MP3 Fun

[drogulus]

     At least I hope so. I took a short piece of music from a lossless format and made an mp3. Hear it is. 

     Please give me your impressions.

     Maybe the title is throwing everyone off by referring to "fun". I should have said something like "Can you play this mp3?" and made it more of a challenge.

[drogulus]

     Don't get me upset!

     There are 158 replies to MN Dave's Shed of Horror! and I can't get one measly response??

     I swear on someone else's childrens heads that I will never do anything this altruistic again....from now on I refuse to waste precious time creating mp3s that no one but me can play merely to entertain and instruct such unworthy persons as yourselves!

     
'
     

[Elgarian]

I had one or two tries, but didn't seem to have anything on board that would play it without an error message, so limped away, discouraged. However, I just discovered I could play it by opening it with Audacity. I claim my Boy Scout Persistence Badge.

What next?

[drogulus]

 

      Super! Now...why didn't it play? There's this real interesting reason......maybe.

      Hint: examine the file. _{(why wouldn't it play?)}

       

[Opus106]

Is it formatted in such a way that only a couple of players can play it?

[MN Dave]

There are 158 replies to MN Dave's Shed of Horror! and I can't get one measly response??

[drogulus]

Is it formatted in such a way that only a couple of players can play it?

      It's a free format mp3. It's part of the mp3 spec that CBR encoding can go up to 640kbps, but the minimum required standard for all hardware and software is 320kbps.

      The latest version of dBPowerAmp has a new mp3 encoder option which includes free format encoding.

     

     From the Wikipedia mp3 article:

     Non-standard bit rates up to 640 kbit/s can be achieved with the LAME encoder and the freeformat option, although few MP3 players can play those files. According to the ISO standard, decoders are only required to be able to decode streams up to 320 kbit/s.

      As far as I can tell free format has no practical application, even if you could play them on any device they wouldn't give you any real benefit. All it does is produce much bigger files.

     If you want to play these files just for fun you can use Winamp with the in_mad plugin instead of the default mp3 plugin.

[Elgarian]

Hint: examine the file. _{(why wouldn't it play?)}

It was upset with me for some reason? I did borrow its copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and never returned it. That might be the reason.

But judging from the error message I get when I try to convert it using dBpowerAMP, I think it might have been compressed with an unusual codec.

EDIT: I was making my investigations while holding this reply box open, so I didn't see your new post until after I eventually posted. Not that it would have made any difference - I'm not sure if my answer is the same as yours!

[drogulus]

      No, your explanation is better. What was I thinking?

      The latest version of dBPowerAmp should have the free format option.

[Elgarian]

? ? ? Baffled - what's the significance of 'physicsforums.com?'.

[drogulus]

     

      It's just a physics smiley. It don't mean nothin'.

[Lethevich]

It's a no-hotlink message.

[drogulus]

It's a no-hotlink message.

      He's getting a no hotlink while I'm getting the smiley? So, should I upload it to ImageShack??  _{(yes, I'll do that if I have to )}

      I can't figure it out....how do they know he likes Elgar?

[Opus106]

      It's a free format mp3. It's part of the mp3 spec that CBR encoding can go up to 640kbps, but the minimum required standard for all hardware and software is 320kbps.

I figured out that much googling the error message. 0:)

And yes, I too see a PF banner in the place of emoticons.


P.S.: Are you a member there?

[Lethevich]

He's getting a no hotlink while I'm getting the smiley?

Indeedie. It's worth using imageshack for everything, as due to the browser cache of the poster it's impossible to tell which image will hotlink and which will not.

[drogulus]

I figured out that much googling the error message. 0:)

And yes, I too see a PF banner in the place of emoticons.


P.S.: Are you a member there?

      Yes, but you didn't say you figured it out in time so you don't get the nonexistent prize. _{(harsh but fair)}

      I had no idea there was such a thing as free format until I updated my dBPowerAmp.

      I'm a member of a set that doesn't contain me as a member. Or I'm not a member of a set that does, I forget which.*

      I found the site on a smiley hunt. I don't know anything about physics, so I only occasionally visit physics or other science fora to test my ability to extract useful info out of stuff that's over my head. Something something about reach exceeding grasp.

     

Indeedie. It's worth using imageshack for everything, as due to the browser cache of the poster it's impossible to tell which image will hotlink and which will not.

    Yeah, but it just makes the hunt for the perfect Objective Smiley more labor intensive. One begins to question whether it's really worth the effort.

     _{* I left out "of all sets"} 

[drogulus]

      Physics smiley is now operational.

      Can anyone think of a reason for using a CBR rate above 320? The only thing I can think of is future development of high rez (bit rate/sample depth) as well as improved handling of high frequencies that are ordinarily cut off even at 320 kbps.

[Lethevich]

Can anyone think of a reason for using a CBR rate above 320?

No - it risks leading to psychosis to contemplate what motivations may be required for an mp3 above 320 bitrate Solo instrumental lossless in particular is almost the size of 320 bitrate anyway, so anything going above that provides little filesize incentive, but zero quality incentive as the difference people will hear is so minute versus, say, 192 to 256 and 256 to 320, but at the same time it's still an inferior copy of the original.

Technically there are a few very specific electronic frequencies that even a 320 mp3 cannot represent properly, but this should surely be a wake up call for the encoder to make the sensible step to lossless rather than finding ways to maul the sound quality slightly less than they currently are

[Elgarian]

I can't figure it out....how do they know he likes Elgar?

I'd have hoped that my plus points as a physicist would have discounted the minus points as an Elgar fan - but clearly not.

[drogulus]

No - it risks leading to psychosis to contemplate what motivations may be required for an mp3 above 320 bitrate Solo instrumental lossless in particular is almost the size of 320 bitrate anyway, so anything going above that provides little filesize incentive, but zero quality incentive as the difference people will hear is so minute versus, say, 192 to 256 and 256 to 320, but at the same time it's still an inferior copy of the original.

Technically there are a few very specific electronic frequencies that even a 320 mp3 cannot represent properly, but this should surely be a wake up call for the encoder to make the sensible step to lossless rather than finding ways to maul the sound quality slightly less than they currently are

     When the standard was set the encoding was far worse than it is today. I don't think we'd want to listen to a 10 year old mp3 at 128 kbps. Perhaps they thought they'd go up to 400-500, or perhaps they were planning on some kind of super VBR. Now that might make sense, using the extra bits to cover the full frequency spectrum. File size would be about half of lossless but it would peak at 500 or so onstead of 320. Adding to the CBR rate seems like a waste of bits.

I'd have hoped that my plus points as a physicist would have discounted the minus points as an Elgar fan - but clearly not.

     One day someone will explain to me why I like all the composers that are treated with condescension here. I like Elgar, Rachmaninov, Delius and even Respighi!