Talk:MP3/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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)

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)
Sorry to resurrect this ancient post, but CDDA only supports one samplerate and bit-depth. If it isn't 44.1khz 16 bit, it isn't CDDA Nil Einne 15:31, 11 January 2007 (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
It would be more appropriate to link to an external article, as this subject is not confined to the MP3 domain. I see, though, that we now have an MP2 and MP3 and the Internet section, so i've linked the word "piracy" to Pirate (disambiguation). I considered linking to copyright infringement, but decided that this would tend to reinforce the media-nurtured impression that the two are synonymous. I added the latter to See also. —Brian Patrie 06:07, 1 December 2005 (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)

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)

MPEG-I/II

In the first line it says "MPEG-1/2", and this needs to be explained on the page, I think. Here's what I know about it:

Phase 1 can handle input streams (or WAV files) with a sample frequency of 48000, 44100 or 32000 Hz and is therefore used most often, obviously.

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 or The MPEG Industry Forum site or perhaps the somewhat less official MPEG.ORG site. 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)
MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3 is also valid, and not limited to low bitrates (i have often seen MPEG-2 transport streams with 128kb/s Layer 3 audio). Furthermore, 8 kb/s is not ISO MPEG-2; it is part of a Fraunhofer sub-spec, known as MPEG-2.5—which is not endorsed by the ISO. MPEG-4 can also contain Layer 3,2,1 streams, as well as VQ and AAC. —Brian Patrie 05:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why have all references to MPEG-2 and MPEG-2.5 been removed from the first paragraph? As I understand it, MP3 covers MPEG-1 Layer 3, MPEG-2 Layer 3 and MPEG-2.5 Layer 3. At least there are many .mp3 files around that are actually MPEG-2 or MPEG-2.5, and no decoder complains.--87.162.39.233 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit-rate

The russian music download site allofmp3.com seems to be offering mp3's at a maximum bit-rate of 384kbps using the LAME codec. A qucik google search didn't provide any details on this, wondering if anyone knew anything worth adding.

I think the maximum for LAME mp3 is 320kbps. It is ~500kbps for Ogg's, though. --Russoc4 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: If they are 384kbps, then they aren't mp3s. Most likely mp2s. From the article: 

   * Layer 1: excellent at 384 kbit/s
   * Layer 2: excellent at 256...384 kbit/s, very good at 224...256 kbit/s, good at 192...224 kbit/s
   * Layer 3: excellent at 224...320 kbit/s, very good at 192...224 kbit/s, good at 128...192 kbit/s

LAME free-format allows for up to 640kbps, though practically nothing can decode it. 70.45.49.36 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The bit rate of CD-audio is listed as 1411.2 kbps. This is technically incorrect, as there are 1024 bits/kbits, so it's really 16bits * 44100 Hz * 2 ch / 1024 = 1378.125 71.106.82.134 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Kieran Coghlan
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit they cover the confusion between using 1024 and 1000 in kb vs. and kibit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzy 98 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual 128 and 192 kbps rates, do they account for both channels in stereo? Or maybe it is, say, 128 kbps per channel... you may want to make this issue clearer. Thanks! --Biscay (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bog standard 128 kbps mp3s can be 64 kbps per channel, though there are differences between modes such as 'joint stereo' and 'high frequency'. In joint stereo mode both channels share some of the bitstream, making it difficult to say exactly how much of 128 is devoted to each channel. True mono 128 kbps mp3s use the whole 128 bits for a single channel and are the same encoding quality as 256 kbps stereo mp3s... except that there are supposedly mono mp3s out there which are actually two channels of identical (or nearly identical) 64 kbps audio. This kind of parallel mono would be half the quality of true mono and the same quality as a stereo mp3 of the same bitrate. Hmmm. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence It is unlikely that higher bit rates will be popular with any lossy audio codec because file sizes at higher bit rates approach those of lossless codecs such as FLAC. is too self-confident and simply false. For more audio channels (5.1, 7.1) higher bitrates are necessary. --Azarien (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor Tidbits to Cleanup

The link in the "see also" section to Marcy Playground's music album "MP3" belongs in disambiguation. 68.100.224.150 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"It provides a representation of PCM"

This isn't true. MP3 represents frequency domains, it can be decoded to PCM or DSD for example or in theory directly to analogue.

PCM

(From User talk:Smyth:)

You recently reverted my edit on MP3. MP3 does not contain a representation of PCM. It contains a representation of audio in a completely different way to how PCM represents audio. You can decode MP3 to DSD. It is NOT compressed PCM like FLAC is. Since you reverted my edit, I suggest you do some more research and then revert it again once you have learnt. Thanks. -- 82.152.177.71 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to get a definite answer for this because PCM is so universal, but references to each MP3 frame encoding exactly 1152 samples, and even being marked with a PCM sampling rate, make it sound very much as if PCM has a special status. Compare JPEG files: they contain a representation of an image in a completely different way to a straightforward rectangular grid, but they nevertheless are a representation of a rectangular grid of pixels, and not something else. – Smyth\talk 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know *what* PCM is, why on earth are you reverting edits related to the technical details of PCM? There are three essential ways to encode audio data (only two of which are widely used), and PCM simply uses an entirely different method than MP3.
Your analogy is not a very good one in this case. Horses and cars are the same because they can both be a means of transporting a person from one location to another, but that doesn't change the fact that they are very different on several fundamental metrics.
The specifications for PCM audio are available in several places on the internet, and they are generally technical (as is the case with most worthwhile specifications). Google is your friend, and if you don't understand the material then refrain from changing the information in the article.

