"MP3 death watch" article on CNN.com 260
haaz writes "CNN.com has a
heavily anti-MP3 editorial called
MP3 Death Watch.
Death watch, huh? What is it with the media? Do they
need something to be on a death watch now that
Apple's back on its feet? "
Muddled logic (Score:1)
What the writer of this article doesn't seem to understand is that MP3 popularity has nothing to do with industry or corporation or products. It doesn't even _really_ have that much to do with technology. It has to do with a fundamental change in the music industry and who controls it.
MP3 shows that CD-quality audio no longer requires us to go down to the store and pay $2 for each song we buy. MP3 means that there is now an audio format that can duplicate the security of the CD without a signifigant loss in quality. It means there is a new standard to audio that no longer requires a major industry to live. It shows that the Internet is revolutionizing things that are indirectly related to it.
And, its going to get better. Maybe two years from now we'll be using a different format. But it will still do the same thing. Maybe they'll name it, "MP5.com", but it will serve the same function.
The other point that is missed is the nature of 'MP3'. You can't kill MP3. You can't sue it, bury it, hide it, or ban it. MP3 servers pop up faster then they can be shut down. It was already underground, and that's the only real effect you can achieve, whether its drugs, booze, porn, or music.
After I flame away... (Score:1)
Can't argue with that! 32M is nowhere near enough; I want 512M. Hopefully, in a few years 2nd and 3rd generation players will sport larger flash memories.
2) "Near CD-Quality" isn't good enough
Depends on where you're listening. Do you really
think you can hear anything over 16Khz above
the road noise in your car while cruising down
the freeway at 70? I sure can't. Yes, if I was
going to sit in a quiet room and concentrate on
music played through studio monitor headphones,
MP3 would be annoying. For what I use it for
(jogging or working in the yard) it's fine.
3) Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth - need more
Yes, but it will remain true that you get what you pay for. I also think optical recording technology is improving at a faster rate than internet connections are -- meaning that for the forseeable future, a box full of CDs/DVDs/whatever will have a heckofa lot more bandwidth any internet connection you or I can afford (ok, it's got lousy round trip time and packet drop is really expensive -- you still can't beat the bandwidth!)
1) He complains about the poor quality, then complains the file size is too large.
Again, you get what you pay for.
2) Tries to separate a file format from an application.
No, what he was saying is that from the viewpoint of the average Micro$oft customer, the underlying file format is transparent; all M$ software is judged by the quality of the GUI, not by the quality of the brain-dead back end code. To a certain extent this is true of compressed audio, but ultimately how many songs it can shoehorn into a given amount of memory IS visible to the customer.
Another point about sound quality: the Victorola phonograph beat out the Edison phonograph DESPITE being later to market, having worse sound quality, and an incompatible recording format. Why? Because it was more convenient for the customer to use. Moral is, the average stereo consumer either can't hear or doesn't care the difference between a CD and an MP3.
CNN is owned by... Time-Warner (Score:1)
will RIAA try to ban wav files in 5 years too? (Score:1)
The fact that computer CD-R and CDROM drives are compatible with CD audio players was terrific, but I fear it's a bonus we'll never get again if entities like the RIAA get their way. This is the battle I'd through my support behind.
MP3 quality is horrible - He speaks the truth! (Score:1)
You may find it interesting to know that I didn't always think this. The first time I listened to a track in MP3 format I was quite impressed with the sound. So impressed, in fact, that I spent hours downloading MP3's from various sites and also encoding my own from CDs just because it was so convenient to have a bunch of pre picked tunes on a hard drive ready to play.
But alas, after quite a bit of listening, on various types of tunes, I started to hear things. Sort of like shimmering metallic tones mixed in sorta just under the music. It seems like I heard these first while passively listening - like I was working away at something, and had some MP3 track playing and at first it seemed like maybe the sound wasn't in the music, but was coming from behind me - something else going on in the room. Also, at least at first, it seemed to be confined to just a few MP3 files - but once I learned to lock on to those artifacts, I started to hear it on more and more tracks. It got to the point where I just didn't want to listen to the MP3 files anymore.
So now I got curious - could I decode the MP3's back to PCM format and tinker about in an wave editor - maybe isolate these artifacts somehow? What about if I were to encode at different bitrates - would the artifacts go away at higher bitrates? So I sprung for a copy of the FhG "pro" MP3 encoder so that I could try out higher bitrates. What I found, was that these artifacts were just as audible at 160k as at 128k. However, at 192k and 256k I couldn't hear them anymore. I did some reading about the MP3 encoding process and learned that at 192k and higher, the left and right channels are encoded completely separate from one and other. However, at 160k and lower, a stereo matrix is used in the encoding process. That is to say, rather than encode left and right, what is encoded is sum (left+right) and difference (left-right) Most recordings contain a lot of redundant information between the left and right channel - to exploit this, the encoder allocates more bits to the sum channel, and fewer to the difference channel. In the decoding process, stereo is recovered with the simple formula left = sum + difference, right = sum - difference.
Armed with that knowledge, I started fooling about in a wave editor. Interestingly enough, I found that the artifacts live in the difference channel! If, in the editor, you subtract the left and right channels to get a single mono waveform, the artifacts become extremely pronounced. On the other hand, if you add the two channels to get a mono file, they don't seem to be audible. However, the fact that they exist at all means that when the MP3 is decoded, and the left and right are recovered from the sum/difference, the artifacts get introduced into both channels but at a slightly lower amplitude than if you listen to the difference channel on its own.
Note: this is not something that a particular MP3 decoder is going to fix. I have tried multiple decoders - free, shareware, commercial, DSP based - same artifacts on all of 'em. Further, I tried various encoders - the FhG encoder seems to be the best if you put it into its ultra high quality (and ultra slow) encoding mode - but even that doesn't eliminate these artifacts.
Here's something more to think about - these artifacts are just what I personally hear. Other people hear different artifacts in the same MP3 streams. My brother complains that the cymbals and other high frequencies sound "swoshy." A friend of mine tells me that to him, it is like the sound of running water is mixed in with the music and sometimes sounds seem to warble quickly back and forth between the left and right channels. Of course, I hear these weird metallic ringing. Other people probably hear some combination of these and maybe even other artifacts.
So what's my opinion of MP3 after going through all this? Well, I did encode a bunch of MP3 files (a couple CD-R's worth) at 256kbit. The stuff I really liked, I bought on CD. That's one thing about MP3 that is rather cool - you can listen to a track for free a few times in relatively good quality and decide if you might want to purchase the actual track. But, even encoded at 256k (which got rid of the artifacts for me) I still have to wonder if there is something missing or wrong about the sound. I haven't done enough comparison of higher bitrate MP3 with the CD original to comfortably make a judgement. And I also have a feeling that at the higher bitrates, you probably would need reasonably good equipment to hear a difference - if a difference can be heard at all. But, for the majority of stuff floating around out there on the net (128k) - I just can't tolerate the artifacts now that I hear them.
