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: "Doubtful" mp3s: What are those extra/junk frames really? (Read 2736 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Doubtful" mp3s: What are those extra/junk frames really?

I have been playing around with various files which according to fb2k's foo_verifier and mp3packer have certain non-standard frames - typical case is where mp3packer reports declared # of frames different from the actual ones. A certain label which ships out iTunes-encoded 320kb/s samplers seem to get that on the last track (i.e. the one that never needs to be gapless with a successor ...)
And, typically, rewriting the mp3 stream with fb2k and with mp3packer yield the same output (in terms of decoded file) as each other (though not as the input), so fwiw, those two applications treat them the same way.

What are the "known" deficiencies, really?  I understand that neither XING nor LAME headers are standard other than in a de facto sense, but I am getting curious in between all the cursing over the mp3 format. (where file "format" =/= "codec".)


Yeah I understand that troublesome files but the worst ones are best left as they are - except the audibly bad ones, for example some with a strange last frame, which I can only guess was not intended to be audio. More than once I have mp3directcut'ted off the very end. But "leave them as they are" does not satisfy curiosity.