard states "from A to C", and it nowhere else gives exception, then the standard explicitly limits "D, E, F", but do not only list those, "G to Z" must be noted as well. Hence one of the difficulties (or limitations) of listing limitations without a source, as objectively (and not subjectively) extrapolated (by whom?) from a standard. And if the MP3 standard has no mention of the physiological mechanics of Psychoacoustics then it can not be said to reference such determinations, even by extension ... because another source is required to interpret such information. WP:Cite — JimsMaher (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I half-agree with the sentiment. We do need more sources to back up the claims. But finding & citing reliable sources for this section, although ultimately necessary, isn't terribly urgent. It would be a different matter if the material were dubious, misleading, or prone to instability due to disagreements between editors.
The only cited source is the Brandenburg MP3/AAC white paper, for the statement that newer formats overcome MP3's limitations. That paper doesn't say "MP3 has the following limitations" but it does say AAC improves on MP3's features in certain ways (affecting audio quality), so I don't think it's too much of a synthesis to present MP3's versions of the features as being "limited". However, only one of the features in the white paper actually corresponds to something in our list!
I believe our list is actually partly based on Gabriel Bouvigne's list on his MP3'Tech site (self-published but essentially peer-reviewed). Bouvigne is a developer of LAME and a technical editor for two books about MP3. As is typical on Wikipedia, people with varying degrees of knowledge & interest in the subject come and go, adding and editing material without worrying about finding articles in the New York Times to back up their assertions. Over time, the more dubious content gets pruned, and only the plausible material survives, and that's where we stand with this particular section. References tend to only be added to the plausible material in order to stop edit wars or to address specific concerns raised on the discussion page. When unreferenced material remains stable, people aren't as motivated to find sources. It's not an ideal status quo, but it's not causing problems, either. —mjb (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Also keep in mind, part of the need for citation(s) in this sort of case is to connect the dots. Here's just one question from one item listed ... "Time resolution can be too low for highly transient signals and may cause smearing of percussive sounds." ... (If true), what sort of threshold will cause "transient sounds" to "smear" and to what extent? The standard is specific and yet this limitation-claim's wording is not clear, perhaps a 'clarification needed' would be more appropriate? However, if the goal here is to simply list items of interest in compression theory and/or give warning of the MP3 format's pitfalls, then it should be well suited to categorically apply citations from a concise reference of origin and not just cherry-picked from what deductions (of varying quality) can be made from experience or extrapolation. This list needs verification. Surely there are volumes (or at least chapters within volumes) of sources for this stuff. — JimsMaher (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead second paragraph

Does anyone else find the second paragraph of the lead difficult to get through. I think we can almost live without it; the only crucial information I find in this paragraph is Moving Picture Experts Group and 1993. --Kvng (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2000

MP3 Players were first made in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.187.246 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, there was at least one made as early as 1998. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The MPMan (March 1998) was the first. —mjb (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

These are both "commercial players" that were widely known. There were prototype and hobby players as early as 1994. While the file format was .bit at this time point they were actually .mp3 format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.137.93 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New link

Hi I saw not to add new link, but this is interesting on MP3 support in HTML5 especially: http://www.scirra.com/blog/44/on-html5-audio-formats-aac-and-ogg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.129.85 (talk • contribs)

I removed this link from the articles you've added it to, because the guideline on external links recommends avoiding self-published blogs. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

original researc

It is an original research tag in the following section

44,100 samples per second × 16 bits per sample× 2 channels = 1,411,200 bit/s

please remove the section because no riginal research is allowed. paul188.25.55.184 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see any original research tag. In fact I see a reference. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History

"This work added to a variety of reports from authors dating back to Fletcher, and to the work that initially determined critical ratios and critical bandwidths."

Who is Fletcher? Harvey Fletcher is mentioned later, but in this first instance, "Fletcher" is not defined. The sentence doesn't really mean very much, and without knowing which Fletcher is referred to, I can't fix it. TheMadBaron (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What stand MP in MP3 for?

What stands the abbreviation MP in MP3 for? --212.144.20.132 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is explained in the first sentence of the article.—J. M. (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MP3/Archive_5&oldid=667031470"