Well - my $0.02 anyway.
Flaw in your analysis... (Score:1)
This is why the RIAA worrying about flash memory as a method of distributing bootleg recordings is rediculous -- even MP3 encoded, it's still an ten times more expensive than the original CD!!!
Sorry, but if I want to make illegal copies of a cd, I'll use my $250 CD writer...
will RIAA try to ban wav files in 5 years too? (Score:1)
File Formats and their relation to Applications (Score:1)
I think HTML is one hell of a counter-example to this argument. Common file formats like HTML and MP3 afford more and more sophisticated programs. ZIP also seems like a decent example. I'm pretty convinced that MP3 is doing for audio what HTML did for text + graphics. The power of Decentralized Distribtuion should not be glossed over lightly.
Sounds we can't hear? Very dependent on the person (Score:1)
Lots of people. (Score:1)
Lots of people I don't know use QuickTime, that's for sure. And if most of them eventually have to get a new version to see some "movie" clip somewhere and thus also gain the ability to play .MP3 files, that can't be bad for the popularity of the format.
Besides, I need it to watch the exploding whale.
Mp3s and Quicktime 4.0 (Score:1)
I see mp3s becoming much more pervasive then they are even now before they start to wane to other, better formats. Even quicktime is going to support it!
This link [appleinsider.com] leads to an AppleInsider article with some pics of a late beta of QuickTime 4.0. Besides just looking really cool, the player is going to play mp3s. This is significant since quicktime ships with all macs (and is easily available for win32)!
Oh and for anyone interested, quicktime IS mpeg4... So look for Good Stuff down the road...
Digital television quality is horrible (Score:1)
Most of the German free TV programmes (on Astra) are encoded at ~3.5 Mbps. The quality is terrible; you get artefacts all over the place. I'd prefer the PAL signal (from a 120cm dish) anytime.
Well.. (Score:1)
"dead as push technology"? (Score:1)
But two years from now, MP3 will be as dead as push technology is today.
Excuse me? What is used in my webcam [denver.co.us] then? "Server push" was used as "umbrella" name for a lot of different, unrelated and often poorly thought out technologies, but the original Netscape server push exists.
Digital vs. analog: a tradeoff (Score:1)
The same applies to digital satellites and other streaming audio/video applications, except there the question isn't storage but bandwidth. The fatter the pipe, the better the quality you can get.
But the artifacts will always *be* there; the question is how noticeable they are and how much you want to "pay" (not so much in money as in space and/or bandwidth) to reduce them below some threshold. (Zero being unattainable in the digital realm, as that means a zero quantum == pure analog.)
So why digital, if it can never be as good as analog? Because in many cases you can get "good enough" with usable storage/bandwidth, and because digital formats can be compressed (the same quantization that produces artifacts also makes the signal more compressible) you can fit more digital audio/video in a specified bandwidth than you can analog.
And yes, there are pathological cases. Sometimes you can juggle the digitization constraints to make up for them, other times you're stuck because they just don't quantize nicely for any real-world quantum size.
Welcome to the real world, folks. If you don't like it, you can try whining to $DEITY about it; but neither Sony nor Fraunhofer nor the marching morons can give you truly analog-quality digital audio/video. Live with the tradeoff or stick to analog --- there aren't any other choices.
Analogue CDs? The time has passed. (Score:1)
Well, yes, but how much larger will said digital signal be than the original analog signal? At what point does (say) an optical-analog record player using a laser "needle" to track the grooves (this ought to be doable with current technology) end up being cheaper than a digital audio "superdisk" of some kind which requires gigabytes of storage to produce sufficiently "near-analog" quality?
Optical analog == Laser and Film (Score:1)
The real limiting factor in analog comes from the fact that ultimately, analog is really digital with a really small quantum: individual molecules of the recording medium, pickup, and speakers, and individual electrons in the amplifiers. But there are no production mass-market analog systems whose noise floor is enforced by Heisenberg
Optical analog == Laser and Film (Score:1)
In re: digital error checking: quantization removes redundancy, and redundancy is key to error correction. Again, there's a *lot* more redundancy in an analog signal. (Compression removes redundancy as well --- that is exactly how it works --- so e.g. time-compressed analog would also have more drop-outs.)
MP3 "death" -- lack of consumer electronics (Score:1)
IS that what he said? author needs translator (Score:1)
If slashdot monkeys had more functioning neurons, it wouldn't require a million of them to see past their knee-jerk reactions.
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Huh? The media doesn't care about that, they care about anything that gets people upset/angry and thereby gets people to pay more attention to them --- if they can cause a riot, they've succeeded.
Judging by the size and content of this
Mp3's arn't going any* (Score:1)
Why would anyone spend the time and money to create a "better" Unix (Linux, *BSD)?
What happened to mp4?? (Score:1)
Reality check (Score:1)
But we're to believe that they are already *the* future? Uh huh. While they're busy duking it out to determine whose proprietary pay-per-play format "will" take over, MP3 will swallow their target market. If it hasn't already....
With every new "MP3 killer" format announced, the chances of any of them pushing MP3 out of the market drop. They just don't get it.
Suing Xerox for making piracy devices. (Score:1)
Makes about as much sense to me as suing Rio because their device "might" be used for pirating music. Also better sue VCR makers, CDR makers, hard drive makers, Iomega (zip disks), makers of tape decks, pens, pencils, crayons, silly putty, and yes, film makers such as Kodak (heaven knows how many pictures were taken of copyrighted material over the last 150 years).
what a tired argument (Score:1)
How small the author of this drivel sounds. mp3.com's IPO means nothing to many mp3 users. As long as there is a published spec, encoders and decoders, people will use them. mp3s were widely used way before anyone tried to promote them.
Try $4.00 for a 74-minute disc... (Score:1)
The disc prices are MUCH lower now. The last packs I bought from Circuit City were 74 minute Maxells at $10.00 for 5 disc packs! This is unusually low, but $3-5 discs are not uncommon. I've been extremely happy with all of my MiniDisc equipment, but I don't think it will ever take over the mainstream. Something like a recordable Rio with a lot more storage just might, though...
Read, think, post -- in that order only, please (Score:1)
VCRs, email and Standards (Score:1)
"Close Enough is Often Good Enough"
aka
"The Best Technology Doesn't Always Win"
I thought the VCR examples would have jolted his memory about good old VHS vs Beta story. Simply put, the technology with the best playback quality doesn't always win when there are other issues like play length for example. (You can fit a lot more music using MP3 on a CD than normal audio CD.)
