Slashdot Mirror
Public Enemy Release full single as mp4
Tom writes "public enemy - the hiphoppers that already tried to put a mp3 on their website and where kicked by their label for doing so - have
released the single "swindlers lust" in full length on their website. not only the release
itself, but also the content of the single is a major criticism of greed and corporatism in the music industry. it's in the new mp4 format which rivals
cd in quality. there's also a bit of a rant about mp3/4 and the industry on the website. "
These guys are definitely bucking the industry- I'm glad to
see someone is trying to do it, but how can I play
an MP4?
Does Winamp do it?
Mp4 player and encoder can be found at the above URL for the Wintel platform.
--
AndyJ@Innocent.com
(see subject)
...so they released a music file that can only be opened on a Microsoft platform. Yeah, right.
So is Public Enemy so against corporate greed and money, are they giving all the money they make from their albums to charity? or when they signed their contracts to make them insanely wealthy, did the say, "No No...it's not about the money..we just want enough to live on....give the rest to charity...."
i'm sick of all these rich musicians complaining about corporate greed when it's corporate greed that made them. there are a few bands that stick to their word, like Fugazi, who put a limit on the price on their albums and tickets. they are not rich, but they stay true to their beliefs..
That URL in plaintext is: http://www.public-enemy.com/terrordome/enemyboard. html. Take the chance to tell them, because this is commercialism incarnated.
The URL for a complete description of mp4 is http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4
That is not what i am saying at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money, whether it is software or music. what i am saying is that they made a lot of money off that corporate greed they are talking about. that is why i mentioned Fugazi, because they make a living making music with out being on a major label, with out charging $25 for a concert ticket. Tool made an agreement in their contract where they make less money, but they have more contral over there music.
if they are so against corporartions big $$$$, do they take most of it a give it away? or do they keep all that horrible greed money?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with make a lot of money off the music business. but just don't on one hand cry about corporate greed, and on the other hand accept their check...
Gimme a break.
Would you give up all the money you made? I didn't think so. Would you be pissed off if someone took 90% of the profit from your hard work, sure you would. These guys atleast have the balls to do something about it, and here you are whining about how they don't work for free, Dude get a clue before you talk.
looks like we've been goosed....
The file is a self-playing music file.
The code is from GlobaMusic Inc
( www.globalmusic.com )
The actual format is unknown to me.
Probably related to MPEG 4 audio.
Maybe there is some info at globalmusic WWW site.
I wonder if it works under WINE ( I can't test it )
stein
This is quite pathetic. Everyone is more concerned about which driver it uses rather than if the music is worth a damn - which is the real question. (And if that virus didn't blow up your system.)
I can just see it. Everyone downloads it, gets it running under wine, is proud of their "hacker skills" and then promptly goes back to slash dot or perhaps fresh meat to download yet something else without pondering what they have just done and if it did them any good - never to listen to was created in the first place.
Weak.
Linux's unzip will extract the files from a selfextracting exe file just fine.
Are you sure the F stands for fine? Must be different here in the South.
I'd be very very very very very surprised if there weren't disclaimers all over the place.
I thought I heard much of the next mpeg standard was based on QT technology from Apple.
MPEG-4 Audio is finished. It was finished at the October MPEG meeting and has been in an "editing period" since then, where we've mostly been checking spelling, formatting, cross-references, etc. It is going off to ISO for publication any day now, if it hasn't already. You should be able to buy it from ISO soon.
The "reference software" (slow, user-hostile code to demonstrate how the standard is supposed to work) is all-but-complete and is scheduled to be finished in March. Non-MPEG organizations are already building tools for user-friendly use of the standard.
The whole MPEG-4 Audio standard (not including Video or Systems) is about 1200 pages long. It is formally ISO 14496-3:1999 and is divided into 6 Subparts:
Here is the hype from the beginning of Subpart 1:
ISO/IEC 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio) is a new kind of audio standard that integrates many different types of audio coding: natural sound with synthetic sound, low bitrate delivery with high-quality delivery, speech with music, complex soundtracks with simple ones, and traditional content with interactive and virtual-reality content. By standardizing individually sophisticated coding tools as well as a novel, flexible framework for audio synchronization, mixing, and downloaded post-production, the developers of the MPEG-4 Audio standard have created new technology for a new, interactive world of digital audio.
