Talk:Audio file format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Content confusion[edit]

There appears to be some confusion as to the content of this page, the opening sentence (correctly, imo) describes an audio file format as a container format for audio data while most of the article discusses audio formats, i.e. compressed vs uncompressed data which is not necessarily related to the audio file format. Any comments on this? -- 19:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Content confusion comment[edit]

I agree with the comment about the confusion between file formats and audio encodings. Also, the article implies that Microsoft's WAV format always carries uncompressed PCM audio. In fact it can carry many encoding types. See for instance, and Gobbag 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Gee, the article is "(Redirected from ACT (audio format)) with of course no mention of that format. Jidanni (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I suggest the removal of two of the three existing external links: "libsndfile" and "[1]". The former seems to be an advertisement and the latter is off-topic (contrary to the label). Can anyone give me a good reason why either of these should stay? Uriah923 19:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference[edit]

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Linked from[edit]

Just a note to the editors currently working on this article, it has been mentioned in an article from Wired News. [1] --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The multiple channel section in misinformative. To my knowledge, multiple channels are still created by two channels. The section suggests a 5.1 system. On the market today there are two ways to get 5.1 audio. DTS and Dolby, only the latter one is talked about.

What does this sentence mean?[edit]

Despite its name, there are many file formats for storing audio files.

How does its name discourge one from believing that there are multiple means of storage???

Probably because the title of the article is: Audio File Format, which is singular...not Audio File Formats

What about .m4a and .aac?[edit]

These two formats should probably be included, yes? Markhurst 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And OGG? Oddity- 14:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No Speaker needed[edit]

I suggest dropping the reference in the intro to the "sampling of the votage corresponding to the speaker membrance position"

Where a speaker membrane is has nothing to do with sampling nor coding. A file never has to even "see" a speker to be created.

The reference just serves to confuse.RSFRASER 18:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what the heck do the samples stand for then? That question is exactly what brought me here, and I cannot find the answer. Is the instantaneous sound-pressure-level emitted by a sound-reproduction system supposed to be proportional to the value of the sample? If no, then what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing negative[edit]

This article starts with the sentence, "The general approach towards storing digital audio formats is not to sample the audio..." The word "not" in here appears to be an error, but I will let someone more qualified make this decision.

Ed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The "not" was added by an anonymous user, and was incorrect. I have undone that edit. The Wilschon 00:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More Formats[edit]

Can anybody add some more audio formats like .aa from audible?

FLAC vs PCM (or whatever Red Book audio is called)[edit]

I've read somewhere (but now of course, cannot find a solid reference to), that Red Book Audio actually stores two bits on physical media for every bit that is necessary to play. This helps in scrathes on the physical media (and is used to advantage in some DRM schemes). Basically CD players take the average of both of the bit values - or if one is unreadable, they use the other one. With that information you get a bit-stream avaiable to play on a speaker.

Now, I've heard that there's a audio file format (I believe it is FLAC - but I could be wrong), that says: Hey, we're storing shit digitally (and copying it), so we'll never have physical read errors - and storing two bits for every bit that we need to play is a serious waste of space. Let's just strip out half of that file and save one bit for each bit needed to play, and we'll work out other ways to backup our shit. So this file format basically reads like a CD player, averages, and outputs a single bit stream, which cuts the space needed in half, while giving you a true, lossless copy of the digital information on a CD.

But I'm not familiar enough with it, and can't (easily) find any sources to confirm this, and I'm not sure which file format it is.

What is the name of this file format. And for good measure, what's the name of the file format used on physical CDs? Besides Red Book Audio.

~ender 2007-11-30 23:13:PM MST


How about some info on converting between formats Hrolls (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

which is better[edit]

which format of audio file is better?for clear and dynamic sound —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MOD files[edit]

Since we talk about MIDI files, couldn't we talk about module files too ?

Spidermario (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is fundamentally broken[edit]

The article attempts to discuss container formats then mixes containers vs codecs, and is wrong on several accounts of both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Some omissions and suggested inclusions[edit]

I came to this page hoping for info on the sample rates and bit depths supported by Apple Lossless format; this seems like info that would be relevant for all the formats being discussed here. BTW, I know Apple lossless supports 24-bit but I'm seeing much misinformation elsewhere that it's limited to 16-bit. Haven't found an official Apple spec sheet after a brief effort.

Would a chart of origin/common applications/specs be a good way to organize and meaningfully compare audio formats in this article? Beyond my newbie abilities, FWIW.

Re: the assertion above that DTS and Dolby Digital are the only 5.1 audio formats- here are some other examples, all of which might belong in this article--

DSD- native format of SACD audio, both stereo and surround, it's fundamentally different from PCM formats, using a single-bit super-high sample rate approach. MLP- 'Meridian Lossless Packing', the compressed format used for DVD-audio hi-res stereo and surround, necessary to keep the data rate within DVD medium's capabilities.

Then there are the lossless Blue-Ray DVD audio formats that DTS and Dolby came up with. Some info on their specs and parameters would seem appropriate here, unless DVD-only audio formats are discussed elsewhere, in which case a link to that article belongs here.

Warrenog (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

CDA is not an audio file format[edit]

CDA is only a "shortcut" to an audio track created by Windows. It doesn't contain any sound, has fixed size, so it cannot be an audio file format! Jancikotuc (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

wav free and open?[edit]

Is was free AND open file format? Is there any source for that information. I could not find one. --Jakubt (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Apple Lossless not in list[edit]

Apple Lossless is missing from the lists at the end of the articles. Should Apple Lossless be listed as free and open (like AIFF), open, proprietary? There are no references given to support any of these distinctions and some appear dubious: e.g., although there was an unofficial "MPEG 2.5" that was proprietary, MP3 is an ISO standard and there is nothing proprietary about it. AAC is also an ISO standard and is not proprietary. The wiki article on DCT says it is proprietary but it isn't listed as such. This division into open and proprietary categories is a mess. Ross Fraser (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly combined all into one list. I've also added more prominent links to existing and better lists. Given the existence of those, I'm not convince we even need a list here. Feel free to add Apple lossless onto the list though. --Kvng (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've alphabetized the resulting list. I think it is still useful to draw a distinction between codecs and file formats so would suggest that the list is still useful. I've added ALAC.

Ross Fraser (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Acoustic waves - Is "Lossless" a misnomer?[edit]

I would like a section discussing the fundamental transform from analog to digital, or a link to the article which discusses that best. I will research elsewhere, but the article could use some brief fundamentals and such a link if it exists. The topic is more linkworthy here than in many other articles. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a link to digital audio in the lead. Another candidate is Sampling (signal processing). -—Kvng 14:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sound Sample Formats are missing[edit]

see topic -- Cachsten (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audio file format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)