Email. The writer missed the most important point here that it's not format that counts (true, he got that right), but the fact that *everyone* uses it, and that everyone exchanges information using it. If the writer thinks that the format for email is not important then he should try to use an alternate format for email for a while. (Hint: Only being able to send email to yourself gets very boring very quickly). MP3 looks set to provide a standard that everyone can agree to use.
I don't know... (Score:1)
Believe me, I've tried, and moving stuff from vinyl to CD isn't an easy task, it's a pain in the ass and there's no way I'm converting all 4000 LPs.
MP3 could easily be replaced by an improved format because digital-to-digital conversion is easy enough to be painless.
A Thought on Better Formats (Score:1)
Yes, they're also on CD, but he doesn't own the CDs. The LPs, however, are in his stereo cabinet.
A big chunk of the music I want to hear is on 200 some-odd CDs in my CD rack, ensuring that I'll continue to listen to CDs.
Damned near every sound recording exant on Earth is on the net in MP3 form, insuring that people will continue to listen to MP3s.
Bring us a better format; by all means give it sweeter compression algorithms and sample rates that require scientific notation, then fail to be surprised when we don't abandon our MP3 decoders.
Don Negro
MP3 is dying.. (Score:1)
I'm being cynical, but it seems to me that tapes died only after CD's weren't made copyable. They were much worse in quality, but the freedom of sharing with them (copying etc...) was worth the price of poorer quality.
MP3 is out there, and growing. They can't take it back or supplant it with something better that isn't so free. Maybe this is like the articles more than a year back that said Linux was a fad just reaching its peak?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
...but power output is too low (Score:1)
Yet more proof (Score:1)
Lies, damn lies, and FUD. (Score:1)
>There is a small possibility that the RIAA will succeed in its attempt to ban MP3
>players, evidenced by its lawsuit against Diamond Multimedia, which makes the Rio player.
Um, didn't the RIAA LOSE this lawsuit?
Not entirely true (Score:1)
Your post comes across with the idea that analog recording and/or reproduction is perfect and this is definitely not true. If you really want to hear a guitar, you have to put your ear in audio range of the sound that comes from the string and body of the instrument. If you include a microphone or anything else in the signal path between the instrument and your ear, you are going to get artifacts.
The fact is, both analog and digital methods can be applied in such a fashion so as to reduce the artifacts to a level that is below human perception. Obviously perception and sensitivity to _any_ distortion varies from human to human, but there is a bottom line below which nothing will be perceived by anybody, *philes included.
The reason that digital is so popular today is simply that it is less expensive to apply digital methods of reproduction in order to achieve a given level of quality.
Before you flame away... (Score:1)
1) The Rio doesn't have enough storage
The Rio is not MP3. Empeg looks promising but still too expensive probably (I haven't checked because it doesn't interest me). For all we know there could be a portable player coming out tomorrow that will be a good MP3 player. The only two places I listen to pre-recorded music are at home and in the car (and I drive very seldomly), and there must be some other people like me. Portable players would be nice but not crucial to the MP3 format.
Disclaimer: if you have a problem with me forcing my opinions on you RMS-style, skip this section
2) "Near CD-Quality" isn't good enough
Yes it is. I don't know this fucking lame euro-american society came up with the idea that if the quality of something sucks, it must be no good. I'm sorry, but all the true-colour 3D shooters, Myst and rip-offs, driving simulators, and all 5000 games that fit into all of about 3 genres aren't half as good as Pac-Man. The same holds for movies and of course music. Music technology is not something worth complaining about, especially considering how well we have it. Am I saying that we should just give up and stop trying to improve audio quality? Ya, more or less.
3) Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth - need more of it
This will only become an issue when there's something to replace it. What are our options? Real audio? PCM? MP3 is looking pretty good. People need to share music, and MP3 is arguably the best we have at the moment. It does streaming, it's fairly scalable in terms of bitrates. It'll stick around till another format comes out at least, which hopefully won't be MP4.
Actually, it's not because of contact/no contact. (Score:1)
Note: DAT lasts nearly as long as CDs do with full physical contact, unlike CDs...
Did you actually read the article? (Score:1)
No, really! What's important is not the format! (Score:1)
But I think I know where Mr. Guterman was heading with his statement. My interpretation: "It isn't important whether you get your music via MP3, or VQF, or AAC, or SDMI. What's important is that you get your music."
I think he misses something very important, though. I agree that it's not the specific format. What IS important is that you have a choice. Going back to the email client comparison: I love Pine. Eudora and Hotmail are too cumbersome for me. I definitely DO NOT want someone telling me "You have to use Hotmail or you can't get email at all." I might grudgingly go along with Hotmail, but I sure wouldn't be happy with it.
The recording industry wants to limit listeners' choice. That's not a slam on them; it's a simple fact. Their survival depends on controlling the means of distribution. They love SDMI because it keeps artists under their thumbs: A lot of unestablished artists can't (or don't want to) pay the price for development tools for making audio in a proprietary format. The barriers of entry protect the status quo; open formats like MP3 tear down barriers and threaten the status quo.
Actually, maybe tearing down barriers isn't the best analogy. Maybe open formats are more like the jet packs that make the barriers irrelevant.
Selling discs with the format (Score:1)
Excel chosen, not forced initially (Score:1)
Let's not forget that when Excel first came out, it was considered a great product. People ran out and bought it in droves. Back then, the features were enough to sell the product, and I'd say even today, Excel would sell on features alone if by some magic, the compatibility issue disappeared.
--
I challenge his impartiality! (Score:1)
According to their Web page, the Vineyard Group " develop and manage editorially sound, market-savvy interactive products" - whatever.
Clients include at least three record companies, as well as Microsoft Corp.
Interestingly, when not bashing MP3, Guterman has found time to post more than one article mentioning Linux, generally in a rather dismissive manner. Take a look at the Chicago Tribune's online tech section (www.chicago.tribune.com) for a general look at what this "editorially sound" ex-rock-critic has to say.
VQF for Win/Mac but no Linux yet (Score:1)
Links to a Mac version of Yamaha SoundVQ can be found at VQF Kingdom [tcsn.net].
Currently there is NOT a Linux version, perhaps a Japanese-speaking Linux nerd can talk with the folks at NTT about licensing TwinVQ.
There is a hardware VQF player coming out in Japan in fall 1999 called SolidAudio [jpn.net]. You can read a review of the prototype here [weekly.org].
VQF and the future of MP3 (Score:1)
However, that said, Twin-VQ (vector quantization) technology, aka VQF [vqf.com] may cut audio file sizes in half while maintaining a similar audio quality.