Licensing

Pardon me, but MP3 is already public domain. It is a file format. You cannot patent a file format as far as i know. that would be like Adobe saying they have a patent on PDF or Microsoft saying they have a patent on WMA or DOC files. You simply cannot patent or copyright or in any other way protect your idea if it involves a format of storing data. Just as you cannot patent things like NTFS or FAT or HFS, you cannot patent MP3.

MP3 is much more than a file format; see MP3. Encoding or decoding may use technologies that are patented, like Forgent saying they have a patent on JPEG (now ruled invalid), or Microsoft saying they have a patent on FAT filesystems (which they do, if those filesystems include long filenames). Dicklyon 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

24.181.71.243 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Alex

I understand both your arguments. The point of the first comment, however, is that, in this context, it is meaningful to speak of the MP3 file format as a separate (though related) entity from the MP3 encoder itself, which is under patent. If I am not mistaken, the encoder design is patentable, but the output stream is not. It is conceivable that some other encoder design, known or unknown, may produce an MP3 compliant stream without resorting to the Fraunhoffer algorithm(s).

As the second comment points out, the difference may or may not be meaningful depending on context. 24.181.71.243 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Alex

Royalties are payable for commercial distribution of MP3 encoded content (http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html). No mention of this is made in the licensing section as it addresses only the implementation of encoders/decoders. Perhaps there should be mention of this? I believe there is no such royalty for the distribution of AAC content. - David (195.219.38.178 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Licensing and patent issues

A page I've been working on, list of software patents, refers to one of the MP3 patents, but did not cite sources. I came here trying to find sources, and have found lots more unsourced statements. Since the issue of software patents is so controversial, I think the things I've highlighted in the article need proper sourcing.

A prime example is the statement that development of MP3 was hindered by the patents, and yet the subsequent statement that it was still very popular. The success of the iPod doesn't, to me, indicate that development of MP3 has been hugely hindered!

I also deleted the final paragraph in the article because it made no sense. Patent applications filed in 1997 cannot "cover MP3" since MP3 was known by that time. Such patents might be able to cover extensions to MP3, or new variations on the format, but people cannot start getting new (valid) patents on it. Thomson have a limited number of patents listed on their website and it would be a relatively straightforward matter to work out when the last of those would lapse.

I don't know much about this topic, so can't really help in tidying up, I'm afraid. GDallimore 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Free Software" codecs

Ogg Vorbis and Speex were previously listed as being "free software codecs". This isn't really correct since they're actually just patent free, making them friendlier to free software, but not limited to being free software. People are still allowed to write proprietary software that uses these codecs. - James Foster 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually they just believe they're patent free, no one knows for sure. The codec specification obviously isn't free software (how can a specification be software?) but the only implementation of the specification we know of, i.e. the codec, is in fact free software. If someone wants to write proprietry software they will have to fulfill the terms of the codec license OR write their own implementation of the specification, i.e. a new codec supporting Vorbis or Speex Nil Einne 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Submarine-patent nonsense!! The Vorbis codec was built to be free of patent restrictions, it claims to be free of patent restrictions, and it has never been challenged by other patent-holders. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, then you should not challenge their restriction-free claim, by spreading this uncertainty. I found this comment by one of the project developers, which describes their situation quite clearly. --71.168.124.11 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article first says that the double-blind testing had five schemes tying for first place. Then later it says that "some claims" that Ogg Vorbis is superior to WMA and others. Given the strong political context of free software vs. a Microsoft standard, I think its important for the article to be very NPOV and avoid unsubstantiated claims about relative quality.

MPEG I, II, II.5

In my CDex program I have the option to encode with MPEG I, II oder II.5. Which one should I select? 84.60.102.161 08:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Choose MPEG I. II and II.5 are for low bitrates e.g. speech.

BBC links Wikipedia's MP3 page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5312696.stm --Daraheni 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

MP3 in Wikimedia projects

Why is the MP3 file format not used in Wikimedia projects? --84.61.39.144 14:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

patent issues. Vorbis is patent-free.

Text error- 18/11/06

Gerhard Stoll (Germany)) changed to Gerhard Stoll (Germany) (in the history section, paragraph 3 line 1)--Junkbot44 14:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not an iPod

Yes, I'm being controversial here, but since the top picture is of a non-ipod mp3 player, which nobody has and nobody can identify, why not change the pictures caption to "an (atypical) mp3 player!" --81.105.251.160 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation on the chapter explaining the structure of an mp3 file

The picture on the article claims, that the header starts with value [1111,1111,1111] followed by bit marking the MPEG version [1]. Apparently the correct form is: [1111,1111,111] followed by two bit sequence marking the MPEG version ([00] = MPEG version 2,5; [01] = reserved; [10] = MPEG version 2; [11] = MPEG version 1).