MPEG-4, unlike previous audio standards created by ISO/IEC and other groups, does not target a single application such as real-time telephony or high- quality audio compression. Rather, MPEG-4 Audio is a standard that applies to every application requiring the use of advanced sound compression, synthesis, manipulation, or playback. The subparts that follow specify the state-of-the- art coding tools in several domains; however, MPEG-4 Audio is more than just the sum of its parts. As the tools described here are integrated with the rest of the MPEG-4 standard, exciting new possibilities for object-based audio coding, interactive presentation, dynamic soundtracks, and other sorts of new media, are enabled.
The official MPEG Audio web page is mirrored here . I have a FAQ about MPEG Audio and patent issues here . I'm happy to answer any other questions about the format.
The "file format" (which tells you how to put the coded data into a computer file, if you don't want to broadcast it or stream it) is the part of MPEG-4 that's based on Quicktime. The codecs (which tell you how to compress the data) don't have anything to do with the codecs in Quicktime, for either audio or video.
Best regards,
Eric Scheirer
Editor, ISO 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio)
Eric,
I have some questions about MP4 that I would prefer to discuss through e-mail. It has to do with the possibilities for an Open Source MP4 encoder (patent issues, where to order material etc).
I would be gratefull if you could send me a mail. My address is tord@uds.se
Thanks.
the company controls who gets to use it.
if they let you use it they do it under
a "license". i doubt any companies
are going to grant you a license to distribute
your program under the GPL or even to give
it away for 'non commercial use' seeing as how
most people use them to steal copyrighted music
CDs and there would probably be some sort of
fee on each copy of an mp4 decoder/encoder just like there is on CD burners currently. .
and the companies probably have some stake
in skimming off as much $$ as they can off of copyrighted CDs, like they own a publishing house or they are golf buddies with the ceo of columbia or something.
You are wrong. There is MPEG, MPEG Layer 2, MPEG Layer 3, and now MPEG Layer 4. Actually, MP4 has been around for quite awhile, at least 6 months.
I don't know where you get the idea that musicians are rich. Most musicians are poor. Only a very small percentage become rich... those that make it "big-time". Haven't you ever heard the term "starving artist"? Well, it's true for most artists.
Yes, the next version of MPEG will be based on QuickTime. QuickTime is not one format, but a collection of formats with a common interface.
:-/
Ironically, QuickTime 3 does not support MP3 also known as MPEG 1 Layer 3.
Rather dumb of Apple, cuz it would be easy to write some bitchin front-ends using TCL/TK, Java, whatever, which in turn controls the QT backend.
Scott Prive
too lazy to log in...
I heard awhile back that Apple has the liscence to produce MP4 technology [t'was printed in MacWeek]. If true, they would most likely release it with Quicktime 4.0 at the Apple WWDC in February [this sentence is my speculation]. Anyone have any more info?
The software at the subject URL is bogus... The alleged "MP4 player" and "MP4 encoder" is the more than 6 months old Yamaha VQF software, which will not install because the time limit has expired. VQF, not MP4. Save yourself the download.
(Did the ignorant fsck that posted this just do a web search for MP4 and post whatever results he got without verifying them?)
After noticing that the comments were getting pretty damn redundant, I decided to actually look at the page, and at the bottom they had two links-one for mp4, and one for mp3. People who were calling them hypocrites may now appologize.
What percentage of the people who are currently bitching about the public enemy mp4 actually plan to listen to it?
[] 02%
[] 04%
[] 06%
[] 08%
[] 10%
Moral of the story, keep your advocacy to yourself and things you care about it. If you just blindly flame about anything which involves Linux, people will think less of your opinions when they are about things you actually care about. I think alot of you need to post appologies to the PE message board.
Someone should send 'em a copy of the GNU Manifesto run through the jive filter...
Had to download it- just to show support for the group- even though their music sucks they have the right attitude!
Had a look at the header- saw executable- not a zip file....
Thought Hmmmmm.....
did a quick:
wine swindlerslust.exe
and away it went!!
