Full MP3 Support Being Added To Fedora Linux

[oiaohm]

Um, Mp3 was published in 1993. The most important concepts like VBR, joint stereo were already known 20 years ago. So, you're saying that there's still some patented mp3 tech left, but distros don't seem to care about lawsuits and the mp3 inventors don't sell licenses anymore, huh? I really much doubt there's anything patentable left unless you refer to some 3rd party who might have introduced new psychoacoustic models or something similar after May 1997. But that's probably closed source and won't affect us in any way.

There are some psychoacoustic models still patented that are used by different Mp3 encoders.

I also missed one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3_Surround 5.1 in mp3 is 2004 so the very last mp3 patents is 2024-25 at the last. But those files play with 2 channel playback. There is a different model in the Mp3 Surround changes that could be used for encoding a 2 channel as well.

Mp3 is most likely free enough other than people with Surround and Surround Mp3 are not going to notice the difference. There comes a point when for 90+ percent of the population the remaining patents don't matter. So Distribution should be able to ship with reasonable play back support of Mp3 now.

[arokh]

Wow mp3! This would be cool in 2005.

[raom]

This sounds perfectly reasonable.
If I may ask, were you involved in a study for that double-blind test? If so, do you happen to recall what the results were?

No, just did it for myself before converting my whole music library. I do know opus is king at <100kbps from the studies at hydrogenaudio. If you're going to do abx tests, I recommend you use foobar2000 with the ABX plugin, even if you're not using windows.

[liam]

Well, I'm sure newer opus can achieve more than decent sound at 64kbps, with the earlier versions being about twice as efficient as mp3. Myself, I can differentiate 128kb opus from lossless reliably in a double-blind test, and anyone with good hearing who knows what to listen for should be able to. With about $100 worth of audio equipment, but it is hard. Have to listen to the decay of cymbals very closely. Certainly wouldn't notice in normal listening. At 160kbps though, it is absolutely transparent. Large SD cards are cheap enough these days.

This sounds perfectly reasonable.
If I may ask, were you involved in a study for that double-blind test? If so, do you happen to recall what the results were?

[liam]

liam , I'm using Antergos (Arch Linux) and there is a program called abx in AUR (it's a very simple ABX tester). Then I converted some FLACs to 48kbps Opus. I used just musics that I really know (i.e. Hotel California - Eagles, from Hell Freezes album, and Echoes - Pink Floyd, from Meddle album). And there is specifics parts of the music to note the difference (yes, maybe some can note the difference "within the whole music" but I really have to hit the specific spots to then "aha! it's different there!"). Later tested 64k and couldn't pass the test.

But I will be honest, I am a normal guy. I have good ears, but not golden ones (maybe because of being part of a chorus, playing guitar, flute etc). I have a good in ear monitor, but very far from top headphones (even more far if you consider custom mold ones). I really think that the golden ear guys with top headphones concentrate in these websites and many would hit transparency in 96k with Opus, but just if cherry picking killer samples in ABX tests. But I tend to disbelieve people to say that hit transparency with 128k Opus...

Just check here 64k statistics http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.i...c/results.html and here 96k statistics http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm. Do you have any doubt that the majority in these tests are the golden ears+top headphones people or do you think that it is full of average Joe's there? Music quality grading from 1 to 5 in 64k tests and Opus average was about 4 and in 96k it was 4.65.

Thanks for the detailed response! I'm going to try this. The only abx testing I've done was on a browser using unfamiliar music with my laptop speakers
Just an fyi, from my understanding, the term "Golden Ears" has mythic connotations (i.e., seen as often as a unicorn).
Hydrogenaudio is also my main source for these kinds of tests, and that's why i largely agree with you. My other source had been Monty's crusade against various audiophile myths (24bit 192k for playback).

[Sonadow]

Fedora will be providing mpg123 but DeadBeef (and VLC and FFMPEG too?) uses libmad. In the end the user is going to have to compile his own copy or use a third-party repository as always. No changes in the state of affairs.

[ssokolow]

The US constitution grants the right to bear arms as a tool to discourage corruption (the implication being that corruption poses a lethal risk).

From what I've read, including it in the constitution actually came about as part of the negotiations to get the southern states to join the union because they wanted a guarantee that their runaway slave patrols (a secondary function of their "well-regulated militias") could not be outlawed. (Even back then, the culture in the south, which descended from brutal Barbados slave plantations, recognized that their definition of "liberty" was at odds with that of the highly-educated northern leaders.)

[ssokolow]

Hear, hear (get it ?) there are so many audiofools who talk utter crap. Yeah right vinyl is better than digital and FLAC is sooooo much better than 320kbps MP3. Vinyl is a shit medium for many technical reasons and I challenge anyone to a blind FLAC/MP3 hearing booth test run by me using properly encoded MP3s.

I actually talked to a guy once who had a very plausible explanation for where that "vinyl is better than digital" myth started. A direct tape-to-vinyl transfer results in a muffled representation of high frequencies, so audio technicians would boost the high frequencies before mastering to compensate... but in the early days of CDs, there were people who didn't think to omit that step, which resulted in CD masters being "artificially harsh-sounding" until the industry got familiar with the technology.

[raom]

Interesting.
When is your set-up (and music) like where you determined 64k seems mostly transparent?
You don't see many folks like you who are willing to admit this, so, non-ironic applause for you!
The audio scene has WAY too many "Golden Ear" snobs for it to be a very welcome community, in my experience.

Well, I'm sure newer opus can achieve more than decent sound at 64kbps, with the earlier versions being about twice as efficient as mp3. Myself, I can differentiate 128kb opus from lossless reliably in a double-blind test, and anyone with good hearing who knows what to listen for should be able to. With about $100 worth of audio equipment, but it is hard. Have to listen to the decay of cymbals very closely. Certainly wouldn't notice in normal listening. At 160kbps though, it is absolutely transparent. Large SD cards are cheap enough these days.

[caligula]

liam , I'm using Antergos (Arch Linux) and there is a program called abx in AUR (it's a very simple ABX tester). Then I converted some FLACs to 48kbps Opus. I used just musics that I really know (i.e. Hotel California - Eagles, from Hell Freezes album, and Echoes - Pink Floyd, from Meddle album). And there is specifics parts of the music to note the difference (yes, maybe some can note the difference "within the whole music" but I really have to hit the specific spots to then "aha! it's different there!"). Later tested 64k and couldn't pass the test.

But I will be honest, I am a normal guy. I have good ears, but not golden ones (maybe because of being part of a chorus, playing guitar, flute etc). I have a good in ear monitor, but very far from top headphones (even more far if you consider custom mold ones). I really think that the golden ear guys with top headphones concentrate in these websites and many would hit transparency in 96k with Opus, but just if cherry picking killer samples in ABX tests. But I tend to disbelieve people to say that hit transparency with 128k Opus...

Just check here 64k statistics http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.i...c/results.html and here 96k statistics http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm. Do you have any doubt that the majority in these tests are the golden ears+top headphones people or do you think that it is full of average Joe's there? Music quality grading from 1 to 5 in 64k tests and Opus average was about 4 and in 96k it was 4.65.

The audiophiles can easily identify two tracks with their superior equipment. Audiophile level headphones cost at least $10 000. Their DAC is over 64 bits wide http://www.kraudioproducts.com/aarts...&ProductID=135 - so they can compare 24bit audio to 64bits, in 1536 kHz or whatever. The thing is, they don't do ABX tests. Those tests don't favor expensive equipment so there's no point in doing them. They only accept evaluation functions that make their equipment look the best.