Talk:MP3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Technology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Electronics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Discussion archives[edit]

Archive
  • July 2004 – June 2008 – Topics: NPOV (re: MP3 Quality) · Summary and Psychoacoustics · Compression scheme vs. encoding scheme · Piracy · Sampling rate · Legality and Acceptance · Numbers, Parts and Layers · Codecs and Algorithms · MPEG-I/II · Bit-rate · Minor Tidbits to Cleanup · PCM · Licensing and patent issues · BBC links · MP3 in Wikimedia projects · Structure of an MP3 file · Hours of playback per GB · What does the "mp" in "mp3" stand for? · The scope and audience of the article · Name · Magic Number · The intro is a mess

Patents[edit]

Expiration of Patents[edit]

Removed:

However, U.S. patents can only last up to 20 years from the date of filing which must be within one year of first publication. MP3 was released as a specification in 1991, so if U.S. courts applied U.S. law, no patent claims could apply to MP3 itself after 2012.
Any U.S. patent filed after 1992 should (by law) have any claims pertaining to MP3 struck down considering the published specification as prior art. If they had been published earlier (such as in public drafts), the latest date would be even earlier.
Current US patent law has the patents expire at most 20 years after filing. However, at the time that many of the patents were filed, it was 17 years after the patent was granted. In the big list of patents, #5,924,060 was filed August 29, 1987, so it was filed before the published specifications. But it was granted on July 13, 1999, so 17 years after that is July 13, 2016. So, sorry, but under the law that it was granted under, it expires in 2016. Jrincayc 03:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
See [1]. The law changed in 1995, so presumably patent 5,924,060 was under the old law of 17 years from being granted. Jrincayc 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone done a study of when the patents required for playing an mp3 expire? Jrincayc (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but it looks like it might be 2013 is the year that the last patents for playing an MP3 expire. I am assuming that anything filed after 1993 must only be necessary for encoding, since MP3 was a standard by then. All of the other ones that expire after 2013 look like they are about encoding MP3s. Can someone verify this? 75.174.1.63 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
After looking it up myself, here are the facts that I found: The initial near complete MPEG-1 standard (parts 1,2,3) was publicly available in December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. [2][3] The final version of the MPEG-1 specification describes decoding and includes pseudo-code for the decoding. It also has hints as to how to encode MPEG-1 audio, but is not as detailed for that. In the US, patents must be filed within one year of publication or they are invalid. US patents filed before about 1995 last the longer of 17 years from the date that they are granted, or 20 years from the date of filing. The last US MP3 patent to expire that was filed by December 1992 (one year after publication of the draft standard) expires in December 2012. So, it should be theoretically possible to implement MP3 decoders patent free at that time. In otherwords, I think that a statement similar to the one I removed can be readded. If no-one has any objections I will do so after at least a week, or someone else can do so. Jrincayc (talk)
I added it back into the article, with three reference links. Jrincayc (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Either I copied the date down wrong, or it was wrong at the MP3 patent list, but #5,924,060 was filed on August 29, 1997, so it probably can't apply to MP3 decoding, since that was specified in the August 1993 ISO MPEG-1 standard ISO/IEC 11172-3. Jrincayc (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list of when MP3 patents expire. I am not sure how to deal with a reissued patent, but I think it probably expires based on the original patent date. US 5,742,735 is the last one to expire that was filed by August 1994 (one year from the MPEG-1 decoding spec being published, so decoding probably is safe by April, 22 2015. Some of these patents may not be necessary for encoding or decoding MP3. Also, I just did the later of 17 after the granting date, or 20 years after the filing date. Jrincayc (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (Replaced with better table using User:Jrincayc/Patent_utils Jrincayc (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

