11–20 of 44 posts
Why do people insist on still using MP3, when better stuff is available? YouTube hasn't used MP3 for years, with good reason. You can use Opus or AAC, even most car systems should work with one of them.
marketing
Why do people insist on still using MP3, when better stuff is available? YouTube hasn't used MP3 for years, with good reason. You can use Opus or AAC, even most car systems should work with one of them.
This code was dug out from the dusty crates of those times before internet and github. It apparently was created by Gabriel Bouvigne sometime around the end of the 20th century.
Why do people insist on still using MP3, when better stuff is available? YouTube hasn't used MP3 for years, with good reason. You can use Opus or AAC, even most car systems should work with one of them.
First, most people here recognize that this is something from the past.
Second, some people work with older systems which do not support AAC due to patent reasons. This is not about libre software, just the fact that MP3 is easy to support because its patent fees (at the time anyway) are lower than AAC and the circuitry can be placed for tenth of a US cent (which Opus don't have advantage of). There are new standalone players (built into speakers or radios) out there which don't support AAC purely because of patent fees (MP3 no longer have active patents). This makes MP3 a lowest-common denominator of compatibility.
Why do people insist on still using MP3, when better stuff is available? YouTube hasn't used MP3 for years, with good reason. You can use Opus or AAC, even most car systems should work with one of them.
It's patent-free and well supported everywhere by everything.
For example, if you want to use audio on a webpage, and you want it to work *everywhere*, and you don't want to have to encode multiple formats/containers then MP3 is the only option. You can't use Opus because of course Safari (it does support it, but only in a Safari-specific container), and AAC is not support on Firefox in certain situations (because it doesn't actually include an AAC codec and relies on the OS to decode it).
Our Satellite link was really low bitrate ( less than 20kbps). I wanted to keep as much of that as possible for the data-casting part, which was our core offering. So after experimenting with varioud codecs I narrowed down to using Opus@8kbps as my downlink from the satellite to our custom receivers. The problem was, Opus wasn't natively supported as a codec by most browsers (Safari being a major culprit). In fact after analysis, I found the only format that could be reliably played on every browser (including mobile) is mp3. So the solution I derived was to have the downlink in opus, decode that on the reciver, reencode it to mp3, and stream that out to the users browser. Now the reciever was a very low end linux device - 1GHz Arm6, 256MB ram - that ran the entire stack. Satellite receiver, UI server, filesystem maintenance, Wifi Hotspot (softAP). We also didn't want to load it down with large heat sinks or fans as a design goal. So the cpu could not be loaded to its full capacity. Every other MP3 encoder I tried was too heavy duty, and would cause thermal issues for the SoC. But Shine worked perfectly - total cpu consumption remaining less than 10% for real time decoding (from opus) and encoding (to mp3).
And for the other direction, there's minimp3: https://github.com/lieff/minimp3 I've used minimp3 to implement a MP3 player on a STM32 microcontroller. Works great -- it has no problem playing a 256kbps file at 80 MHz. :)
Wow, nice seeing this here. Shine was a life saver when I was building the live broadcast capability of othernet.is. Our Satellite link was really low bitrate ( less than 20kbps). I wanted to keep as much of that as possible for the data-casting part, which was our core offering. So after experimenting with varioud codecs I narrowed down to using Opus@8kbps as my downlink from the satellite to our custom receivers. T…
In 1999 I was the 2nd employee at what became one of the world's biggest music streaming services. I was working from home as we didn't have offices yet, and my broadband got cut off because I hadn't been paid yet and I was broke. I ended up having to re-encode the entire music catalog at 8000bps so I could stream it all over my 9600bps cell connection via the serial port of my Nokia 9000, when I was testing the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
marketing
Can you elaborate? Who markets it and stands to gain from MP3's continued usage?
Why do people insist on still using MP3, when better stuff is available? YouTube hasn't used MP3 for years, with good reason. You can use Opus or AAC, even most car systems should work with one of them.
> Why do people insist on still using MP3, when better stuff is available? First, most people here recognize that this is something from the past. Second, some people work with older systems which do not support AAC due to patent reasons. This is not about libre software, just the fact that MP3 is easy to support because its patent fees (at the time anyway) are lower than AAC and the circuitry can be placed for tenth…
And for the other direction, there's minimp3: https://github.com/lieff/minimp3 I've used minimp3 to implement a MP3 player on a STM32 microcontroller. Works great -- it has no problem playing a 256kbps file at 80 MHz. :)
I remember times when it wasn’ts problem on much less than that… which is what most people had. Guess I’m just old :)
A DX4/100 could just barely do it if you were running a performant MS-DOS player and doing nothing else at the same time (the 486 of course had dramatically worse floating point performance than a Pentium clocked at the same frequency).