Talk:MP3

Phase 2 will only support stream for 24000, 22050 and 16000 Hz. Basically, Phase 2 is intended for lower bit rates (e.g. for voice communication, or if you need small files with reduced quality, podcasts and live online audio-feeds and the likes).

The lowest bit-rate for Phase 2 is 8 kBits/sec while for Phase 1 the lowest bit rate is 32 kBits/s. 195.64.95.116 23:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response to 195.64.95.116: There are several problems in the above comments. Please refer to an authoritative source such as The official MPEG site (http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/) or The MPEG Industry Forum site (http://www.mpegif.org) or perhaps the somewhat less official MPEG.ORG site (http://www.mpeg.org). Be very careful to only get your information from such reliable sources, as there is a significant amount of confusion found on more random web sites. Do not call the MPEG-X numerical suffixes "Phases". Do not use roman numerals to denote them. MP3 originated from MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, also properly referred to as MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 3 (where "Part 3" refers to audio coding, "Part 1" is multiplexing, "Part 2" is video coding, etc.). The stuff above about sample frequency looks wrong too. I'm not personally aware of any connection between MP3 and MPEG-2, except for the former being a predecessor of the latter. Pangolin 06:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is exactly the other way around; You have to call the old MPEG-X Phases, since they are, and always have been. .MP2 and .MP3 used to both even be called .MPA and this was way before the Part 1 or Layer 3 issues came into play. Hey, I know, because I was there testing and using it back in the day. I don't really care what you think it should be, I know what the Phases meant, why they are there in the format, and when they started putting it in. The "Part 1" came into play because of incompatibility with Part 2, which is different from Phase 1 and Phase 2. MP3 originated from MPA, which in turn changed to MPEG Phase 1 Layer 3. To help make it clear, it was decided by its creators (hey, ask them) to use the Roman for the Layers. Furthermore, I don't know what fool put in the MPEG-2 part about 'the new' MP3, but that's a silly thing to do; That new MPEG-2 is not the same as MP2, the new MPEG-2 is no longer describing the Layer or Phase, it isn't even 'downwards' compatible with MP3.195.64.95.116 02:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piracy

I think there should be a heading regarding the allegations of "piracy" and the RIAA lawsuits. perhaps mention of the mp3/warez "trading" scene? Does anyone agree? Alkivar 04:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VERY much agreed. User:Afolkman 1:41, 16 Nov 2004

Summary and Psychoacoustics

There are two things that I don't like about this page:

I think the one-line summary on the very top of the page should give more information -- one has to trawl way down the page before psychoacoustics are mentioned
The History section contains useful information, but I think there's too much babble about claimed or presumably more correct bitrates. That part should move to the Quality section.

I've changed the link to psychoacoustics from Pycho-acoustic coding to Psychoacoustics as there is a redirect. --Cpk 21:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legality and Acceptance

From the 2nd to last paragraph: "Of course, until there is widespread acceptance, nobody will bother with litigation and without a clear-cut status, there is unlikely to be wide-spread acceptance."

I disagree with this bit entirely. Smoking marijuana and downloading copyrighted mp3s both have a clearcut legal status--that is, illegal--in many countries but both activities enjoy "wide-spread acceptance." So "of course" the sentence oversteps the mark quite a bit. Furthermore, the sentence preceding it: "I know of no rigorous listening tests to back up the quality claims and the IP questions have not been litigated, so nobody really knows for show what the status is." is from a point-of-view which the wikipedia does not maintain, that is, first-person, and makes another inaccurate claim, which is that no one knows the legal status--activities are legal until litigated otherwise. I'm moving the two sentences here.

