Comments:"Successor to mp3"; MusicDNA founder interviewed

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

I think mp3 is safe. This essentially adds extended meta-data. But a large amount of this extended metadata can already be embeded in mp3 files, just no one uses it, because no one really cares. (OTOH, perhaps no one uses, as its a lot of work to add this metadata, and not really beneficial unless all your media has it). I'd be interested to see how they plan to do this legitament buyers only get access to website. Are you going to need a password to the website to stop music "pirates" from seeing this extended album cover type stuff. OR is there going to be some sort of DRM that only applies to the meta-data. IF they're going the DRM on the metadata route, the guy says he does not think DRM on music files work, so why would it on metadata. To me this sounds like marketing gimick (new format that does not add anything) + propriety online meta-data download service.

The only chance they have of making this take off is to get a lot of the music industry on board. I doubt it has intrinsically enough features to make consumers "want" it.

DRM is stupid, really stupid. And, I don't care whether they're going that route or not.

The most modern media players will take all your on-disk music, which may have limited metadata, and lnk that to new releases, concert dates, and all those things. This just seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Someone has been drinking their own marketing hooch.

Adding content is a worthy step, the trouble is, with MP3s the emotional content of the music is missing. Better fidelity first, bells and whistles second.

MP3 was a breakthrough for its time. If you were on a corporate network, or similar bandwidth level, you could stream music in realtime; on a dial-up connection you could have a song in about 20 minutes to play as many times as you liked; and, if you had an actual MP3 player you could cram a significant amount of music into a very small amount of storage space.

Then came the notified-by-stealth patents; thou shalt have a license to use a couple of mathematical formulae.

Everyone, today, that I introduce to OGG finds it - fidelity-wise - a far better format; the bandwidth woes are receding, if not already gone. Take your "shiney!" and shove it! I want something I can rely on to continue working for my grandchildren.

I think it will not replace MP3...

It will replace MP3 if it gets a great deal of corporate backing. If not, it will be another drop in the ocean. Quality is irrelevant. Yes, OGG is better; MP3 wins only in its universal support. Universal support would be harder now than it has ever been, and is by its nature extremely rare. Either way you understand the phrase "successor to mp3", the answer is no.

Besides, the answer for me will continue to involve usage of many different formats. No, I don't particularly like TTA, but I have to have support for it. A successor is impossible.

No, it won't replace MP3. Never.