Jump to content

Talk:MP3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Error in header format image

[edit]

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)[reply]

Network effects vs DRM

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Error in "File structure" figure?

[edit]

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:

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

It was 12 bits for the initial MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards. However, the so-called "MPEG-2.5" extensions used the last bit as signalling, thus changing the sync word to 11 bits. Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

576 samples

[edit]

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)[reply]

Those are 576 consecutive samples, thus all the samples from the granule. Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on MP3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patent situation in 2016?

[edit]

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.

Some sources:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sisvel patents

[edit]

From the article:

Except for three patents, the US patents administered by Sisvel[1] had all expired in 2015, however (the exceptions are: U.S. patent 5,878,080, expires February 2017, U.S. patent 5,850,456, expires February 2017 and U.S. patent 5,960,037, expires 9. April 2017.[2]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://217.27.95.141/media/files/US%20MPEG%20Audio%20Patents%281%29.pdf
  2. ^ "Patent US5850456 - 7-channel transmission, compatible with 5-channel transmission and 2-channel ... - Google Patents".

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

[edit]

119.128.5.157 (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fraunhofer says on their website patents have expired

[edit]

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)[reply]

MP3 @ 25

[edit]

Ford, Eamonn (14 July 2020). "The MP3 At 25: How A Digital File Dynamited The Music Industry". The Quietus.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early MP3 history

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Deutsche" member of ASPEC group

[edit]

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)[reply]

Now corrected. Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...and FLAC"

[edit]

@Kvng: I would argue that including FLAC as an example of a lossless codec in that sentence is a worthy-enough inclusion as a demonstration of how MP3 remains a standard despite increasing popularity of lossless codecs (Spotify now has a lossless streaming option) as storage becomes less and less of a premium. I don't feel "unnecessary" is a valid enough reason for removal. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 23:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It may be that, after citing AAC as one newer format that might (but didn't) obsolete MP3, it is "unnecessary" to cite FLAC as a second example. But I thought the mention was helpful. (Now, we are talking about the Intro, which doesn't have to be complete; FLAC is mentioned as an alternative at the end of the article.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These lists tend to grow unreasonable once started. AAC is widely used by Apple and Spotify. FLAC has, until recently, been a niche format for audiophiles. I think it is too soon to tell if new lossless options are taken up by consumers and put FLAC in the same category. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests that the two formats have distinct user bases, which argues for both to be mentioned. "Too soon to tell" is another non-reason. If the future happens, wouldn't we edit the article? Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully agree. Since AAC is more similar in technology and user base, it clearly should be mentioned. Since FLAC uses different technology and less overlap in user base, it can be left out. If FLAC gains more acceptance in non-audiophile applications that would change things at least for the user base question. That's what I meant by too soon to tell in case that was not clear.
As usual here on WP we expend a lot of hot air on relatively small matters like this. The way to short circuit some of that is to leave things as they are until there's a clear consensus to change them. Were 2 to 1 on this and that's not a consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MP3&oldid=1320485022"