(redacted from the paragraph beginning "The Vorbis format") : "I know of no rigorous listening tests to back up the quality claims and the IP questions have not been litigated, so nobody really knows for show what the status is. Of course, until there is widespread acceptance, nobody will bother with litigation and without a clear-cut status, there is unlikely to be wide-spread acceptance." --KQ

Numbers, Parts and Layers

MP3 refers to MPEG-1 Layer 3. MP2 (audio files) refer to MPEG-2 Layer 3. AFAIK, MPEG-2 Layer 3 is basically the same as MPEG-1 Layer 3, with some slightly different packetization. Is it worth even putting it in the list of similar formats? AAC is also known as MPEG-2 AAC, but this probably isn't worth worrying about. -D

MP3 actually refers to all MPEG layer 3 audio. MP3 at sampling frequency at least 32 KHz is called MPEG-1 layer 3 and uses MPEG-1 packets; MP3 at sampling frequency up to 24 KHz is called MPEG-2 layer 3 and uses MPEG-2 packets. "MP2" is primarily MPEG-1 layer 2 audio used in classical MPEG applications such as CD-i and Video CD, but you'll often find MP3 files labeled as MP2 to get them through file type filters on web hosting services. Winamp processes all files named *.mp2 and *.mp3 as generic MPEG audio, sending them to its "Nitrane" MPEG audio decoder. See http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/MPEG-audio-player.html --PP

Argh. Looks like you're right. I'm still confused, though. According to the MPEG specs, MPEG-1 Layer 2 describes video, Layer 3 describes audio. Are there sub-layers to "Layer 3", and is that what we're talking about? I find this whole thing very messy, and it'd be nice to clean it up on the MPEG pages. -D

Response to -D: Don't confuse "Parts" and "Layers". Part 2 is video. Part 3 is audio. In the case of Audio Layer 3, the term "Layer" refers to a lower level of the hierarchy than the term "Part". Layer 3 is something inside of Part 3. Pangolin 06:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Codecs and Algorithms

Hmm, I'm a bit confused. 'codec' is said to be the _same_ as an audio compression algorithm. I would think a codec is a specific _implementation_ of an audio compression algorithm. Am i just plain wrong? or? --arcade

Yes, in my opinion, codec (coder + decoder, analagous to modem being short for modulator + demodulator) is something completely different than an algorithm. While an algorithm could be said to be a set of instructions to yield a desired result, a codec is an implementation of both an algorithm and also the reverse of the same algorithm, to aid media creation and conversion tools. In other words, I think they're two completely different things. I'll fix this problem in the description. Even the article page for Codec that this one links to, says that a codec is a device or program processing the data in some way. I.e. not an algorithm, which is only a set of instructions on how to process the data. --Jugalator

It's even more complex a picture than that. In this case, the standard specifies only the decoder, and says very little about the encoder. So the standard does not specify a codec, only part of one. The algorithm used for encoding is not specified. But, properly, the term algorithm is a general term that can also apply to the specified decoding process by itself. Pangolin 06:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV complaints

This article reads like it was written by an audiophile. Choice excerpts:

To many other listeners, 128 kbit/s is unacceptably low quality, which is unfortunate since many commonly-available encoders set this as their default bitrate.
It is important to know that despite of all the flaws, recent multiformat listening tests (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html) once again show that LAME MP3 easily rivals its technological successor AAC. (Vorbis aoTuV is tied with Musepack at first place, Lame MP3 is tied with iTunes AAC at second place, WMA Standard is in third place and Atrac3 gets last place). (bold original)

Most of the stuff under the encoder comparison is also POVish. The Alternatives is similar. Random speculation has worked its way in. Finally, the Online Music Resources is marginal. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What part of that "despite of all the flaws" did you find 'audiophile'-ish? You can't disregard the fact that inherent to this format (MP3) there are quality-issues involved. Everybody wants (and needs) to know that, in order to understand what MP3 is about. So, to then state under some Quality-section that MP3 is some kind of ugly sounding bad quality trashy format, seems very unfair to me. Check these if you are not convinced; http://www.heise.de/ct/00/06/092/ (I believe there is a translated version of it somewhere) http://jthz.com/mp3/#MYTH So, that is why I posted the bold part; use the right encoder, with the right config, and you'll have flawless quality MP3 encoding. It's been proven. 195.64.95.116 01:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this does read like it was written by an audiophile. Feel free to edit if you don't like it.