On audio quality, MP3 only approaches CD quality at 128kbps. However lots of MP3 is encoded at lower bitrates, but it is just fine for many applications (such as listening in the office on crappy headphones).
I live on long Island (Score:1)
Ben
Those bad points are good. (Score:1)
1) He complains about the poor quality, then complains the file size is too large. Bad bad.
He's not saying that anything is currently better. He complained about the size because of download times (which is an issue), and the quality for obvious reasons. Both of those are valid points. It can be solved by better algorythms, or more bandwidth (both of which he listed as solutions).
2) Tries to separate a file format from an application.
How is that a bad point? I thought that was one of the better points of the article. The application is high-quality, portable audio which can be arranged as desired (as opposed to cd's which are arranged by the producer, not the user). The user doesn't care about file formats. The user cares about the application. If there was something equivalent or better to mp3 called "foobar", then I wouldn't care that it was called foobar... that was his point.
Now, he did imply that the mp3 file format was not really better (or not really much better) than cd, which would not be good enough for it to replace cds. The argument is good, but the premise is wrong. He was judging based solely on quality. The main advantage to mp3s aren't their quality, but their arrangeability and size (physical). It is now possible to fit many clips from several artists, arranged in whatever play order is desired, all stored in something about the size of a cd+player. That is why mp3s are cool.
But, as he was trying to emphasize, it's not the format, but the use that's important.
Sad, sad, sad...lots of FUD with nowhere to go (Score:1)
He says the quality isn't good enough. Someone else made the point that 128k mp3's aren't the only option, and the higher bitrate files are almost perfect. Maybe they're twice the size, but still, that's 5 times smaller than raw audio.
He says the RIAA will kill the Rio and MP3. Never happen - it's not illegal to encode audio in MPEG-1 Layer-3 and it's not illegal to play such encoded audio. Under the argument they're trying to use, any sort of permanent storage should be banned because it can hold illegal material. Similarly, how many warez kiddies have you seen distributing zipfiles of copyrighted software? Surely any sort of file compression should be banned to prevent this!
He says MP3 will be replaced by something better and will disappear. Here he's finally right, mp3 is likely to be replaced with Layer-4 encoding which figures repetition over time and across channels into the figure (currently mp3 does not do this, 5 minutes of silence will encode to the same size as 5 minutes of pure noise). This also will beat down the size of files.
The guy doesn't have the facts, he's just irritated that his Rio wasn't as nice as he hoped and wants to beat some mp3 skull to make up for it.
My response to this article (Score:1)
+---
I am very distressed by your column. I think that you have missed some key items that make the MP3 format far more important than you realize.
While I agree with you that the MP3 format will change -- as you say, change in file formats are inevitable -- I don't know why this will constitute the "death" of anything. The HTML format has changed -- changed drastically over the last four years -- yet it is still right here and has kept the web a very open environment.
The promise of MP3 is manyfold, and all of these factors are important:
1) MP3 quality is almost as good as CDs isn't as important as the size of the file.
while you tend to doubt that "almost is good enough" consider that MP3 quality is almost as good as CDs AND is so much smaller than a CD track that you can feasibly download it from the internet. I'll grant it's still not very practical, but new technologies never start out 100% practical. They do, however, evolve.
It's not the quality of the MP3 that makes it powerful, it's the size. The size is SO MUCH SMALLER than your average CD track that it more than makes up for the slight loss in sound quality.
2) MP3 is an open standard.
You site the Sony MiniDisc as an example of near-quality CD sound that was a huge failure. Remember that Sony OWNED the specs for the Sony MiniDisc -- no other company had a chance of making as much money off of the format. MP3 is an open standard -- anyone can use the specs and create MP3 compatible devices. In fact, there is now an MP3 player that can be installed in a car, as well as the Rio and Diamond's new competing product, and some CD-players are now supporting the MP3 format -- so you'll be able to play MP3's from your stereo. Do you think Philips would be able to play the Sony Minidisc without playing Sony a healthy sum of money first?
Open technology is always at an advantage when competing with proprietary technology, because companies usually think they can make more of a profit if they don't have to pay for the tools. That's why PCs continue to thrive today, despite other platforms (like the Macs) that were, once upon a time, far, far better designed.
3) MP3 is being embraced by musicians.
Don't discount this one. Sites like MP3.com and AMP3.com are teeming with thousands of musicians who are, of their own free will, using the MP3 format to release their music, bypassing the record industry entirely. MP3.com even allows artists to create audio CDs that they will sell and split the profits with the artist 50-50 (which is a far greater percentage of profits than artists would get going through a "traditional" label).
This may be even more significant than the "technological" advantages MP3 has, b/c it's so political. There are a lot of artists who don't like the way the record industry works. Record companies exist to make money, and they do it with a vengance, and there's a whole lot of really pissed of musicians from every genre imaginable who would be more than happy to find a way to distribute their music without dealing with a record company at all.
4) MP3 is an evolutionary format.
Like all file formats, MP3 will change over time. The successor to MP3, MPEG Layer 4, is already being developed and talked about. Just as later versions of Excel can still read Excel 5.0 spreadsheets, later versions of MP3 players will be able to play MP3 files. The fact that the file format has become smaller, or more optimized, or higher in quality doesn't suddenly nullify the entire MP3 movement, it simply alters it.
The good thing is that because MP3 is an open format, its changes are also open -- there's very little danger that the new format will suddenly fall into the hands of people who will only authorize its use by the RIAA, for example. Just like any other internet standard, it will be able to be used by anyone with the knowledge and time to write a program that can use it.
I'd like to ad that the people who run MP3.com (http://www.mp3.com, the largest repository of legal MP3 music on the internet) say they don't really care about the format at all -- they chose MP3 because it was the best one for the artists who use their site. When something new comes along that will work (without wrecking everything else) I suspect they'll start moving over to that.
This is not a "fetish over a file type," as you describe it. This is a bruhaha over what the file type is doing for artists who embrace it. The RIAA and the record labels they represent are scared to death that they won't be able to call the shots and make the money any more. They're spreading a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about the MP3 format in the hopes that they'll be able to introduce something they control -- and will therefore be able to continue to have artists depend on them for revenue so they can continue to clean house.
Respectfully,
Baptist Death Ray
http://www.mp3.com/baptistdeathray
Not very accurate.. (Score:1)
1) Saying that CD quality isn't good enough for a 'new' standard.
Er, CD's were VERY well designed for their day. Okay sure they cut a few kH's for space reasons (original spec was for 48khz recording), but CD's still sound quite good.
2) Comparing MP3 to mini-disks, and equating failure.