I have updated the program, to better deal with patent divisions, patent continuations, and PCT filings. It now looks the like the actual date of expiration is probably around 2015. Jrincayc (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that program is limited to the information that it can parse out of the patent text. If it can't find a exact date, it will put 32 as the day of the month. Also, at least some of the patents put the needed information in strange places, so some of the time it will be wrong. Jrincayc (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Patent Filed Granted First File Expiration Summary Notes Company
5341457 20 aug 1993 23 aug 1994 30 dec 1988 23 aug 2011 Perceptual coding of audio signals [4] file+20: [2013, 8, 20] related_patent+20:[2008, 12, 30] grant+17:[2011, 8, 23] Case Text: This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/962,151, filed on Oct. 16, 1992 abandoned which is a cont. of Ser. No. 07/844,967 filed Feb. 28, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/292,598 filed on Dec. 30, 1988, now abandoned, and claims priority thereto. Alcatel-Lucent
RE39080 22 sep 1994 06 may 1997 30 dec 1988 06 may 2014 Rate loop processor for perceptual encoder/decoder Reissue of 05627938 filed 13 aug 2002 granted 25 apr 2006 [5] file+20: [2014, 9, 22] related_patent+20:[2008, 12, 30] grant+17:[2014, 5, 6] Case Text: This .Iadd.is a reissue .Iaddend.application .Iadd.of U.S. Pat. No. 5,627,938 filed Sep. 22, 1994 as application Ser. No. 08/310,898 which .Iaddend.is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/844,811, filed on Mar. 2, 1992, now abandoned.Iadd., which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 07/844,967 filed Feb. 28, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 07/292,598 filed Dec. 30, 1988 now abandoned.Iaddend.. Alcatel-Lucent
4972484 21 jul 1988 20 nov 1990 20 nov 1987 20 nov 2007 Method of transmitting or storing masked sub-band coded audio signals [6] file+20: [2008, 7, 21] pct_file+20:[2007, 11, 20] grant+17:[2007, 11, 20] Audio MPEG, Inc
5214678 31 may 1990 25 may 1993 31 may 1990 31 may 2010 Digital transmission system using subband coding of a digital signal [7] file+20: [2010, 5, 31] grant+17:[2010, 5, 25] Audio MPEG, Inc
5323396 21 dec 1992 21 jun 1994 01 jun 1990 21 jun 2011 Digital transmission system, transmitter and receiver for use in the transmission system [8] file+20: [2012, 12, 21] related_patent+20:[2010, 6, 1] grant+17:[2011, 6, 21] Case Text: This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/532,462 filed Jun. 1, 1990 now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
5539829 07 jun 1995 23 jul 1996 01 jun 1990 23 jul 2013 Subband coded digital transmission system using some composite signals [9] file+20: [2015, 6, 7] related_patent+20:[2010, 6, 1] grant+17:[2013, 7, 23] Case Text: This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/173,850 filed Dec. 27, 1993, which is continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/997,158 filed Dec. 21, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,323,396, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/532,462 filed on Jun. 1, 1990 by Gerardus C. P. Lokhoff for DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER FOR USE IN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND RECORD CARRIER OBTAINED BY MEANS OF THE TRANSMITTER IN THE FORM OF A RECORDING DEVICE, now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
5606618 27 dec 1993 25 feb 1997 01 jun 1990 25 feb 2014 Subband coded digital transmission system using some composite signals [10] file+20: [2013, 12, 27] related_patent+20:[2010, 6, 1] grant+17:[2014, 2, 25] Case Text: This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/997,158 filed Dec. 21, 1992 now U.S Pat. No. 5,32,396, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/532,462 filed on Jun. 1, 1990 by Gerardus C. P. Lokhoff for DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER FOR USE IN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND RECORD CARRIER OBTAINED BY MEANS OF THE TRANSMITTER IN THE FORM OF A RECORDING DEVICE, now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
5530655 06 jun 1995 25 jun 1996 01 jun 1990 25 jun 2013 Digital sub-band transmission system with transmission of an additional signal [11] file+20: [2015, 6, 6] related_patent+20:[2010, 6, 1] grant+17:[2013, 6, 25] Case Text: This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/190,807, filed Feb. 1, 1994, now abandoned, which is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/173,850 filed Dec. 27, 1993, by Gerardus C. P. Lokhoff, Y. F. Dehery, and G. Stoll for SUBBAND CODED DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM USING SOME COMPOSITE SIGNALS, which is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/997,158 filed Dec. 21, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,323,396 issued Jun. 21, 1994, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/532,462, filed on Jun. 1, 1990 by Gerardus C. P. Lokhoff for DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER FOR USE IN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND RECORD CARRIER OBTAINED BY MEANS OF THE TRANSMITTER IN THE FORM OF A RECORDING DEVICE, now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
5777992 07 jun 1995 07 jul 1998 01 jun 1990 07 jul 2015 Decoder for decoding and encoded digital signal and a receiver comprising the decoder [12] file+20: [2015, 6, 7] related_patent+20:[2010, 6, 1] grant+17:[2015, 7, 7] Case Text: This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/173,850 filed Dec. 27, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,606,618, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/997,158 filed Dec. 21, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,323,396, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/532,462 filed on Jun. 1, 1990 by Gerardus C. P. Lokhoff for DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER FOR USE IN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND RECORD CARRIER OBTAINED BY MEANS OF THE TRANSMITTER IN THE FORM OF A RECORDING DEVICE, now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
6289308 08 mar 2000 11 sep 2001 01 jun 1990 01 jun 2010 Encoded wideband digital transmission signal and record carrier recorded with such a signal [13] file+20: [2020, 3, 8] related_patent+20:[2010, 6, 1] term extension 0 days Case Text: This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/488,536 filed Jun. 7, 1995 now abandoned, which is a division of application Ser. No. 08/173,850 filed Dec. 27, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,606,618, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/997,158 filed Dec. 21, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,323,396, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/532,462 filed on Jun. 1, 1990 now abandoned, by Gerardus C. P. Lokhoff for DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER FOR USE IN THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND RECORD CARRIER OBTAINED BY MEANS OF THE TRANSMITTER IN THE FORM OF A RECORDING DEVICE, now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
