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: MP3 File: Quality degrades over time? (Read 9947 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

The following is from the AAC page on Wikipedia:

Quote
A natural side effect of the MP3 method is that it suffers a loss of information over time - bass frequencies which results in, often even to an untrained ear, distinguishable disfiguration of these frequencies. Among the current, popular audio encoders, MP3 is alone in having this particular disadvantage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding

Wikipedia is a very reputable source so I assume its true. How did I miss this? I have been on these boards for a long time and never seen mention of this. Can anyone elaborate? Will our MP3 files really degrade over  time?
 

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: ezra2323 on
Can anyone elaborate? Will our MP3 files really degrade over  time?
Your files won't degrade over time - unless there is something wrong with your hard drive. Beyond that I don't know what this article is referring to. Maybe encoding a low frequency note over several frames results in some sort of artifact? I'm not saying this is true, just maybe what the author meant by "a loss of information over time". On second thought, it just made no sense at all.
EAC secure | FLAC  --best -V -b 4096 | LAME 3.97 -V0 -q0 -b32

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #2 –
I thought he was just making fun of Wikipedia.

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #3 –
I completely removed that nonsensical garbage. The article could seriously use a horde of HA members to edit it into shape, however. ...Just Elliot, you around?

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #4 –
I just deleted this bit of idiocy. . .  "Nevertheless, no matter how high bitrate the material is encoded in, MP3 still suffers a well known slight quality disadvantage due to the particular encoding method used."

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Wikipedia is a very reputable source so I assume its true. How did I miss this?


That depends on the circumstances of some articles. Just because it's on wikipedia does not mean it's 100% accurate, but it's more accurate per say if it has the necessary references coming from various sources then you know that it's realiable. The jargon can become sticky around here we say "transparency" for instance.

Quote
A natural side effect of the MP3 method is that it suffers a loss of information over time - bass frequencies which results in, often even to an untrained ear, distinguishable disfiguration of these frequencies. Among the current, popular audio encoders, MP3 is alone in having this particular disadvantage.


That part for instance is not factual, but rather opinion unless various listening tests have been performed otherwise that can show that's the case it does not belong in the article. It's very bold claim.
budding I.T professional

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #6 –
It's digital data. It cannot "suffers a loss of information over time" any more readily than any other type of data, audio or otherwise. However, beware of high density neutrino fluxes.

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #7 –
i like the fact that this is from the aac page

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #9 –
I would guess the autor was refering to transcoding when he wrote 'over time'

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #10 –
No, it was typical idiotic "audiophile" jibberings; he writes that "MP3 is alone in having this particular disadvantage", while all lossy formats will cause the transcoding degradation which you refer to. No one with sense would talk about things such as "a loss of information over time - bass frequencies which results in, often even to an untrained ear, distinguishable disfiguration of these frequencies". It's digital data.

Quote
Wikipedia is a very reputable source so I assume its true.

I'd advise you to think otherwise. Usually, anybody can edit a Wikipedia article and fill it with whichever types of misinformation, insults, spam, etc. that they desire. Of course, in an ideal world, you would be right!

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #11 –
Wikipedia probably also says somewhere that mp3 damages your hearing...

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: ezra2323 on
Wikipedia is a very reputable source so I assume its true.


There is a lot on Wikipedia which is accurate, well written and well researched. However, there is also a lot of garbage due to misinformed contributors, vandalism etc. As is regularly stated on Slashdot (talking about unreliable sources, I know...), Wikipedia should not be regarded as a reliable source, but rather treated with some scepticism. For research, it's a good starting point, but you always should refer to original sources afterwards.

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #13 –
Frankly, this is (probably) the most nonsensical statement I've read in quite some time

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #14 –
Quote
There is a lot on Wikipedia which is accurate, well written and well researched. However, there is also a lot of garbage due to misinformed contributors, vandalism etc.


Good to know. I thought Wikipedia was "verified". Too bad it can be otherwise. The MP3 article on wikipedia is SO GOOD by contrast to the AAC.

I'm also glad to hear the statement is nonsense. It certainly shocked me to read it.

MP3 File: Quality degrades over time?

Reply #15 –
Yeah, the quoted section of that article was complete nonsense, I'm glad it was removed.

I have to admit however that I am generally a big fan of Wikipedia. Despite the obvious criticism that it is all from untrusted sources I find that it is mostly pretty good and dubious content and vandalism is usually quickly removed.