Minidisks were a commercial failure because record companies aren't going to manufacure CD's AND mini-disks. Also you make a consumer choose between CD's and mini-disks. I don't think there were any REALLY compelling reasons for going to mini-disks, so it lost out. Not that they were bad, but they couldn't replace CD's and it's infrastructure, and they have a fairly small market beside CD's.
MP3's only need a computer to be listened to. The appliance market is still too immature to tell if it will catch on.
3) "MP3" can't last as a standard.
Well, duh! Technology improves and goes on. However, anything stored as an MP3 can be easily converted to any new format. Also MP3 'appliances' can/should be made programmable and accept new formats as they arrive. As it stands now, however, MP3's have a wide acceptance and should probably last longer than the next few years.
4) MP3's aren't good for streaming.
That's what Mpeg2 Layer 3 is for. This is what Shoutcast/Icecast uses and IMHO, sounds far better than what realaudio does for the same bandwidths.
On a local area network, MP3 streams quite nicely.
Personally, I would hope for a more 'open' format for compressed music, but we take what we can get.
jf
MiniDisc in Europe (Score:1)
OK, so it's a little biased since I know a lot of gadget-lovers, but amusing nonetheless...
The bandwidth argument (Score:1)
Did you actually read the site you plug? (Score:1)
They don't sound better than CDs. They sound slightly worse. But most people won't notice a difference (depending on conditions).
I strongly doubt that the average person could tell the difference between identical recordings on both media, even under ideal conditions. Only way to tell is to have double-blind tests conducted by people who aren't jerk-off audiophiles.
MiniDisc not a failure. (Score:1)
Which brings up another point: MDs have been a huge success in Japan since their inception. Europe too. It's only in America where the MD has failed until only recently to catch on, mostly due (once again) to the hideous price barrier.
For those interested in figures, here's a Sony press release on fiscal '97 MD sales [194.6.129.216]. In short, MD player sales in Japan were expected to equal those of CD players in fiscal '97, and almost double (and easily eclipse CD player sales) in fiscal '98.
MD is really getting going, now. While we still don't have the expansive product line that Japan does, you can now get MD models from companies besides Sony, for reasonable prices, and prices on car units are even starting to come down. Pioneer makes a killer MD/CD in-dash combo right now, the unfortunate part is its ~$600 price point. Ouch!
Valid opinion, but not enouph info for predictions (Score:1)
It seems to me that this guy has the same problem with other members of the media, if they havent heard of it, it must be new. His opinion and predictions are stated as if MP3 just surfaced last week. To a reporter who thinks he knows everything, (I'm sure I don't know evrything) something like MP3 that just recently became a buzz word is obviously new technology, and it's therefore open to speculation as to wether or not it's going to be successful. (It already is succesful you saber-toothed crotch crickets)
Clueless- File Format vs. Client (Score:1)
Ok, I am surprised that it does not seem that many people have latched on to his whole MP3/Email client analogy. How can one compare the different email clients with music file formats?
MP3 is a file format, a standard for distributing information. Email clients are programs that display information distributed according to some standard. Big difference.
To try to compare file formats to clients is, like the cliche says, to compare apples to oranges. The number of different email clients is allowable, and indeed works, becuase they all communicate with each other using the same *standard* for the *transfer* or information. However, multiple file formats would in no way work the same way. If you have 10 different compressed CD audio formats, it is not the same as having 10 different email clients. If I choose to use MP3 and my buddy chooses to use some other format, XXX, we cannot share this music in the same way we can share our email using Netscape and Pine. The two simply do not equate. Now had he desired a better comparison, he could have chosen Jpeg vs. Gif, or AU vs Wav. IMHO, anyway.
MiniDisc not a failure. (Score:1)
I think MiniDiscs are a great format for car stereos, since they're easier to store than CD's and are pretty immune to shocks since the MiniDisc format right from the start have built-in "shock protection."
Enlighten me... (Score:1)
System Requirements
Windows 95 or NT 40.
A search of Freshmeat for vqf returned nil. A search of Altavista for vqf linux returned a bunch of pirated music sites with no mention of a vqf player sourcecode. Am I missing something here?
Be this the case, the spec is not open and is too difficult to hack, it is bound to die.
I would more than gladly go to VQF if I could find source for a player/encoder.
Well I guess I missed something.... (Score:1)
I really object (Score:1)
MP3s sound *great* on them, most of the 128Kbps ones sound as good as CDs. 320s are pretty much perfect.
Throwing fits over CD-R's : MP3's (Score:1)
And it's really ticking me off. I go through dozens of CD-Rs a month to distribute digital data to clients. Why Sony et. al. have to take a cut of that is beyond me.
MP3's: My $.02 (Score:1)
I have a CDR and now have close to 11 CD's of MP3's (a little over that). First thing I did was encode the ones I listened too all the time to take to work. Then my friends found out and I have backups of a lot of their music, and just recently I downloaded one CD's worth of music from the net. Most of it it techno and/or from outside the US (which most stores don't carry, let alone have samples), and I am going to BUY what I liked. The rest I keep and trade to let other people sample.If the RIAA were smart, they'd not only embrace this, but maybe even find a way to offer people MP3 formats of music they may have bought years ago on cassette or vinyl which may be borked.
The format is here to stay. With the large support, variety of players, and encoders that end users can easily use and have access to, it's not going away.
And as for the age comments, I work with several guys in their 30s and 40s that download MP3's more than I do. It's not just college students.
He's right ... MP3 *WILL* fade away (Score:1)
All it will take is a single order of magnitude jump in network bandwidth and disk storage capacity.
An uncompressed
An MP3 encoded at 128 Kbits/Sec consumes 16384 bytes per second.
So, at the point in time where an average hard drive capacity is 10 times the current average, and internet backbone speed is 10 times the current average, it will be as cheap and efficient to download and collect
I would point out that in theory, a gigabit ethernet link could transfer an entire 74 minute CD in (44100 x 74 x 60 x 4) / (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / 10) = about 8 seconds, and even a 100 Mbit/sec link could do it in about 80 seconds. Of course, your computer will have to be 10 times faster to keep up with the network port, but I expect that also.
When DVD-R eventually comes around, it will provide 5.2 gig capacity per disk
The future is clearly NOT in compressed audio. The future is in uncompressed audio. Lossy compression schemes such as minidisk and mp3 will become unnecessary and will fall by the wayside.
- jms
Hmmm... (Score:1)
> Does that mean CD audio, being 50MB in size,
> will also die because we don't have the
> bandwidth? It sure doesn't.
It sure does.
The lack of compression in CD tracks is why MP3s
exist. You could dump a raw CD track into a file,
but why? MP3s are much faster to upload/download.
