Talk:"Successor to mp3"; MusicDNA founder interviewed

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You failed to ask various questions based on the serious problems with MP3.

  1. Are there any patents involved in this new format?
  2. Would it be possible for major Free-content projects such as archive.org or Wikipedia be able to use this new format without obtaining any license?
  3. Is this new format well-suited to being handled in hardware? Thus reducing battery usage in portable devices?

I know OGG has problems - mostly because the people who're developing it have limited resources and hardware manufacturers are reluctant to invest in developing non-software encoders/decoders, but I think in some points it would be better to compare and contrast with OGG. So, don't know if you can go back and ask additional questions – these are just food for thought. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting thoughts. It took quite some time to get these answers as it is; but I would imagine the answers to the first two would probably be yes and no, but that is just a random guess. To be honest as well, I don't think the first two really hold much interest with consumers, our readers. So no, I don't think I'm going to go back and ask, but scrumptious food for thought none the less! Cheers Brian.   Tris   15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this isn't done yet, but could you perhaps clarify what exactly musicDNA is and how it differs from mp3 as a file format? What i get from this article is it is mp3+extended meta-data. But MP3 already has a very extensive meta-data system. I also get that this meta-data will be internet updated. How exactly does that work? does the file contain a url reference to some sort of standardized meta-data format for the file on the internet? What happens when whomever maintains this internet resource decides to stop. (and arguably can that really be considered part of the file format. Sounds more like mp3+a more info link). Whats so special about it that makes it different from currently available formats? Bawolff 17:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yuh huh, I'll see what I can do. Thanks Bawolff.   Tris   17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've added a little bit about how it actually works. Yes, as far as I can tell, it is very similar to mp3, with the added bonus that the metadata updates automatically and also, Stefan says that it has audio recognition/pattern thingy in it. Do you think it needs more?   Tris   17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, its more clear now. (/me would still consider this technology that already exists, and really nothing special, but thats not really relevant to the article). Bawolff 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK cool; yes, I'm with you here, but hey, we'll know in time!   Tris   17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes[edit]

The interview was conducted by email. It has been replicated word for word here, but I can forward it to a reviewer if really wanted.   Tris   17:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of revision 956190 [Passed][edit]

Tech-savvy audience[edit]

As evidenced by one or two of the comments, Wikinews does have a fairly tech-savvy audience. Please bear this in mind for future interviews of this nature. Myself, Bawolff, and Shakataganai are all fairly qualified to ask 'challenging' questions on tech. aspects of things like this. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the offer Brian. Out of interest, having just had another read through the comments, the only really tech-savvy comments seem to be coming from you and Bawolff? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for you commenting and welcome it, but you seem twice on this talk page to be ridiculing the interview because it is not "techy" enough for you. I don't really get it tbh; readers in general are not going to have the background that you have in technology and won't be hung up on whether people have to pay royalties for patents or whether it can be used in free content projects, they just care about whether it will work and whether it'll benefit them. That is not to say that they are stupid or just eat anything that is given to them, they can still make informed decisions and comments. However, as I've said above, I don't believe that some questions that you've raised above are particularly interesting for a general audience; yes, interesting for us, but not for everyone.   Tris   20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let me put it another way; a really good way to get any Wikinews article a large readership is through posting it on Slashdot... --Brian McNeil / talk 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, that depends. We often report legal issues; doing so properly means the nitty gritty. There's no reason why we can't do that here either. People can ignore questions they don't want the answer to if they really want. That's their lookout. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, I get your point. I was a bit ratty earlier, apologies. Thanks and I'll keep it in mind for next time. Regards.   Tris   22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]