You don't get the oscilloscope or anything, but the sound is pretty damn good quality!
Yay wine!
Yay free music!
Dr_Labrat
russ@labrat.demon.co.uk
> ...it's in the new mp4 format which rivals cd in quality...
mp4, mp3, and Minidisc all use "lossy" compression, which means that some of the data which represents the audio waveform is removed by the encoding algorithm. mp3s compress at about a 12:1 ratio, and Minidisc at a 5:1 ratio.
This means that some of the data that was originally representing the audio isn't there anymore; the computer decides which audio information you hopefully won't hear, and removes it.
While the compression used in mp3s and Minidisc (and probably mp4) is decent, there's no way it rivals CD quality (CDs don't use compression). The rival CDs in file and media size, but at the expense of quality.
The only major format which will rival CD quality is 24 bit, 96 khz lossless DVD audio.
Your ignorance of mp3 is simply astounding. An mp3 is created using spectral encoding. This isn't black magic, and though information has been lost, it is information you wouldn't have otherwise heard. Experiments - real people in the real world listening to real frequencies - have managed to determine how the brain treats 2 monotonal sounds if they occur near each other in the frequency domain. An mp3 simply removes those frequencies your brain would have filtered out anyway, using the principle that a filtered summation of frequencies is the same as the summation of the filtered frequencies.
Could people please remember that the 44.1khz number is actually the digital sampling frequency, and that the reproduced analog signal is limited to at best 22.05khz (in practise lower than this because nobody has an ideal lowpass filter). It seems that a lot of people think that a CD can reproduce 44.1khz signals.
For people who think 22khz is under the threshold of the human senses, this may well be true (your ears aren't your only senses that can detect high frequencies), but in almost all cases 22khz is well above the frequencies supported by your amplifiers and speakers. Most speakers have already dropped 3db above 17khz, and 6db above 19khz. Amplifiers often include low frequency filters to prevent high frequencies from damaging your expensive speakers. The only real problem with CD is the 16bit limit on each channel. This effectively limits the signal to noise ratio, but once again this limit is often well above the capabilities of most amplifiers and speakers.
And for people who honestly believe that vinyl produces a better sound, you're crazy. Vinyl has problems with wear (remember, you're scraping a diamond head across brittle plastic) and the dynamics of a lump of diamond aren't that great. Vinyl does sound different, this is true, but it doesn't produce a more accurate sound than CD.
"For those that do, all the power to them, but they should expect the record company to do what record companies do and shouldn't start whining because they lacked the foresight to see that they'd get exploited"
This sounds a lot like "If she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have come up to my room."
For the mostpart I was talking about digital material when comparing mp3s, mp4s, and CD.
Analog is a whole other story. But in my opinion, there are too many problems with vinyl which make it inferior to both analog tape and digital media. Problems include: low-signal-to-noise ratio, pops and clicks, lower sound quality over time due to vinyl wearing out, extreme EQ needed to make up for the poor frequency response, poor stereo separation, and one channel being louder than the other (due to the needle pressing more on one side of the groove than the other)--among other things.
If I were to pick a good analog medium, it would be 1/2" analog tape with Dolby S. That definitely rivals CDs.
As far as a CD's sampling frequency not being high enough to encompass human hearing, I think the bigger problem is the anti-aliasing filters (especially the cheaper ones). Thee filters have to take such a deep cut out of the higher frequencies that it cuts into the range of human hearing. A 96 kHz sampling frequency would resolve this problem.
http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/software/
e g4/software/w2205/Audio/SNHC/mpeg4tts_sour ce.zip
e g4/software/w2205/Audio/SNHC/sa.tar.gz - looks like the source code...
ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/pub/MPEG/audio/mp
- TEXT TO SPEECH SOURCE
ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/pub/MPEG/audio/mp
If its reference code that is slow, someone OPTIMIZE it... well? where are the hardcore coders out there?
Lossy compression delivers better quality when you have limited bandwith.
CD takes around 156 kbyte/sec bandwith. When you would use that kind of bandwith with a algorithm such as mp3, you could have your original uncompressed sample resolution pushed to 32 bit, and the rate to 48 kHz. This would take 384 kbyte/sec uncompressed. Send that through mp3 at very high quality (i.e. only 1/3 commpression), and i bet you end up with same bandwith requirements as CD, but better overall quality.