5481643 24 apr 1995 02 jan 1996 18 mar 1993 18 mar 2013 Transmitter, receiver and record carrier for transmitting/receiving at least a first and a second signal component [14] file+20: [2015, 4, 24] related_patent+20:[2013, 3, 18] grant+17:[2013, 1, 2] Case Text: This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/180,004, filed Jan. 11, 1994 which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/032,915, filed Mar. 18, 1993, both now abandoned. Audio MPEG, Inc
5544247 25 oct 1994 06 aug 1996 25 oct 1994 25 oct 2014 Transmission and reception of a first and a second main signal component [15] file+20: [2014, 10, 25] grant+17:[2013, 8, 6] Audio MPEG, Inc
5610985 21 jan 1994 11 mar 1997 21 jan 1994 11 mar 2014 Digital 3-channel transmission of left and right stereo signals and a center signal [16] file+20: [2014, 1, 21] grant+17:[2014, 3, 11] Audio MPEG, Inc
5740317 30 aug 1995 14 apr 1998 21 jul 1992 14 apr 2015 Process for finding the overall monitoring threshold during a bit-rate-reducing source coding [17] file+20: [2015, 8, 30] related_patent+20:[2013, 9, 17] pct_file+20:[2012, 7, 21] grant+17:[2015, 4, 14] Case Text: This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/119,109, filed Sep. 17, 1993 (now abandoned). Audio MPEG, Inc
5878080 07 feb 1997 02 mar 1999 07 feb 1997 07 feb 2017 N-channel transmission, compatible with 2-channel transmission and 1-channel transmission [18] file+20: [2017, 2, 7] Audio MPEG, Inc
5960037 09 apr 1997 28 sep 1999 09 apr 1997 09 apr 2017 Encoding of a plurality of information signals [19] file+20: [2017, 4, 9] Audio MPEG, Inc
5991715 31 aug 1995 23 nov 1999 31 aug 1995 31 aug 2015 Perceptual audio signal subband coding using value classes for successive scale factor differences [20] file+20: [2015, 8, 31] Case Text: This application is a Continuation of application Ser. No. 08/094,028, filed Jul. 26, 1993 (now abandoned), which is a 371 of PCT/EP91/01211 Jun. 6, 1991. Audio MPEG, Inc
6023490 09 apr 1997 08 feb 2000 09 apr 1997 09 apr 2017 Encoding apparatus for encoding a plurality of information signals [21] file+20: [2017, 4, 9] Audio MPEG, Inc
4821260 16 dec 1987 11 apr 1989 16 dec 1987 16 dec 2007 Transmission system [22] file+20: [2007, 12, 16] grant+17:[2006, 4, 11] Thomson
4942607 03 feb 1988 17 jul 1990 03 feb 1988 03 feb 2008 Method of transmitting an audio signal [23] file+20: [2008, 2, 3] grant+17:[2007, 7, 17] Thomson
5214742 01 oct 1990 25 may 1993 26 jan 1990 25 may 2010 Method for transmitting a signal [24] file+20: [2010, 10, 1] pct_file+20:[2010, 1, 26] grant+17:[2010, 5, 25] Thomson
5227990 17 jan 1992 13 jul 1993 17 jan 1992 17 jan 2012 Process for transmitting and receiving a signal [25] file+20: [2012, 1, 17] grant+17:[2010, 7, 13] Thomson
5384811 24 aug 1992 24 jan 1995 08 oct 1990 24 jan 2012 Method for the transmission of a signal [26] file+20: [2012, 8, 24] pct_file+20:[2010, 10, 8] grant+17:[2012, 1, 24] Thomson
5736943 31 may 1996 07 apr 1998 08 jul 1994 07 apr 2015 Method for determining the type of coding to be selected for coding at least two signals [27] file+20: [2016, 5, 31] pct_file+20:[2014, 7, 8] grant+17:[2015, 4, 7] Thomson
5455833 26 apr 1993 03 oct 1995 25 oct 1990 03 oct 2012 Process for the detecting of errors in the transmission of frequency-coded digital signals [28] file+20: [2013, 4, 26] pct_file+20:[2010, 10, 25] grant+17:[2012, 10, 3] Thomson
5559834 15 apr 1994 24 sep 1996 06 oct 1992 24 sep 2013 Method of reducing crosstalk in processing of acoustic or optical signals [29] file+20: [2014, 4, 15] pct_file+20:[2012, 10, 6] grant+17:[2013, 9, 24] Thomson
5321729 26 apr 1993 14 jun 1994 24 jun 1991 24 jun 2011 Method for transmitting a signal [30] file+20: [2013, 4, 26] related_patent+20:[2011, 6, 24] grant+17:[2011, 6, 14] Case Text: This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/718,402, filed Jun. 24, 1991, now abandoned. Thomson
5706309 02 may 1995 06 jan 1998 02 nov 1993 06 jan 2015 Process for transmitting and/or storing digital signals of multiple channels [31] file+20: [2015, 5, 2] pct_file+20:[2013, 11, 2] grant+17:[2015, 1, 6] Thomson
5701346 12 sep 1996 23 dec 1997 02 feb 1995 02 feb 2015 Method of coding a plurality of audio signals [32] file+20: [2016, 9, 12] pct_file+20:[2015, 2, 2] grant+17:[2014, 12, 23] Thomson
5742735 25 aug 1994 21 apr 1998 20 apr 1989 21 apr 2015 Digital adaptive transformation coding method [33] file+20: [2014, 8, 25] related_patent+20:[2009, 4, 20] grant+17:[2015, 4, 21] Case Text: This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/133,273 filed Oct. 7, 1993 now abandoned which is a continuation of Ser. No. 07/982,063 filed Nov. 25, 1992 now abandoned, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 07/716,769 filed Jun. 19, 1991 now abandoned, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 07/347,806, filed as PCT/DE88/00618, Oct. 6, 1988 published as WO89/03574, Apr. 20, 1989 now abandoned. Thomson
5812672 15 dec 1994 22 sep 1998 13 oct 1992 22 sep 2015 Method for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage of digital signals of several dependent channels [34] file+20: [2014, 12, 15] pct_file+20:[2012, 10, 13] grant+17:[2015, 9, 22] Thomson
5579430 26 jan 1995 26 nov 1996 32 dec 1991 26 nov 2013 Digital encoding process [35] file+20: [2015, 1, 26] related_patent+20:[2011, 12, 32] grant+17:[2013, 11, 26] Case Text: This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/169,768, filed on Dec. 20, 1993, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/768,239, filed as PCT/DE90/00286 on Apr. 12, 1990, which is now abandoned. Thomson
6185539 26 may 1998 06 feb 2001 19 feb 1997 19 feb 2017 Process of low sampling rate digital encoding of audio signals [36] file+20: [2018, 5, 26] pct_file+20:[2017, 2, 19] Thomson
6009399 16 apr 1997 28 dec 1999 16 apr 1997 16 apr 2017 Method and apparatus for encoding digital signals employing bit allocation using combinations of different threshold models to achieve desired bit rates [37] file+20: [2017, 4, 16] Thomson
5924060 20 mar 1997 13 jul 1999 14 jan 1991 14 jan 2011 Digital coding process for transmission or storage of acoustical signals by transforming of scanning values into spectral coefficients [38] file+20: [2017, 3, 20] related_patent+20:[2011, 1, 14] Case Text: This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/650,896, filed on May 17, 1996, (now abandoned) which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/519,620, filed on Sep. 25, 1995, (now abandoned) which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/977,748, filed on Nov. 16, 1992, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/816,528, filed on Dec. 30, 1991, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/640,550, filed on Jan. 14, 1991, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/177,550, filed on Apr. 4, 1991, (now abandoned) as international application serial No. PCT/DE87/00384, filed Aug. 29, 1987, claiming priority to foreign appl. No. P3629434.9, filed Aug. 29, 1986. Thomson
5703999 18 nov 1996 30 dec 1997 32 feb 1995 32 feb 2015 Process for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage of digital signals from several interdependent channels [39] file+20: [2016, 11, 18] related_patent+20:[2015, 2, 32] Case Text: This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/338,618, filed as PCT/DE93/00448 May 18, 1993. Thomson

