Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3 (Read 1848 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Klymins on
I'm not saying that bitrate should be shown as bits-per-sample, I'm asking that does defining the available bitrates in a way that they don't change with the sampling rate have advantages (the opposite can decrase the complexity significantly)?
bit per second is probably more useful for transmission. Remember the time people used modem and telephones.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #26 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
I already said, but apparently I have to say again: Very low bitrates (like 16kbps for example) are completely transparent for some sounds (at high sampling rates too), like pure tones or humming, which can be encountered at for example the the silent parts of a music or a non-music recording.

Quote from: Klymins on
    1.3: In all layers of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Layer 1, bitrates lower than 32kbps isn't supported while they can be enough for some sounds (especially for MPEG-2, but they can in MPEG-1 too, for example at the end of a music).
 

I don't remember any VBR Layer 1 or Layer 2 encoders. As said earlier, it's old technologies. Layer 3 was specifically standardized for efficiency. Layer 2 and 3 were not the best tools (especially with constant bitrate) for this purpose even if they probably perform well on specific cases. You just wondering why axes or chainsaw are not used to cut a sheet of paper. It's like wondering why axes or chainsaws are not used to cut a sheet of paper. They do work, but if better tools exist, most people will use cutters or scissors and won't question why Stihl doesn't adapt their tools to cut your magazine.

I think your simile is wrong. I'm asking that why they did not make better choices to make the codec more future-proof.

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #27 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
I'm not saying that bitrate should be shown as bits-per-sample, I'm asking that does defining the available bitrates in a way that they don't change with the sampling rate have advantages (the opposite can decrase the complexity significantly)?
bit per second is probably more useful for transmission. Remember the time people used modem and telephones.

@guruboolez Thanks, that's a very good answer, now I want to ask that is that still relevant on today's technologies?

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Klymins on
Thanks, that's a very good answer, now I want to ask that is that still relevant on today's technologies?
Probably the same reason you're probably typing on a QWERTY based keyboard. Should I explain?
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #29 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: Klymins on
Thanks, that's a very good answer, now I want to ask that is that still relevant on today's technologies?
Probably the same reason you're probably typing on a QWERTY based keyboard. Should I explain?

Does this mean that defining the available bitrates as bits-per-second does not have advantages anymore?

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Klymins on
Does this mean that defining the available bitrates as bits-per-second does not have advantages anymore?
For most people, obviously not.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #32 –
The frame header structure actually got bits to accommodate future enhancements. Those were used in MPEG version 2 and 2.5. Sure you can argue that if one knew already from day zero what the needs would have been, one could have designed it different.

One additional level of future proofing could be offered by the free format, which could go up to 640 kbit/s and at least as far down as 8 kbit/s (according to https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,27404.msg242365.html#msg242365 - I don't know if anything less is even technically feasible). Free format comes at an inconvenience, and isn't that much supported.

So to boil it down to the original question: yes there were some choices made, yes there were indeed set aside bits for "future needs", some of those are useful, others not so much. And one got stuck with a bad file format because it worked well enough.

Re: About the bitrates of MP1, MP2, and MP3

Reply #33 –
Thanks.