CDs are artifacts of the unconnected days. The
only reason they still exist are because most
people aren't wired to modern CPUs all of the
time.
Am I right?
Let's start a Jihad (Score:1)
Let's start our own FUD campaign. Well, not really FUD. Modelled after the Microsoft Refund Day effort, let's shout about major Microsoft bugs and bad business practices, serially. One after another, let's put them out there for the media to feast upon, and as M$ knocks them down (well, they can't really - but as they respond) let's just move on to the next one. The more bad press the better.
Let's see how long it takes to maneuver the press to sit Death watch for Microsoft.
MP3s doomed? Probably. (Score:1)
No (Score:1)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Lets look at a few of the arguments the author makes:
1) RIAA will kill MP3.
I doubt this will happen. Should they even manage to shut down the Rio, MP3s on personal machines will still flourish. It is infeasible to sue every single person on the net.
2) Dead as push?
How do you get this? Sounds like FUD to me.
3) Sound quality...
This is my biggest qualm with this article. The sound quality issue is mainly a piece of FUD and requires further analysis.
First of all, I want to state that I don't own a Rio. However, I'm willing to believe that the sound quality is low, and that the software is flimsy, to a Windows user
As a side note, the sound quality may depend more on the headphones. If you use $5 headphones and compare this to a symphony, you are a loser. If you purchase $100 studio headphones, you get a good concert.
4) File size in MB, not KB
Sure, this might be a problem for streaming sound, but the existance of MP3 as a format does not depend on streaming. MP3 *is* a lot more compact than CD audio is. Does that mean CD audio, being 50MB in size, will also die because we don't have the bandwidth? It sure doesn't. The author is surely not looking at the big picture.
With MP3s being just a few MB in size, you can purchase/burn a CDROM with many more tracks than you can using normal CD audio. Why does the author think that this ability is bad? I don't know.
---
CNN sure gets a lot of FUD these days. Seems like they will post anything that anyone with deep pockets sends them. shouldn't media *try* to be impartial and not commercially oriented?
-Ben
Sucks to be an audiophile, (Score:2)
audiophile, n: Someone who listens to the equipment instead of the music.
MP3 quality is horrible (Score:2)
All depends on the bitrate... (Score:2)
I haven't personally seen any of the really high-quality standards (no one's even built the hardware necessary to work with the best quality ones), but with a 720p (that's 720 lines vertically, progressive video, and a 16x9 aspect ratio) picture at a decent bitrate on a 64" screen, you can walk up, stand a foot away from the TV, and it's like looking through a window at something outside... a freshly washed window, at that...
Read, think, post -- in that order only, please (Score:2)
Better formats already exist. The problem isn't with the formats, but with the licensing of same. I can compress a whole cd to a 100k file with no loss, but if I charge too much for it or make the licensing too restrictive or otherwise onerous, noone will touch it.
Even if it's likely that there will be a new format, what is the reasonable probability that the new format will be public domain, or that the licensing terms for the format will be as favorable as MP3?
Just about zero. You have to keep in mind what 'audio compression' really is. It's not so much about compression as about perceptual coding. For example, frequencies below approx. 80 hz are non-directional to the human ear. Therefore, you can save some space by making those frequencies mono instead of stereo. Loud sounds mask quiet ones, so you can skip recording the quiet ones without losing sound quality. It's far more complicated than this in practice, but you get the idea.
The problem is that although the basic concepts have been well understood for several decades, the details that result in the high 'compression' that we see today come from extensive research done by the companies who license these technologies. So in order to ensure a good return on investment, they patent the hell out of everything they can. This might not be a huge problem, but the human ear only works one way. If all the ways to remove information the ear doesn't need/use are patented, then the ability to come up with a useful public domain compression algorithm is gone. And now that it has been shown that there is a large demand for this type of technology, loose licensing is probably a thing of the past as well.
Sounds we can't hear? Very dependent on the person (Score:2)
Sounds we can't hear? Very dependent on the person (Score:2)
A sample [airwindows.com], of sorts- I can do a lot better once I build certain equipment, but that page contains an MP3 excerpt from a long musical piece I recorded.
Before you flame away... (Score:2)
1) The Rio doesn't have enough storage
2) "Near CD-Quality" isn't good enough
3) Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth - need more of it
He does, however, make a few bad points:
1) He complains about the poor quality, then complains the file size is too large. Bad bad.
2) Tries to separate a file format from an application.
More like deathwatch for MP3 competitors. (Score:2)
Nuff said; next question.
MP3s doomed? Probably. (Score:2)
Also, many of us have good quality home stereos connected to their computers. We enjoy the MP3 format for what it is. Most of us have an encoder, and those on the Winblows platform enjoy an excellent quality decoder - WinAmp. I've been using MP3s for almost 3 years now, and will continue to enjoy them for years to come. The size and quality of my collection will ensure that. I'm willing to bet that others feel the same.
There will be newer, better audio formats than MP3. However, they will not replace MP3, they will augment it. MP3 created the revolution, but it's up to others to continue the tradition.
Michael.
I challenge his impartiality! (Score:2)
The author seems to believe MP3 can "go away" or be extended in incompatable ways. This fundamental misunderstanding of what is a semi-open format immediately sounded warnings. Doesn't CNN have technical people all over their company who can proof this crap?
god forbid he reviews Linux. He'd probably declare "they'll be put out of business" or somehow link RedHat to Linux.
Of course, there's always the possibility he is not stupid, but rather he is motivated to write an anti-MP3 FUD story.
It's too bad journalists are not forced to disclose their investments like the politicians are. How can someone be impartial when they have loyalties to the Media, or at least a good chunk of their life savings invested in media stock?
I'm not claiming to know what motivated this aweful story, merely I am publicly speculating what could have gone wrong.
The great thing about all this is time is on our sides; we're NOT a business.. lol!
Agreed. $50 soundblaster does not make a HiFi... (Score:2)
Admittedly, I store a lot less MP3 at such a high data rate. Oh well. My server is a 20 GB Linux box, and the files are available over my home webserver (primarily used for this purpose since it's not available to the outside world).
On my PC's cheap speakers, I can still tell the difference between 128/44 and the real CD, but above that it's blurred. I really HATE that "pop" the SB cards put before every track, but then again I'm spoiled by the audio in the G3.
Maybe I *am* buying fewer CD's these days, but it's because I'm more informed after having listened to more tracks of a CD due to MP3. I have a lot of CD's I never play because I bought them on the false assumption the rest of the CD was as good as the tracks I heard elsewhere.
I truly hope the artists exploit this technology. There's just NO NEED to force an artist to deliver 8-12 songs when the artist only feels good about 2 or 3. The artist needs more control.