Patent List[edit]

List of the MP3 Patents for reference. Jrincayc (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Alcatel-Lucent [40]
    • US 5,341,457 -- Perceptual coding of audio signals -- Filed: August 20, 1993 Granted: August 23, 1994 [41]
    • US RE39,080 -- Rate loop processor for perceptual encoder/decoder -- Filed: August 13, 2002 Granted: April 25, 2006 [42] Reissue of 05627938 Filed: Sep., 1994 Granted: May., 1997
  • Audio MPEG, Inc [43]
    • US 4,972,484 -- Method of transmitting or storing masked sub-band coded audio signals -- Filed: July 21, 1988 Granted: November 20, 1990 [44]
    • US 5,214,678 -- Digital transmission system using subband coding of a digital signal -- Filed: May 31, 1990 Granted: May 25, 1993 [45]
    • US 5,323,396 -- Digital transmission system, transmitter and receiver for use in the transmission system -- Filed: December 21, 1992 Granted: June 21, 1994 [46]
    • US 5,539,829 -- Subband coded digital transmission system using some composite signals -- Filed: June 7, 1995 Granted: July 23, 1996 [47]
    • US 5,606,618 -- Subband coded digital transmission system using some composite signals -- Filed: December 27, 1993 Granted: February 25, 1997 [48]
    • US 5,530,655 -- Digital sub-band transmission system with transmission of an additional signal -- Filed: June 6, 1995 Granted: June 25, 1996 [49]
    • US 5,777,992 -- Decoder for decoding and encoded digital signal and a receiver comprising the decoder -- Filed: June 7, 1995 Granted: July 7, 1998 [50]
    • US 6,289,308 -- Encoded wideband digital transmission signal and record carrier recorded with such a signal -- Filed: March 8, 2000 Granted: September 11, 2001 [51]
    • US 5,481,643 -- Transmitter, receiver and record carrier for transmitting/receiving at least a first and a second signal component -- Filed: April 24, 1995 Granted: January 2, 1996 [52]
    • US 5,544,247 -- Transmission and reception of a first and a second main signal component -- Filed: October 25, 1994 Granted: August 6, 1996 [53]
    • US 5,610,985 -- Digital 3-channel transmission of left and right stereo signals and a center signal -- Filed: January 21, 1994 Granted: March 11, 1997 [54]
    • US 5,740,317 -- Process for finding the overall monitoring threshold during a bit-rate-reducing source coding -- Filed: August 30, 1995 Granted: April 14, 1998 [55]
    • US 5,878,080 -- N-channel transmission, compatible with 2-channel transmission and 1-channel transmission -- Filed: February 7, 1997 Granted: March 2, 1999 [56]
    • US 5,960,037 -- Encoding of a plurality of information signals -- Filed: April 9, 1997 Granted: September 28, 1999 [57]
    • US 5,991,715 -- Perceptual audio signal subband coding using value classes for successive scale factor differences -- Filed: August 31, 1995 Granted: November 23, 1999 [58]
    • US 6,023,490 -- Encoding apparatus for encoding a plurality of information signals -- Filed: April 9, 1997 Granted: February 8, 2000 [59]
  • Thomson [60]
    • US 4,821,260 Expired [61]
    • US 4,942,607 Expired [62]
    • US 5,214,742 -- Method for transmitting a signal -- Filed: October 1, 1990 Granted: May 25, 1993 [63]
    • US 5,227,990 -- Process for transmitting and receiving a signal -- Filed: January 17, 1992 Granted: July 13, 1993 [64]
    • US 5,384,811 -- Method for the transmission of a signal -- Filed: August 24, 1992 Granted: January 24, 1995 [65]
    • US 5,736,943 -- Method for determining the type of coding to be selected for coding at least two signals -- Filed: May 31, 1996 Granted: April 7, 1998 [66]
    • US 5,455,833 -- Process for the detecting of errors in the transmission of frequency-coded digital signals -- Filed: April 26, 1993 Granted: October 3, 1995 [67]
    • US 5,559,834 -- Method of reducing crosstalk in processing of acoustic or optical signals -- Filed: April 15, 1994 Granted: September 24, 1996 [68]
    • US 5,321,729 -- Method for transmitting a signal -- Filed: April 26, 1993 Granted: June 14, 1994 [69]
    • US 5,706,309 -- Process for transmitting and/or storing digital signals of multiple channels -- Filed: May 2, 1995 Granted: January 6, 1998 [70]
    • US 5,701,346 -- Method of coding a plurality of audio signals -- Filed: September 12, 1996 Granted: December 23, 1997 [71]
    • US 5,742,735 -- Digital adaptive transformation coding method -- Filed: August 25, 1994 Granted: April 21, 1998 [72]
    • US 5,812,672 -- Method for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage of digital signals of several dependent channels -- Filed: December 15, 1994 Granted: September 22, 1998 [73]
    • US 5,579,430 -- Digital encoding process -- Filed: January 26, 1995 Granted: November 26, 1996 [74]
    • US 6,185,539 -- Process of low sampling rate digital encoding of audio signals -- Filed: May 26, 1998 Granted: February 6, 2001 [75]
    • US 6,009,399 -- Method and apparatus for encoding digital signals employing bit allocation using combinations of different threshold models to achieve desired bit rates -- Filed: April 16, 1997 Granted: December 28, 1999 [76]
    • US 5,924,060 -- Digital coding process for transmission or storage of acoustical signals by transforming of scanning values into spectral coefficients -- Filed: March 20, 1997 Granted: July 13, 1999 [77]
    • US 5,703,999 -- Process for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage of digital signals from several interdependent channels -- Filed: November 18, 1996 Granted: December 30, 1997 [78]
I think that this list would need to be cleaned a bit. Some AT&T/Bell/Lucent/Alcatel patents are likely missing, and some of the listed patents do not cover mp3 (ex: US 6,185,539) --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I would love a comprehensive list of the patents. Jrincayc (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-MP3 history[edit]