> Can this .exe be played on a Mac using softwindows? (probably not)
It can. Tried it with Virtual PC 2.0.1 and 233 MHz G3 Mac. It didn't skip or cut in and out at all. But since the sound card is emulated (and Connectix's emulation isn't as good as Softwindows') it's a bit noisy. It's not horrible, though.
But I'd much rather be able to play the executable mp4s natively on the Mac, though.
Did you read the report??? AAC Main 128 got an average score of 4.8 on a scale where 4 is something to the effect of barely perceptible and not annoying artifacts. 4.8! And this was expert listeners with extremely high end equipment. I believe that does qualify as the tests showing "little to no difference in quality".
Quit whining, they have an MP3 version now.
Are they av. for DL too?
Not from what I've read. Nevertheless, the level and frequency response relative to each channel is inconsistent, especially if the record has been played a few times and begins to wear.
FWIW - I have the FhG AAC eval package and have listened to audio encoded at 64kb per channel in main profile. I can tell you for a FACT that I hear artifacts in AAC just as much as I hear them in MP3. I am so sure, in fact, that I believe I could identify AAC 100% of the time in a blind listening test IF I were allowed to choose the source material. The reason is, the artifacts in MPEG coding are more noticable on certain types of audio programs - for example, things with vocal harmonies, esp choirs or chant have (IMO) very noticable artifacts when coded to MP3 or AAC. I could go into the technical reasons, but I'll save that for some other post.
In case you didn't realise, CDs don't store linear sample values, but some pseudo-logarithmic thing. This means loud sounds can reduce the precision used to represent the quiet sounds playing at the same time.
It's a minor effect, but CDs are lossy too.
no the exe is the mp4 codec, mp4s require no player..
i think its a brilliant technology
believe it or not, its easier to read the company that makes mp4s page than make up strange facts
http://www.mailbag.com/users/deanengmann/
One of the listeners did a MP3 translation for those who don't have MP4 players. Get it Here [disclaimer: my box has no sound, I haven't checked if this version is any good]
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Did he mention X11amp? It looks to me like he said "winamp", so I'd assume he meant Winamp. Do you speak English?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
They probably are not even aware of the fact that Linux exists. The "Windows 95/98/NT only" is most likely just a notice that says "won't work on MacOS."
Just taking the stats from the last week for my homepage, there have been approximately 5000 hits, and 3 of those were Linux. 8 total were using various *nix systems (3 Linux, 2 Irix, 2 SunOS, 1 FreeBSD). 2 were using OS/2. more than 4500 were using Win*, and about 150 were using Macintosh.
So I somehow doubt that they're going to be aware of a problem that fewer than 0.05% of their users will have.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by Hat Rack:
I downloaded refsoft980508.tgz which should
be the MPEG-4 encoder/decoder if I am correct.
When I try to compile it however, I get these...
src_frame/audio.c:64: libtsp.h: No such file or directory
src_frame/audio.c:65: libtsp/AFpar.h: No such file or directory
I can't find these libs anywhere...
How does one compile this?????
--
--
=8^
I'm pretty curious myself to know if either winamp *or* x11amp will play it.
The last time this whole Public Enemy MP3 thing appeared on Slashdot, I said the same thing.
One important point to note was that, at the time they signed their contracts, MP3 was unheard of, and releasing your tracks via the Internet was something nobody had thought of. When these new technologies appeared, PE couldn't take advantage of them and couldn't convince their label to allow them to explore it. I think that's what their anger towards their label is about at this point.
Though I agree 100% with both the original comment and this one. They're making a relatively good living off of their music. The fact of the matter is, they want more. The label takes the bulk of their profits (which is something the band agreed to by signing the contract!), and the band is no longer comfortable with their relationship.
Sucks to be them... or does it?
Having worked in the music industry for several years (as a DJ, programming director) and having worked with several bands (in the family and friends, many of which are signed with relatively major and minor labels), I do not consider myself ignorant. I may not have had the experiences you or your friends have had, but I am rooting my arguments based upon what I have seen and know.