Your post deserved a "4"... (Score:2)
If what you say is true (I'm not doubting you), then your post should be a follow-up article submitted to Slashdot...
We have to expose selective reporting with an agenda.
Mega bandwidth (Score:2)
There's already a post here from someone in Seattle... no cable modem. Hardly anyone in the StL area has cable modems. Most areas in the chicago metro area don't have cable modems. That's three major cities already...
Hmmm... (Score:2)
"Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tapes" and don't underestimate the bandwidth of your local CD shop.
Most of the areas around where I live (STL), you _can't_ get cable modems or DSL. (Although SWB promises DSL sometime soon.... whatever.) And then figure in all those people who don't live in the city... burbs tend to be spotty and if you get any further out, give up.
Excel file format (Score:2)
they're forced to use it because everyone else
is using XLS files. So the file format IS
important - but not its internals, of course,
just the compatibility issue.
MiniDisc not a failure. (Score:2)
Rio:
32MB storage (1 hour of shitty audio)
Very expensive removable media
Long battery life
Small size
Immune to physical shocks
Slightly less expensive than MiniDisc player
Does not record
No standard digital audio I/O
MiniDisc:
150MB storage (74 minutes of very good audio).
$10 for 74-minute re-recordable media.
Long battery life.
Small size.
Slightly more expensive than Rio.
ALMOST immune to physical shocks.
Most units can record directly.
Standard S-PDIF audio I/O.
Hardly dead.
A format to store mp3's on minidisc might be cool.
A mis-titled article. (Score:2)
Furthermore, I don't see anything anti-MP3 except the comment that the quality is usually not CD-quality. Although this is true, it's not the format's fault. You can create practically CD-quality MP3s with almost the same compression ratio, provided that you use the right software.
Well.. just my $.02. As a conclusion, here's a quote from the article: "But what of MP3? In the short run, the format is likely to flourish. Its expected inclusion as a native format in the RealPlayer and the support it receives by all but the very top tier in the music industry ensure that the flow of MP3 files onto the Net will remain unchecked."
---
I don't understand the fuss here. (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, few to no slashdotters would disagree with these points.
I will say, though, that I found his Excel example ridiculous. He claims people buy Excel because of its features, not because XLS is a universal format. I would say this is most definitely false; the reason people standardize on Microsoft Office is because everyone else uses it, not because it's good or bad. That makes me think MP3s are going to be around forever
D
----
RIAA should ban computers, also (Score:2)
For instance, gun control advocates actually argue that because someone might shoot someone else with a handgun, that all handguns should be illegal for citizens to own. We might as well ban any sharp instrument, because I might have a mind to walk out and jam it into someone's eye socket.
The Clinton administration's stance that encryption allows some miniscule percentage of the population to inconvenience law enforcement in their attempts to bug known drug lords simply doesn't justify the danger of exposure of unencrypted data that the rest of us have to put up with, thanks to Cold War thinking.
RIAA doesn't seem to have any problem with me buying a CD, and copying it via a CD-rewritable widget, so that I can have a copy for my car. As long as I don't give the copy to anyone else, they should shut up and go back to counting their royalties.
Sic et non (Score:2)
The author makes a very valid point that, sooner or later, MP3 will be left to twist in the wind for the sake of the Next Big Audio Thing. After all, only the insane among us will fail to admit that our most Holy of Holies, Linux, is a passing thing, too. If you are at least 30 years old, then you may remember, for instance, when Microsoft was going to save us from IBM.
The idea, however, that intellectual property is a nonworkable concept, rubs my Capitalist fur the wrong way. If you want to give away your talents to anyone with a tape recorder, and starve to death, to be buried in an unmarked grave next to Joan Baez, well, go ahead.
What I've found is that, by and large, Humanity is Lazy. Less than 10% of us create new content. The other 90% copy it, consume it, or ignore it, but don't contribute to it. So, the heck with them! Since our primary rate of exchange is money, then make the sheep pay for what they yearn for.
I'm willing to bet that almost everyone who has anything, doesn't want to share it; and those that have nothing, want everyone who has stuff to be required to share it.
Bah (Score:2)
This includes a great deal beyond just intellectual property. This would include land ownership, enforcement of contracts, etc. A 'pure' system, would be anarchy. A system where only might makes right. Without government enforcement the system simply would not operate as smoothly as it does. In regards to the intellectual property issues, please do yourself a favor and read some Adam Smith. Without his research our current system today would not be in existance.
Adam Smith (Score:2)
Most of Adam Smith's theories still hold today. While it may be true that the US has adopted Keynesian economic policy and a few other ideas, these for the most part leave Smith in place. His arguments for intellectual property still very much hold. I have no objection with a group of people who wish to collaborate to create free software, in fact, I support it. However, I take extreme exception to people who would attempt to abolish all forms of intellectual property. This demonstrates ignorance to me. Atleast if they're going to espouse these ideas, they can demonstrate that they've read some economic texts, not just FSF propaganda. The problem with people that advocate destruction of IP, is that they don't have it all together thought out. I don't have time to get into it, but one of the biggest problems is that there is some considerable need to reward to innovator.
While many geeks may be happy with 'free software', I can't think of any 'free' software that really serves the end users' needs and wants. How does this help people? This of course goes well beyond just software. More significant industries are ones where large investments are required to bring a product to market. Such as the Medical technology industry. The arguments against intellectual property in MedTech may appear to be superficially stronger than it is in software, because people can theoretically be priced out of treatment. Most MedTech markets take millions of dollars to research, more to develop, and more to get through the FDA, not to mention liability issues. There is a great deal of risk involved, you simply need intellectual property, or you will destroy 99% of the MedTech advancements. Without the 'government granted' intellectual property monopoly, the money would never be spent on MedTech research. Not only do the companies need a chance to recoop their direct investment but you need to look at the industry on the larger scale. The fact is that like 1 out of 10 of these ventures fail, those ventures which succeed must pay off a great deal. While many geeks froth at the mouth in the defence of free software, yet they don't contribute to worthy causes such as Aids research. Even if they did, the available research dollars would be a fraction of what they are now.
RIAA vs. Diamond still pending (Score:2)
A temporary injuction is awarded based on a quick preliminary injunction if the judge is convinced that a permanent injunction is likely following the trial. (I'm not sure how strongly the judge has to be convinced, but the idea is to prevent additional dammages while the suit is being argued.)
Hence, the RIAA failed to convince the court in their initial briefs and hearing that they would win, so no temporary injunction was issued.
Of course, a temporary injunction or the lack thereof can often persuade people to settle. If that happened here, I missed it.