Role of AT&T (Bell Labs) in the development of MP3?[edit]

The role of AT&T/Lucent/Bell Labs in the development of MP3 is missing in the article. According to this source (dated 2007-02-16),

AT&T Corp. and Fraunhofer agreed in 1989 to develop MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 technology, now called MP3. Scientists from AT&T's Bell Labs collaborated with Fraunhofer before AT&T spun off the unit in 1996. Bell Labs became Lucent Technologies Inc., which Alcatel SA acquired last year.

Another source (dated 2007-02-23) informs:

What was Alcatel-Lucent's role in developing MP3?
The MP3 technology was developed in large part by people with Germany's Fraunhofer and AT&T's Bell Labs, which became part of Lucent when it was spun off in 1996. Alcatel and Lucent merged last year, becoming Alcatel-Lucent.

-- HYC 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited parts of the article, added references to Bell Labs work, as well as mentioned Thomson-Brandt, who is to be credited with the window-switching understanding, in parts of the article.

I am unfamiliar, to date, with the actual process involved in editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I do not note some particular standard of notation, etc. Woodinville (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some more cleaning up in the history and "suzanne vega" area. Pointed to Fletcher's work that Zwicker built on, removed some personal point of view, and tried to sort out some grammar. Woodinville (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about moving a bit of the history section from this article into the audio compression article [79]? Any suggestion/opposition? --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Not particularly. It would be good if the present article remains balanced, but the section has perhaps grown a bit much. (looks at the article) My goodness, that article needs an exposition on perceptual vs. source coding, as well, doesn't it? Just, if you will, try to keep the coverage here evenhanded, unlike its history up to last week.--Woodinville (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found that we have a page about perceptual audio coding [80]. So my idea would be:

  • have explanations about perceptual vs source coding within the audio compression article [81]
  • Transfer most of the psy-coding history from the mp3 article into the perceptual audio coding article [82], and extend it to cover the early PXFM and OCF, Musicam, PAC/EPAC, AAC and the likes, so we could have a central place to clearly show the timeline and contributions
  • Link the various existing coding schemes articles (mp2, mp3, aac, ac3,...) to the perceptual audio coding article.

This way we could perhaps finally end up with something really informative. (of course, this will probably require some time)--Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Development of MP3; role of OCF and ASPEC[edit]

The statement in paragraph 1 of the Development section: "Modern lossy bit compression technologies, including MPEG, MP3, etc, are based on the early work of Prof Oscar Bonello of the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina." is erroneous. The psychoacoustic masking codec was first proposed by Manfred R. Schroeder et al. in the Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, Vol. 66. pp. 1647-1652, "Optimizing Digital Speech Coding by Exploiting Masking Properties of the Human Ear", in 1979.

Paragraph 4 states "In 1991, there were two proposals available:", but neglects to mention the other proposal, ASPEC.

In general the development of MP3 was via the progression OCF(1988)->ASPEC(1991)->MP3(1994), with a small contribution from Musicam. This progression is distorted or not present at all in the article. The article overemphasizes the contribution of Musicam. MP3 is essentially a transform coder derived from ASPEC and OCF. Musicam was a subband coder. The only contribution of Musicam to MP3 was the division of OCF into two transform-coded subbands.

Without objection I will edit the article accordingly. William spurlin 18:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fraunhofer's contributions[edit]

FHG certainly deserves a lot of credit for popularizing MP3 as well as major technological contribtions, but this article is repeatedly revised to steal professional and technical credit from AT&T Bell Labs (Johnston), Thomson-Brandt (Spille, Schroder), and CNET (Mahieux).

FHG was not the sole inventor, nor does it deserve sole credit. Brandenburg, as already documented, was working at AT&T BELL LABS with/for Johnston at the time of creation of the standard, and was travelling on an AT&T Budget, along with Johnston, who also played a primary part in creation of the algorithm, as documented in the published psychoacoustic models. This is hardly a sole FHG activity. Please in the future, do not steal credit and slight people professionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodinville (talkcontribs) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Bonello[edit]

Bonello contributions factually inaccurate[edit]