No, I'm saying, "I want to buy this CD because I like the music or the artist and I'm willing to spend $17.99USD for it." To be honest, I (like most consumers) could care less where the money is going. If I found out that one label and/or artist was being significantly more evil than the rest, I might take that into consideration when contemplating purchase, but this is the way the record business is. So I bought the CD. So what? Does this make me an evil person for supporting the tyrrany of the record industry? No; I'm just a consumer. I've also bought CD's from most all of the friends and friends of friends that have released CD's. I support my friends.
Yes, being a band IS a job. There's a tremendous overhead involved and frequently, bands will be too sucked into the "we're gonna make it big!" bug that they're WILLING to sign over most of the money they make as well as the rights to everything they produce. Some bands are more cautious than others. Some don't *want* to try and "make it big" for this reason. For those that do, all the power to them, but they should expect the record company to do what record companies do and shouldn't start whining because they lacked the foresight to see that they'd get exploited.
Remember, the record companies are out to make money too. If you agree to sign your life over to them, be prepared to give it to them. If you don't like the terms, don't sign. Keep your day job.
Now I'm not saying protest and education isn't worthwhile. If you can provide artists and consumers with an alternative to the established record industry, I would be very interested to see if it succeeds. However, so long as there are artists that are aware of the risks of signing but are still willing to do it, and so long as there are record labels willing to continue doing what record labels do, I don't forsee much of a change in the near future.
Record labels will change when it becomes profitable for them to do so. So long as bands are lining up to get reamed and consumers are lining up to purchase what the labels offer, that won't happen.
I agree that this is the direction we need to try and go. But, existing groups locked into contracts with existing labels will have a hard time migrating. It's just a matter of finding people with enough flexibility, backing and will to make something like this work. I would love to see it happen.
But I don't think one band whining about their record label's greed and inflexibility is the way to make it happen.
I was under the impression that "MP3" was shorthand
for "MPEG Layer 3", i.e. the audio layer of the
video encryption standard.
If this is the case, isn't "MP4" the wrong name?
Or am I just plain wrong?
--
And guess what Chuck D said about it:
.....thats what this board is for ...access..... "
"yeah,Dean go ahead do your thing... thanx for helping out
Yiihaa!
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen - http://iki.fi/juhtolv
Funny.
Sorry, guys, you guys were played and played hard. You think that virus was an accident? Why should it have been; the music industry *loves* the concept of "Don't get music from unknown sources, it might format your hard drive."
Look up sustainable competitive advantage. If the music labels format my hard drive, I can sue them--I can't do that to some random web site--so boom, they got their SCA.
Humorous, to say the least.
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
>dan, you've missed some point. that virus >apparently was uploaded, then found and removed, >on the *7th* - check today's date. :)
Duh.
It's the seedling of doubt. Follows from the last completely unsubstantiated MP3 Virus Scare that *nobody* knows where it came from.
Look at how mass media tries to portray the internet--full of rumors, can't trust em, red light district...
The idea that the music industry would love MP3 to seem risky isn't THAT far fetched, Tom.
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
> they're doing us a favor. who cares if they scare the clueless?
Sounds like a compromise to me, Tom.
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
Since no one in this thread said "MPEG I or II layer 4" why did you go off on them and CNN about it?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
even if it is not - if you've got wine and dosemu, there is no file you cant unarchive.. perhaps the mp4 player works under wine? i know winamp does...
Marques Johansson
If you downloaded Swindler's Lust MP4 today (1/7)
between 3 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. EST, it may be infected
with a virus. A new copy has been uploaded. P.E.
apologizes for the oversight.
Arf ...
their web site has an email link - tell them to pressure frankenhuafer, or whoever they are, to release an open source version of mp3/4. alternatively suggest an open source alternative (is there one?) personally i'd rather see an open source version of mp3/4. the idea of free software is to write it once, not recode things over and over like closed source requires.
chances are they don't know. educate them. help them out. they are trying
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
From the site: "So this is anti-corporatism, and watch the reaction to this lyrical swirl...."