I noticed this while working with a project where I need to split an MP3 file. And I had trouble finding correct headers :-)

I also found a link explaining the anatomy of the header more deeply.

http://www.mp3-tech.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.128.114 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ack. moved to proper place. Woodinville (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MP3

Sorry - I just need to say this: an MP3 is NOT the smae thing as a Mp3 player! It is so annoning when people say "can I see your mp3" and I'm like DRR, that's a file format not a music player! Even commercial sites do this! (if you want, add this into the main MP3 page :)

71.62.220.166 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Kyle

Hours of playback per GB

I recently was looking at the specifications for a 4GB MP3 player. It stated the following:

"4GB of memory plays back over 64 hours of MP3 (128 hours of WMA) music (over 960 MP3/1920 WMA songs)* (based on 128Kbps playback)"

Now this doesn't make any sense to me. If both the mp3 and the wma music is 128 kilobits per second, then shouldn't 64 hours of WMA take up exactly the same amount of space as 64 hours of MP3?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.68.126 (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in so late. Yes. Absolutely. Somebody at that company's marketing department better have gotten a major spanking for that mistake. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
MS at one stage were claiming that 64K wma was equivilent to 128K mp3 though most people didn't beleive them. Plugwash (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What does the "mp" in "mp3" stand for?

Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.3.33.196 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well MP3 means MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 so i guess its MPEG. Sir Fritz (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Since MPEG stands for Motion Picture Experts Group, the name of the team who developed the standard, and because MP3 is short for "MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, it's safe to say that MP3 is more of an abbreviation than an acronym. It doesn't "stand for" anything. Does anyone think this should be addressed briefly in the article? Fungicord (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The name obviously came from the extension .mp3, which itself is derivative of the .mpg used for MPEG-1 and -2 video files; the restricting factor is that MS-DOS and earlier versions of Windows were limited to a 8.3 file naming convention (IIRC this changed with Windows 95, I recall being amazed about finally being able to use descriptive file names such as "Letter to Mum about dirty laundry.1.doc"). Maikel (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The scope and audience of the article

The word "MP3" today more often refers to an MP3 file than the MP3 encoding scheme itself. I think this should be made apparent in the beginning of the article. This article does a disservice to readers who don't already know what an MP3 file is. Just imagine a technologically-challenged grandmother who links to this article on Wikipedia from Google because her granddaughter just asked for an MP3 player as a gift. The article has so far started out way too technical. Sentence 2 said "lossy compression algorithm" and sentence 3 refers to bit-rates. This gets too technical too fast for such a widely known term. Maybe there should be another article named "MP3 file" that allows separation of the mainstream uses of the term as a file type from the technical details of the encoding scheme. For now, I'll add a couple sentences at the top of the article that are a little less shocking to non-technical readers. Fungicord (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article should be improved in the other direction: There is almost no in-depth discussion about the technology. There is some talk about the file format, but what the codec actually does to the audio it processes (e.g., the transform coding, the psychoacoustic model, the vector quantization) receives very little technical discussion, and these are in my opinion the most relevant parts of the technical discussion; what bitsequence appears at the beginning of each file is an arbitrary and not very interesting fact. After reading almost all of the article, I cannot say much more than a few buzzwords about how MP3 works. Compare, for example, Vorbis#Technical details. --Zvika (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree on the "more information" side. I must point out, though, there is no VQ in MP3. 66.78.202.165 (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

MPEG-3 claims that MP3 means "MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 3" and not "MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3". Which is right? Maikel (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3" is the one I always hear. It's possible that "MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 3" is a more formal way of describing it, as to how it fits in the bigger scheme of things. Anyway, I edited the MPEG-3 article to mention MP3 as "MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3". — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Number

According to the article the "magic number" of MP3 is "ID3". It's not actually, what shows is the magic number of the ID3v1 tag that is present at the beginning of lots of MP3 files. MP3 files without ID3 tag, or with an ID3v2 tag (which is at the end of the file) won't show "ID3" in the first 3 bytes. As far as I know there is no magic number for MP3 files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaho (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign that. Jaho (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I removed this from the article. --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro is a mess

Ok so we all know that everyone doesnt know about mp3's but if you dont know then u shouldnt be editing this page!!! all this 'i think' and 'im not sure' in the intro makes it look horrible. can someone remove this or verify the information to fix this? 75.105.14.238 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This text is poorly written, plus it delves too much into technical detail for the introductory section of this article. Furthermore, the topic of variable bit rates is already discussed later on in the article. The new text has no references, and even explicitly doubts itself, so it is worse than unverifiable. I am going to remove it. If the contributor wishes to rework portions of the text as cited and verifiable information (i.e. no "I'm not sure" or "maybe" stuff) to the existing section about variable bit rates, that would be great. CosineKitty (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MP3/Archive_2&oldid=1048668698"