I am unaware of any contribution in the electrical engineering, broadcasting or acoustical literature by Oscar Bonello. In particular the claim that "the world's first bit compression system" was developed by Oscar Bonello is absurdly at variance with the actual devlopment of such systems as vocoders and adaptive differential pulse code modulation. Unless the author of the Bonello section can factually document his/her claims, I propose its removal. William spurlin 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reference I can find to this claim on the internet is this link to a company that Bonello apparantly started back in the day. http://www.solidynepro.com/indexahtmlp_Hist-ENG,t.htm 85.24.231.191 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me add here that solidyne.com.ar (Oscar Manuel Bonello and Leonardo Bonello) is also (or mainly) a spammer. See whois and web page of enviodemails.com and alsolnet.com. Those pages offer "email marketing" and target owners of harvested email addresses. You here might want to check your spam folder for Argentinian spam especially advertising streaming audio to get a proof. I suggest to remove all parts of pages in Wikipedia mentioning him and/or his company. Apparently, judging from other comments here, it looks he's a phony anyway. Claiming he invented things discussed above without claiming a patent then. That's ridiculous. Ankman 04:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is painfully inaccurate. I'm sure a good detective could find bit compression dating back to the 1950s, but United States Patent 4117470, filed Oct 8th, 1976 predated Bonello by over a decade. GPS systems could be said to use bit compression and they were designed in the late 1960s. I will remove this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.113.109.220 (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You could also cite Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Multipurpose hardware for digital coding of audio signal,” Proc. NTC77, 1977. which cites work done in 1975 summer and 1976 summer, culimating in flexible hardware doing ADPCM (or APCM) at rates from 2 bits at 8kHz to 12 bits at 37 kHz (the odd number due to the speed of the A to D). The higher rates were certainly music compression, indeed, although of an extremely primitive kind. Woodinville (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see this claim about Bonello is back. Johnston gave a talk in 1988 at the Mohonk Conference, Krasner and Krahe are both earlier than that, and Manfred Schroeder et al comes from publication in 1979. Given that, claiming priority with a 1989 publication (arriving after the JSAC articles nearly everyone on the planet who did this stuff) is simply nonsense. Woodinville (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked OscarJuan for clarifications --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough here. Bonello is cited as 1989 here, but as 1987 on the audio data compression page. Both 1989 and 1987 are completely uncited, and I can't find anyone off-line who knows a single thing about this work. It's time for this to either appear in fully supported, testable, verifiable form, or for it to be regarded as vandalism. What's more, the priority claim back to 1983 is no more supported than the priority claims of anyone else before publication, and the maturity of the algorithms in the JSAC paper makes it clear that lots of people were working on this in 1983. The claims here are inconsistant and completely unsupported. Barring full support, they should go away. Compare this to the AT&T claims, for instance, that are absolutely supported by both patent and publication, ditto for OCF, etc. Woodinville (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest attempt at "Bonello Contributions". Nobody but Oscar Juan seems to knwo about them in a fashion that can be tested and verified. He claims "the first" when an entire book full of fully developed algorithms is published a year before his own claim. This is unuspportable. Woodinville (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Bonello is considered the inventor of bit compression technology ?[edit]

In first place I will analyze the unfortunately comment of Mr Spurling: ''I am unaware of any contribution in the electrical engineering, broadcasting or acoustical literature by Oscar Bonello'' Yes, I know that some persons do not known about Aristotle and his work, maybe never enjoy the Beethoven 9 Symphony or never read to Proust. Probably he do not read in Spanish or German. Probably he do not read ASA or AES Journals, etc. But the very estrange situation is that placing my name at Google he will found valuable information and hundreds of citations. With 25 years of teaching at the University of Buenos Aires (4 Nobel Prize, 180 years activity) I have 150 published papers and are Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society, New York Please see my CV at: http://www.solidynepro.com/documentos/Bonello-English%20CV.doc

Some of the above mentioned authors have a confusion between the concept of theoretical work and the concept of "realization"; give birth to a new technology. By example mathematician Euler in 1750 works creating algorithms for a rocket that fly to space. Fourier and Laplace works with mathematical approaches to this type of problems. A lot of people helps to create the scientific bases of a machine that goes outside the earth gravity... All wonderful, but none of them were able to flight... But a reduced group of American people in 1969 reaches the moon surface... Of course it was the work of a team (Newton and Euler included), but the space era starts in 1969 and not when Euler found his algorithms.

The confusion is between delivering a paper or fill a patent, and on the other hand, create a new technology that works and serves the human been.

Studies about masking of bands started in 1924. Although Dr Helmholtz at his 1885 publication demonstrates to know this ear property (only explained after 1960) Then, the previous work of the foundation of a science is very important... but this do not means that the real thing will start working. (Remember all the airplanes designed by the genius of Leonardo da Vinci; but... Leonardo was not the inventor of the aviation, the Wright Brothers did it.

Bit compression technology is very similar. A lot of people works with this idea (If we include Dr Helmholtz, since 1885). But one thing is to create the theoretical bases and a different thing is to create the final working device; the invention.

Our developing team in Argentina had 3 challenges 1) Develop a bit compression algorithm // 2) Create an audio car that cab perform in real time de coder and decoder of the audio streaming // 3) Develop the automation software that ran at the early IBM PC XT machine in order to produce high quality audio signals Since our university de no have founds to support this project, we use a private support with two conditions: a) To get a bit compression system of FM audio quality running on a PC, with reliable operation and ready for commercialization. b) All the research and developing must be done in secret, no papers, no patents, because the sponsor wishes to be the first one to start this technology

We was carefully to have a perfect documentation to avoid any doubts in the future. First presentation in Argentina at the Secretary of Communication in front of 150 engineers. Presentation at the NAB Radio Show in 1990 (All American radio technician were there ! (Do you need more proof ?) Then, news at newspapers, magazines, Advertising at the AES Journal, Canadian, Spain, France, magazines. Installation in radio stations (KIKO AM in San Francisco, California was the world first in 1990. Installations in Radio France, Radio Finland at Oulu, and lot of radio stations around the world.