MP3: Now with NPOV

The old article was full of awful propaganda, so I revamped it and moved some things into the LAME article. D. G. 10:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I kinda disagree with you on that. As with Winamp, also LAME is very much to blame for the grand success of the format. Let's not forget that this was one of the first and highest quality FREE MP3 encoders out there (next to Blade), whilst others needed payment or licensing before being used. So, when speaking of MP3, one needs to speak of LAME. The one would never be this popular without the other. I would hardly call that propaganda, or POV, it's simple fact. 195.64.95.116 01:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing is a "proven scientific fact." There's no such thing as a proven scientific fact. Anyway, anything is "up for discussion." You simply can't make an edit and declare that it is unquestionable. I believe you are saying that it's a "scientific fact" that nobody can detect the difference between 256kbps MP3 and an uncompressed source. That is untrue, although almost nobody can tell the difference, some golden ears listeners can on certain samples. If you're going to insert these statements you should back them up. You cannot just say "numerous listening tests."

I deleted the paragraph from the design limitations section, because this is already discussed in the MP3 quality section. Please clarify it there if you want. Rhobite 23:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

It is proven scientific fact that 1 added to 1 makes 2. If you can't get that, you're not worth my time, and I'm not going to discuss proven facts concerning our hearing or MP3 quality, I have better things to do. If you want to state silly 'claims' on MP3 quality which have no base whatsoever other than gossipy (trying to sound like an expert) speak, I'm going against that. I would refer to rec.audio.pro and being a member of the Audio Engineering Society. The point where experts, the high-end listeners and the likes, will not be able to distinguish the MP3 file from the original currently lies around 180 kbps VBR, and 224 kbps CBR mp3 files. This is where 50% of them will say that the mp3 is the original and/or vice versa, i.e. where they can't tell the difference. (This is researched on using LAME.)195.64.95.116 18:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you link to a study, other than that German study from 4 years ago? Can you link to any specific posts on rec.audio.pro?

You can all test it yourselves, this is quite easy to do. If you can't understand that, you don't belong in this discussion anyway. It's like discussing existence of gravity, or the magnetic polar fields. They are there, and you can't babble on about it the way you want to. Furthermore, the articles in rec.audio.pro or elsewhere would not be read or understood by you anyway. 195.64.95.116 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The burden is on you. If you refuse to discuss your edits or link to any studies, you are not "worth my time" either. Please do not curse in your edit summaries, and do not personally attack me.

I do as I see fit thank you very much. You must have been deserving of me personally attacking you. 195.64.95.116 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MP3 and CDDA are not directly comparable. I will not defer to your self-proclaimed "authority."

Of course they are; they are both the end-medium formats people listen to.195.64.95.116 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, if you insist on reverting, please don't reintroduce your own grammar and spelling errors. Rhobite 19:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

If anything I've corrected yours.195.64.95.116 15:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It may help here to consider a fact as something that is not known to be disputed anywhere today by otherwise reasonable people. Since there is obviously some dispute here about this "fact", our WP:NPOV policy arises to meet the occasion. Perhaps it is time to "characterize the dispute" if necessary, or merely to to back off on the fact with something like, "many people even claim they cannot detect a difference between P and Q." I will watch this page for a while. Be sure you are well familiar with the contents of the WP:NPOV article. And as always, remember wikilove and have a nice day! Tom - Talk 16:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

any criticisms toward the technology would be personal points of view made by the users of mp3's.

This makes no sense. Quality of audio-reproduction can be measured. If this wasn't the case, something like MP3 wouldn't exist, nor would it sound as good as it does these days.195.64.95.116 15:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

as they are based on the opinions of persons they should not be included in the article. instead try adding links to reveiws made by some sort of professional organization and let reader form their own opinions instead of trying to guide their opinions with your own through the artical--Larsie 21:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Compression scheme vs. encoding scheme