Read, think, post -- in that order only, please (Score:2)
Wanna bet? Let me create 650Mb's of prime numbers and see if you can get it down to 100k with no loss. You may be able to compress "a cd" down to that small, but you can't compress any cd down to that size. If you can then for what should be obvious reasons your brain is worth far too much to risk posting silly comments on slashdot (in case The Man is reading).
Interesting questions... (Score:2)
Speed ups of MP3 encoding. That should very nicely accelerate the acceptance, growth, and potential of the music format.
However, the point the article made is very good.
Better sound quality is necessary, but I think the fault currently lies in poor/bad encoder implementations in which short cuts and 1/2 degree approximations are used, and a better faster encoder would help immensely. Perhaps even better source data would help too, but we can't actually do much as CDs don't come at 56kHz 32bit sound quality or something...
An alternative to the RIAA would be necessary for the industries involved to embrace such an open and free standard.
I would think, perhaps, that a customizeable CD service might flourish. Download 96kbps songs, which would be acknowledge as lower quality, with 196kbps samples to emphasize the difference, for users to preview, keep, and enjoy.
The same site would also offer the ability to pick and choose any of their songs to be encoded on a CD, at 196kbps, with customizeable source art. Another possibility perhaps is a dual mode CD; one track would contain the mp3s and another the data in CDA format, to be useable in CD players and in PCs. Perhaps they could even offer this on a DVD to utilize 256kpbs quality mp3s, CDA music, and 2 'free' songs in both formats to encourage you to try alternative songs...
One possibility for the mp3 format.
AS
MP3's imminent death (Score:2)
Think about it in these terms. The bandwidth grows very fast -- think about the discrepancy between the 300-baud modems and ADSL/cable modems. Storage devic capacity grows at astonishing speed as well, I am not even sure which one is growing faster.
What this all means is that we are already now approaching the wide availability of technology to use less space-saving, but higher quality, format, space-wise; we are very close to approaching this point network-bandwidth-wise. The whole reason for using MP3 format -- disk size and bandwidth -- is vanishing. I am merely a poor student, but I have enough free space on my HD to store 10 CDROMs (12GB disks are not that expensive these days); with ADSL and cable modems, and the rollout of InternetII, we are approaching the time when I will be able to download the abovementioned 10 CDs in minutes (another couple of years, tops, and we'll be at least at a point when I can download one CD in minutes).
The time is just about ripe for another, less lossy, format to become popular. MP3's death IS imminent -- simply because the limitations it was designed to overcome, are vanishing in front of our eyes.
--
I don't understand the fuss here. (Score:2)
Note that Excel has many known bugs importing and exporting other spreadsheet formats...why do you suppose that is? Because Microsoft wants to foster the ignorant end user's dependence on them. That's a Bad Thing too.
Of course file formats aren't important. My DATA is important. I wouldn't care if computers recorded my data on wet clay tablets with a pointy stick as long as it was fast, durable, portable, inexpensive, and reliable (all of which would present substantial engineering challenges for wet clay storage). MP3s (or whatever good fidelity portable digital music format exists this week) ARE going to be around for as long as I have an audio source and a ripper. I have zero loyalty to the MP3 file format...it's here now, it does the job, and there's currently nothing better. Tomorrow is probably going to be quite different.
I think WinAmp is pretty cool, though. : )
MiniDisc prices are lower than that (Score:3)
This article is NOT anti-mp3. (Score:3)
This article is not anti-mp3 by any stretch of the imagination. He is analytically evaluating the commercial possibilities of mp3. I have been an #mp3 op on irc (undernet) for 3 or 4 years now, and I must agree with most of what he said. The Diamond Rio is not for the main stream and mp3.com is not going to make the big bucks. Mp3s will only thrive in certain niche groups. eg: college students and technically literate individuals who have convienient access to illegal mp3 copies, nerds, anti-establishment types, people who want to sample small bands, etc. I'd say the compressed internet distribution method will live on, even if mp3 dies. Like he points out, mp3 is just a means to an end. I don't imagine marginally superior encoding technologies supplanting the existing fringe mp3 user base.
However, mp3s as it stands now it simply can not supplant audio CDs. It needs broad commercial support. It will only make it big if one can go to a certain web site and download(or purchase) just about everything they want. There is nothing technically wrong with the mp3 format, or the current mp3 playback devices. The problem is the distribution method. There is no central place where the uninitiated can go and find what they want, when they want it. While the recording industry will never be able to effectively stamp out the fringe mp3 crowd, as long as it keeps up the pressure, it can make mp3s undesirable for the average user. Thus I would not bet the farm on mp3.com.
I can easily see some alternative format coming into the commercial market like gang busters. While the recording industry is not omnipotent, I think it would be foolish to under estimate their power. Given the fact that mp3s will not take the industry any time soon, it is just a matter of time before something else slips in. The recording industry knows that it needs to find a way to slip its foot in the Internet door. I don't believe it would be too hard for them to do so. With a minimal investment, they could collaborate and setup ONE central online music site on the internet. Put everything they have into that format, and make it readily available. They would probably also have to give the market confidence that they plan on sticking with it. And they'd probably have to make the media cheaper than CDs to encourage growth. But I could see it happening. All they'd need is to find some niche consumer market, and hardware manufacturers would jump in. Hell, with Sony and what not a member of RIAA they'd probably have a model developed before the site is even up.
MP3 "death" -- lack of consumer electronics (Score:3)
Did you actually read the article? (Score:3)
Admittedly, though, he does miss the mark on a few things. Like MP3s don't sound any worse than CDs if encoded properly. And MiniDiscs actually sound better than CDs (don't believe me? Buy one or check out www.minidisc.org)...
And the VCR point was excellent. Stupid RIAA has no vision... And the one thing that bothers me the most about the RIAA is their excuse that they're just looking out "for the artists." As an artist I fully embrace MP3s as a chance to be heard (www.mp3.com/atomly).
Anyway, music isn't something you should pay for anywway
Read, think, post -- in that order only, please (Score:3)
What this article says (quite plainly, I think) is that while the concept of a compressed, readily exchangable digital audio format -- of which MP3 is one embodiment -- is clearly here to stay, notwithstanding the best efforts of the RIAA, kiss this particular embodiment of the concept goodbye the minute a better mousetrap comes along.
Ask yourself: If a new MP3-ish format came along with better sound quality, better compression rates, or -- last but certainly not least -- a public domain algorithm, wouldn't you switch in a heartbeat? If not, why not?
That having been said, here are some real questions to ask the author:
I'd be very interested to hear someone with some knowledge of audio compression theory, audio hardware, etc., speak to these issues. (I'm sure there are other issues I haven't thought of.) The less said about how CNN is trying to crush MP3, however, the better, because that's clearly not the point of the article.