All is perfectly documented. Of course I am glad to give more information at oscar@solidyne.com.ar and newspapers copy, advertising, client list, etc and contact IEEE engineers that known in deep this technology. Please note we are NO presenting an idea or algorithm We are NOT presenting audibility curves We are not presenting block diagrams or circuits... We present a real working device, Like the Wright Brothers, Like Graham Bell, Like the Edison lamp... —Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarJuan (talkcontribs) 04:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Bonello considered the inventor of "bit compression technology"? I'm sorry, but isn't this a bit too broad? Anyhow, if you are the recognized inventor of bit compression, then for sure someone else will mention it within the relevant articles, and so there is no need to add yourself this section about you, isn't it? --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Gabiel: I agree with you (sometimes it happens...) that it sounds "oversized" I made several corrections to focus on the real practical invention (the concept of "The first working device" using bit compression) Please read it. I am open to change the text in order to get a description that shows exactly what we have done and at the same time have full agreement with the MP3 society opinions

PS: Is unfair your comment about "someone else will mention it " You know my CV and know several national Prizes we have about it... Of course "invention" is a difficult task (today 150 years later there are a lot of telephone inventors in France, Germany, England, Italy, Russia, etc) (Oscar Bonello, March 16) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarJuan (talkcontribs) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's time that Oscar Juan stops stealing credit from others. Krasner had a working realtime device that was published. Brandenburg had OCF in real-time form, just to mention two examples.

You are welcome to assert that you were one of the contributors. You are not, however, in any fashion, "the first", and your claiming so is unacceptable. Please adjust your claims immediately. You are demonstrably, provably not the first. OCF alone refutes your claim by any evidence available to me.

Furthermore, it is purely disingenious to appear authoritive by citing the standard psychoacoustic works that we all use in our daily work. What's more, it would be good of you to cite the basic work on masking that was demonstrated by Fletcher, et al, although certainly not in the modern understanding, the applicability of equal loudness curves, how they interact with "Weber's Law" and the like. You may well have contributed, but you are NOT the only and sole inventor, sir, and you are stealing credit from a wide variety of other individuals when you claim otherwise. Correct your claims. Woodinville (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Bonello's Audicom/ECMA system is based on psychoacoustic masking, in the same way as MPEG audio, but without MPEG audio being based in any way on ECMA, and also considering that ECMA was not the first psychoacoustic lossy encoding scheme, that means that ECMA may be part of the same familly as MPEG audio, but is clearly not an ancestor. Thus, it should not be claimed to be such an ancestor, but rather should be acknowledge to be the first radio automation device using those techniques.
That means that it should be placed within the "Audio compression (data)" and/or "Broadcast automation" articles, and is irrelevant to the mp3 article. Please note that it is already properly described within those articles, and thus should be removed from the mp3 article. --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Bonello's reply to Mr Woodinville and Mr Bouvigne

a) The works of Kramer, Brandemburg and others are not "practical devices" Only valuable Lab experiences, without further applications in real life and the everyday work. Then we can not consider it "inventions" The same way Leonardo did nice drawings of flying machines, but he is not considered the "inventor" of the airplane. b) We agree to limit claims and to move the long part to Broadcast Automation. Then, we did a short two lines text with very limited claims. I hope you agree with it. c) Gabriel do not like references to the acousticians that develops the principles of the ear masking. Then, who reads the MP3 article believes that all starts with a small group of people involved at the MPG Project. I think that you do not change the History and recognize the early contributors. If you will, please place the names at the beginning of the MP3 article. If not, is not bad that Bonello remembers them. c) As I told you earlier, Gabriel, since "MP3" is not only a technical expression because usually the people associates the name with "sound from a PC" I understand that is correct to have a small mention (now very short) to the first PC working system used now up to this days, Best regards- OscarJuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarJuan (talkcontribs) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

COMMENTS ABOUT Woodinville, Gabriel and OscarJuan discussion

Bonello is rigth when he said that he is the inventor of the first working bit-compression device. I assist at the first Audicom presentation in NAB 1990, Atlanta, USA and at that moment nobody at the world is able to offer somtehing similar About the Woodinville unfortunately comment to profesor Bonello of "disingenious" I feel this is unfair and agressive (please remember,sir, we are not dancers at a cabaret...) I think that is correct to recognize the people who advance the science knolewdge. From what we know, the Bonellos's work was based in Richard Ehmer masking curves, not at the Schroeder analytical approximation used in MP3 (that do not fit exact with the real ear masking curves, as you can easily see comparing both) In my personal opinion the MP3 page gives false information when starts the technology at 1979. Then I undestand that you do not agree that Bonello gives the name of the true precursors. I encourage you correcting the false impression that "all was done by a group of a few good guys starting in 1979..."

Roberto miller (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Roberto Miller Roberto miller (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it is incorrect to argue that Schroeder analytical approximation has anythign to do with masking curves, it is an approximation of the shape of a cochlear filter bank. On this statement alone, we can discount the comments from Miller. Certainly the authors were well aware of this approximation, and well aware at the time that it was not a "masking curve". Second, the dismissal of OCF, etc, by previous comments above is likewise improper, and the nonsense about "only valuable lab experiences" is simply atrocious. Many people other than Bonello had lots of valuable lab experience and lab experience that is the basis from which all of the above work, Bonellos and others, comes about. The entire subject is based on LABRATORY EXPERIENCE. The AT&T contributions, for instance, date back from Fletcher right through the authors of the MP3 standard. Calling those "valuable lab experience not real life" is quite inaccurate. It is completely impossible to know what some others have in the way of "valuable lab experience not real life", therefore making such claims is both offensive and unjustified. Science is testable, verifiable, and repeatable. Lab experience is a way to test, verify and repeat, therefore dismissing it is inappropriate. It is not acceptable to continue to claim priority with untestable claims, and it is likewise inappropriate to dismiss the acknowleged work in the field as "not real life". Finally, I've pointed to Fletcher, a pioneer in auditory research that much of Zwicker's early work was based on, and others have pointed out a variety of other psychoacoustic results, so the claim that they are unacknowleged, along with the profuse name dropping from Oscar Juan, is just absurd. Woodinville (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT LAB EXPERIENCES