CDDA does not compress audio. It is uncompressed 44.1 kHz, 16-bit stereo audio. CDDA is merely a format for encoding this audio along with error correction. MP3, on the other hand, is a compression format which can compress many sample rates and sizes, including 44.1/16/stereo, as well as a wide range of other combinations. Such as 22 kHz, 48 kHz, and even 96 kHz. Because of this, CDDA and MP3 are not directly comparable. You simply CANNOT say that one is better than the other, it's apples and oranges. Rhobite 21:42, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, you cannot simply say that one is "better" than the other. But this is not because CDDA does "encoding" while MP3 does something completely different called "compression", but because the domain of MP3 is much greater than that of CDDA. Both are formats for storing PCM digital audio, and from the experience of the average computer user, both are overwhelmingly used for nothing except 44.1/16/stereo. For such an appropriately restricted application, they are perfectly comparable. One might say "using equipment XYZ and audio samples PQR, 50% of sample of 100 untrained listeners considered MP3 (using encoder MNO with settings JKL and bitrate ABC) to be not noticably worse than its CDDA source", and this would be a perfectly valid, reproducible test. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 11:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fact remains that one can encode to MP3 from a much higher (high-end) quality audio source than the "box" where CDDA needs to fit in. For CDDA one would need to bring quality down, where samplerate, dynamics and bit-depth are concerned. This is not related to "tests" or opinions, this is sheer reality. CDDA has limitations as well, and they can actually be regarded as more important (reproduction-quality wise) than those of MP3. All this as long as it concerns playback quality and nothing more. 195.64.95.116 16:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sampling rate

The text refers to "available sample frequencies." Would it be possible to define what "sample frequences" or "sample rate" means?

Sampling frequency? [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 01:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Value judgments

Wikipedia articles don't make value judgments or recommendations, such as recommending that non-professionals never have a reason to use lossless compression. In any case, this statement is not true: "Those who will only listen, do not need to use lossless compression, since they won't hear the difference with MP3." You can't make blanket statements like that, some people can indeed tell MP3 - even with a good compressor - from audio that has never been compressed.

They can up to a measured degree. This can be proven and it often has been. Beyond certain high enough bitrates NO HUMAN will be capable of telling the difference.195.64.95.116 16:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Etree and archive.org distribute lossless copies of nearly every show - there is obviously a large group of listeners who feels MP3 is inadequate for their uses. Rhobite 23:06, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that MP3 is now often considered a degraded format, surpassed by other formats, has nothing to do with that. It's simply because

1) there are bad mp3 encoders around (lots of them in fact)

2) MP3 tends to need some type of special treatment beforehand to reach optimum quality, other formats don't.

3) MP3 is being used the wrong way a lot, cascaded, with low quality encoding, within mastering mix-CD's and so on.

I mention the obvious importance in the different ways of use for audio(files), since THAT is the main reason people start to think MP3 is a bad quality format; They use it to re-encode, they start to use it as a professional format, they end up mastering CD's from MP3 files. Of course they shouldn't, MP3 is intended as a final "play and listen" format only, not to be processed further on in any way or form possible. CDDA and MP3 are almost the same in that regard.195.64.95.116 16:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism

I just searched for info about the use of Tom's Diner in early MP3 work and I found this page: [1] (http://www.secretmaker.com/technopedia/m/mp3/default.html). Does anyone know what's what?

It looks like this page is a possible Wiki clone? Several pages seem similar to Wiki and it calls itself "Technopedia". User:Alkivar/sig 08:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a wikipedia clone site. This is explicitly allowed by the GFDL, but they do have to credit the original authors and provide access to the source of the article, which they're not doing. I've listed them on the Mirrors and Forks page at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu#Secretmaker, as a low compliance site. Thanks for pointing this out. Rhobite 08:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement of The Law

I believe this statement:

However, non-commercial use and distribution of any item, with software codecs included, is by definition free of any relevance or impediments under patent law.

Is legally incorrect. For example, there is no U.S. law provision allowing for "fair use" of patents, in the sense that any noncommercial or de minimis use is not an exception for infringement. See 35 USC 271. The only exception to partent infringement that I know of is experimentation to validate that the patent is operative. Perhaps the author was referring to "fair use" in a copyright sense. If so, that makes sense as 17 USC 107 "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use" would apply. As the topic referenced in the article is patents I deleted the sentence. I note that it is unlikely the patent holder would sue an individual who was making non commercial use of the patent, but in theory I think the indivudual has no legal defense due to the noncommercial nature of the use. Would be interesting how this would play out in other countries.

Online music resources

This section seems a non sequitur -- for example, Apple's music store does not use the MP3 format at all.

Patents and details

What parts, exactly, of the algorithm are patented? Also, time-to-frequency conversion and physcoacoustics have much prior art. Should this be inclueded? And we also need to include a description of the algorithm.

Watsonladd 19:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

patent

When does the patent expire in the US and other countries?

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:MP3"