And at the bottom of the page:
"DOWNLOAD NOW! [Windows 95/98/NT only]"
Hmm, seems like if they really supported anti-corporatism, they'd release the music in a format that everyone can use, not an EXE file that only runs on proprietary operating systems created by a particular corporation. And this isn't even an issue of porting or anything. The EXE is likely just a self-extracting archive for the MP4 file itself.
Recording contracts are pretty nasty. They make it very hard for a band to quit working for a label even if their relationship sours. Chuck D and the boys have certainly become more jaded as time as has passed -- so prehaps they didn't know how bad it was when they first got into it.
Perhaps if you download it, you will see that the exe is not a selfextracting zip, but a player with the MP4 embeded in it. I know you'll say something along the lines of why did they embed it in a exe, why didn't they release it as just an MP4, maybe that's becuase not everyone has an MP4 player yet.
Hear Hear! And besides... his bitch in and of itself perpetuated the very thing he was bitching about. His post had nothing about the music itself.
Did I mention stupid people shouldn't breed?
out.
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
I included the URL from the OFFICIAL Mpeg Homepage. There you can find the Mpeg-4 specification. May this be the trigger for some programmer to start mp4 support for Linux :-) http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/mpeg/
*(Another peace of cloth removed from this man
Hmm. This .EXE that you download includes a player. The Wintel player posted is useless for this file. I'd have to agree with a previous poster that this isn't exactly "anti-corporate" but then again I doubt Public Enemy have even heard of Unix or Linux, so perhaps the Microsoft slant is inevitable...
martian
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
You have it backwards: the corporations do not make the bands rich, the bands make the corporations rich.
It's the beginning of the end for the traditional record company, who sells you a CD for $15 and gives $1 to the musicians. It used to be that the musicians needed the record companies to handle the logistics and the distribution, but the deal is going to change.
In this new world, the musicians can make more money and the public can get access to the music for less money, all by cutting out the suits in the middle.
I was under the impression that rather than MP4 standing for 'Mpeg audio layer 4' it's actually a MPEG 4 audio stream, which is a somewhat different thing...
Chuck D's response to the various complaints posted to their board about the new single only being playable under Windows:
..that's the reasons for some of the moves..."
.EXE file. I haven't read the MPEG group's spec yet, but from most of the comments I read it sounded like the OS-specific nature was inherent in the format. I hope this is not the case. Actual OPEN standards are a GOOD THING...
"i got macs and cant get mp4, but were working on it...did you know that 96% of this board is pc?
So the crew aknowledges it wasn't the greatest plan to release it as an
Does anyone have the song in MP4 format instead of EXE?
The file you download is a .exe and it runs a little player which the mp4 is encoded in. It may run under wine. I dont have sound enabled so I couldnt tell you.
..
talking windows users is where I draw the line
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
Downloading Swindler's Lust from the website come as something other than your standard MP3 (or MP4)..... :), but it is an ADVERTISEMENT. Click on the picture of Public Enemy or it's logo, and you go to thier kick-@$$ website, where you can check out more stuff about the group. If you really dig it, then you'll go and buy their CDs.
What we have is an executable file, a player that came with the music. It not only shows a snappy interface and oscilloscope (the wavy thing
Folks, they are going a step beyond releasing the single to a bunch of radio stations. They are releasing an amazing little program to the world that should be impressive enough so that at least 1/4 or 1/8th become interested enough to buy thier stuff. Of course, when you are in the buisness as long as they have been, it's more than just the money. Take the money to pay your way, and along the way get everybody up on the beat. It's fun for them, it's their way of life.
So go to the site, boot into Windows for a moment to check it out, and buy the CD if you like it. Plain and simple.
And seriously, why would they care if they didn't release something in Linux? It would have taken too much effort to cater to such a small part of the computing. They didn't release it as an MP3 because it'd become just another pirate pass-along. Too many of you are acting like there's been a great injustice. Just look at all the Macintosh users, they aren't chanting MAC OS! MAC OS! on the PE message board.
fellow Linux users, behave yourselves.....
-Richard "Rahga" Hoelscher
thats because this is news for nerds, a new public enemy album is not news for most nerds. if u want to know how it is just ask but negative criticism isn't necessary. IMHO, its so-so...
I saw all about the new mp4 format on cnet tv on saturday.