Mr Woodinville insist in not understand the difference between a "Lab experience" and a technical invention. Very far of my idea is dismissing a lab experience, as Mr Woodinville believes. I know the importance of Lab experiences because I teached 25 years Theory of Sound and Psychoacoustics at the University of Buenos Aires. My name is associated with the Bonello's Criteria for natural modes in room acoustics (please see BONELLO CRITERIA - Págs. 56 - 58 of the book Handbook for Sound Engineers - Glen Ballou (Howard Sams) - USA or THE BONELLO CRITERIA - Págs. 110-112 of book: Acoustic Techniques - Alton Everest (TAB Books) - USA) This worldwide used acoustic criteria born in "lab experiences" Then please accept that we agree with you that "Science is testable, verifiable, and repeatable. Lab experience is a way to test, verify and repeat..."(sic) But you must understand that the "invention" is a different thing.. By example: a) Leonardo did nice drawings of flying machines, but he is not considered the "inventor" of the airplane; b) Heron (Greek about 250 BC) created a "lab experience" to demonstrate how the steam can move a machine. But the Industrial Revolution needed the Watt invention to have true machines. c) The excellent Helmholtz analysis of the voiced sounds and the excellent lab experiences he creates (On the sensations of Tone) is the basis for telephone communication. But the telephone inventor was Graham Bell... Please note that Leonardo, Heron or Helmholtz are not associated with the "invention" of Airplane, Steam Machine or Telephone. Please note that this is a fact and not a "improper, and the nonsense " as you stated. I hope this comments will help you to understand the difference between a lab experience and a real life invention. I do not (as you suppose) say to one thing is better than the other. My statement is only: there are different things ! About your comment "It is not acceptable to continue to claim priority with untestable claims" I can give you a lot of testable information if you wish (I did it with Gabriel) Please give your mail address. The mine is oscar@solidynepro.com Regards OscarJuan (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)OscarJuanOscarJuan (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bonello, let us meet at NAB and discuss this in person. You are very wrong, and you are completely misrepresenting others' work.

71.231.2.119 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked around the show floor. I can't find Solidyne anywhere, and I still haven't any testable evidence of Mr. Bonello's priority for invention of audio coding, in fact, all of the available literature puts any number of people (Schroder et al, Krahe, Krasner) before him. The obfuscation about "what is invention" here is an argument that simply avoids the actual literature, patents, and other evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodinville (talkcontribs) 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's get this straight. Bonello is not, repeat NOT the inventor of perceptual audio coding. All of the arguments above are simply a kind of offensive hand-waving that steals credit from others.

HOWEVER, you will all please note that I DO give Bonello credit for early broadcast automation. I see no objection to that, and I do see evidence that he was there very, very early in that cycle. Woodinville (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Comments about Oscar Bonello invention of the first working system based on Auditory Masking[edit]

Please note, if you have read this interesant discussion, that a big difference exists between teorethical ideas and its practical realization. You can find at JAES Journal (July-August 1992) an advertising about the world first bit compression device ready for use at radio stations. It includes the world first PC Audio card that uses the Auditory masking principle. This is the same principle uses by MPGEG, Atrac, MP3, etc At this moment the work of Bonello as a pioneer in this field is well know. For his work in this field the Audio Engineering Society, New York, gave him in 2007 the Fellowship Award. A prize that very few researchers have User: Albert-Kraft

I have reverted the recent re-addition of mention of Bonello's work. Again, it's not relevant, given that the preceding paragraph in the article already mentions hardware implementations in 1988.
And to equate Bonello's contribution to that of Bell to the telephone ([83]) is totally ludicrous! Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 13:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Improving MP3 History[edit]

I add several contributions at MP3 History in order to understand better the applications of Auditory Masking and previous works. ---ErnestoVicente (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As this has already been discussed in great detail above, and as you are clearly another sockpuppet/meatpuppet of RobertTanzi etc., I have reverted this on sight. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back too far[edit]

I think part of the reason we're getting so tied up with Bonello is because the Development section currently contains too much of MP3's prehistory. Do we really need to be heading down the road of mentioning every development in acoustic research and bit-compression technology that predates the formation of the MPEG working group? Plus, despite its plausibility, it seems like speculation to be implying a connection between MP3 and Schroeder, Krasner, et al. On top of that it seems inappropriate to be covering material that should already be covered in the history sections of articles on Musicam, MP2, and auditory masking. To go into any detail about those things here is just inviting more people to come along and add more peripheral details about MP3's cousins. I propose moving what content we can to other articles, and limiting the history of MP3 to just the history of MP3, referring the reader elsewhere for the history of MP3's antecedents. I will attempt to take this on myself in the near future, if no one else wants to do it. —mjb (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Trimming is okay, and could fix the problem, but I like the idea of flashing back through the important players' previous activities to show how they got where they got. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that moving most of the history of predecessors into a dedicated article about history of audio coding would be a good idea. --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I am recommending the the article MP3 CD be merged into this article. The referenced article is really nothing more than a stub with filler, and doesn't seem to merit its own entry. Vulture19 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also be condensed: "you can also burn mp3's to cd's/dvd's to play in 'compatible' devices." should about cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.131.205 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


No It should stay seperate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.223.140 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should be separate, with a section added about players. Madlobster (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be scrapped entirely. There is nothing notable about so-called “MP3 CDs” other than that some CD players support MP3 files. All an “MP3 CD” is is a data CD on which the data of interest is in MP3 format. Giving “MP3 CD” its own article, in my opinion, is akin to giving “game CD” its own article distinct from PC game or CD-ROM. — NRen2k5(TALK), 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge or delete. The article is poorly sourced, and really doesn't offer any information. I would just merge a little bit of info about what an MP3 CD is, and leave it at that. 70.153.121.225 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An Article About «MP3HD» Needs To Be Written[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. [84][85] 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ?[edit]

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: [86]

--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![edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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:CiteJimsMaher (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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?[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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?[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)

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)