TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Ask HN: Why did Fraunhofer not realise how flawed MP3 was?

1 pointsby Sonic656almost 3 years ago
It can't handle a lot of electronic music at all without becoming a pre echo mess even at V0 & 320kbps?. Vorbis & AAC under 192kbps are no any better If I'm being honest, 96Kbps VBR Opus 1.3 makes all 3 look like a joke.

5 comments

Tomtealmost 3 years ago
Your music tastes are not representative of the larger population, nor is your hearing ability.<p>For example, in all the MP3s I&#x27;ve listened to I have heard a pre-echo only once: in a pre-echo demonstration on Wikipedia (where the pre-echo was even amplified).<p>Shortcomings exist, but were never relevant to the masses.<p>Besides, the alternative to MP3 back then wasn&#x27;t using another format, it was &quot;I cannot download music at home&quot;.
评论 #32288179 未加载
UmYeahNoalmost 3 years ago
MP3: &quot;On 7 July 1994, the Fraunhofer Society released the first software MP3 encoder, called l3enc.&quot; [0]<p>Opus 1.3: &quot;libopus 1.3 was released on October 18, 2018&quot; [1]<p>I feel like this is like asking &quot;Why didn&#x27;t Intel realize how flawed 8086 processor was, the Mac M1 makes the x86 look like a joke.&quot;<p>MP3 is <i>so</i> much older than Opus 1.3 hardly a fair comparison to expect 1991 tech to anticipate 2018&#x27;s music styles, dynamic range, processing power, etc...<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;MP3#Fraunhofer_example_implementation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;MP3#Fraunhofer_example_impleme...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Opus_(audio_format)#1.3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Opus_(audio_format)#1.3</a>
pwgalmost 3 years ago
Initial release: 6 December 1991 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mp3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mp3</a>)<p>Given its age, it has held up remarkably well. You&#x27;ve probably simply found a particular composition that it is just not suited for. But it would have been impossible for Fraunhofer to test against all possible music compositions.
Nomentatusalmost 3 years ago
Compare visual compression schemes such as .jpg - they too produce nasty artifacts if you compress an already compressed file. Something plenty of people don&#x27;t realize. (You need to go back to the .raw file or at least a really big .jpg and compress that more strongly.) Sure, .jpg and .mp3 could have a bit of AI to recognize already-simple or compressed files, but that&#x27;s another chunky feature that doesn&#x27;t affect their main use case; and .mp3 was a commercial venture. Every program can always be better, but as the old quote about art goes, no painting is ever finished, only abandoned (in a good-but-imperfect state.)
pinewurstalmost 3 years ago
Electronic music wasn’t the corpus that they tested and optimized MP3 on.
评论 #32288079 未加载