.exe file. This format is used by some video camera maker ( I am not sure if they invented the format) and it is supposed to be more tightly compressed than mp3. Because it is an .exe file there is no need for any type of external player, the user just executes the file.
.exe file and 'decompress it' or convert it to an mp3 under Linux and Unix, but I am not sure.
.exe be played on a Mac using softwindows? (probably not)
The new format is a way of encoding the audio and I think video file into an executable. The executable is then run without a player. Of course this only works under windows because it is a
It may be possible to take the binary
I'll be honest here. I personally think that the person who created this format was trying to get ride of all other Operating Systems or was not thinking of other Operating Systems.
So now the question is:
1) Can this
2) The Public Enemy mp4 also had a virus in it. The virus has since been removed. Will this be the next way to distribute viruses and thus promote Windows anti-virus software? (Could be)
3) It was also designed to make it easier for people to keep in touch thru video email. Parents coudl buy there children video camera and have one at home and they could send each other video emails, and not ned any extra software to decode it. I think this was a good idea, but I also think that is is a bit short cited. I think they should have made it maybe a Java or Tcl/Tk executable, or some other cross platform executable. Will someone come up with a more efficient cross platform method of encoding video / audio data that doesn't need an external player?
Only 'flamers' flame!
I think everyone should quit worrying about whether it's a mp3/4 or whatever and realize what they are trying to do here. These guys have been talking about changes in the conventional methods of creating music and music distribution through new technology for years. Just listen to the message Harry Allen left on Chuck's machine on the Muse Sick -N- Hour Mess Age album. Now these guys are actually putting out music that, to the best of my knowledge, can't even be bought in a store and people are complaining about a file format.
I think we should give PE mad props for going against the record company and showing everyone how things should be.
It is true that MPEG-4, like other modern audio formats, is a lossy psychoacoustic coder, and so the bits aren't the same as on a CD. But MPEG and independent groups have done extensive testing to make the sound quality as good as possible.
MPEG found when testing Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), which is the basis for the the high-quality coder in MPEG-4, that at 64 kbps/channel and higher rates it acheives "Indistinguishable Quality" as that term is defined by the European Broadcasting Union. (This means that a certain percentage of highly-trained listeners cannot hear any difference in a formal listening test with certain special methods.)
Anyone who really wants to criticize MPEG-4 sound quality should first read "Report on the MPEG-4 Stereo Verification Tests" by Meares, Watanabe, and Scheirer, available here.
Best to all,
-- Eric
Editor, ISO/IEC 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio)
I would have cited this in my original post, but the MPEG test is available online, and you have to go to the library to read the JAES report.
Second, I think you misread the MPEG report -- there are 22 subjects included in the test results. There were 3 *sites* and 3 *listening positions*, but 31 subjects in all were tested. 8 had to be removed in post-hoc tests as detailed in Section 10.3 of the report.
I agree on the relative accuracy of Ref/A/B tests compared to subject-switchable. It's a tradeoff between time and cost and robustness. The Toronto test used hard-disk playback and allowed users to switch.
Finally, I am not trying to deny that both tests show there is a difference between AAC and original recording -- this is very clear. But it's not a conspiracy nor a secret, and AAC is much closer to transparency than any other coder at equivalent bitrates. It depends on the application whether or not the quality degradation you get with AAC is acceptable. It's better than FM radio, cassette tape, and MP3 -- all formats which have proven viable in the marketplace. Thus, I conclude that the coding artefacts in MPEG-4 and AAC are not barriers to their marketplace acceptance.
If you really want something to argue about, you should attack FM radio. Start yelling "the quality of radio is bad, you shouldn't listen to it!" and see what people say.
All the best,
-- Eric
as tested by yesterday's release (990110)...and sounds pretty clear. it has left right volume control, stop, pause, play, windowshading, and an oscilliscope that i don't see. in any case, check it out. not a bad song, either.
I went to that MPEG page, and as far as they're concerned, there is certainly an MPEG4. As a matter of fact, there is no MPEG3 in their list. :)
Looks like CNN may be a bit more on top of the ball than some think...
On the first page of the site, near the top of the page:
"MPEG-4 version 1, the standard for multimedia applications (Oct. 98)"
Mark
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.