Talk:Audio and Music

From Just Solve the File Format Problem
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Dan Tobias moved page Talk:Audio to Talk:Audio and Music: Merging the audio and music categories because for some types of files (e.g., trackers with both samples and instrument controls) it's hard to classify them in the current ontology. Also...)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
: I agree with the notion that audio files should be separated from music files, eventually. There's room for an even finer categorization, audio stream, sample formats (such as xi, rex and other containing specific metadata), modules (self contained files containing samples), music software documents (predominantly note data, eg mid, or Cubase etc documents), music files for specific hardware, not containing samples (nsf, gbs, sid etc). --[[User:Nitro2k01|Nitro2k01]] ([[User talk:Nitro2k01|talk]]) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 
: I agree with the notion that audio files should be separated from music files, eventually. There's room for an even finer categorization, audio stream, sample formats (such as xi, rex and other containing specific metadata), modules (self contained files containing samples), music software documents (predominantly note data, eg mid, or Cubase etc documents), music files for specific hardware, not containing samples (nsf, gbs, sid etc). --[[User:Nitro2k01|Nitro2k01]] ([[User talk:Nitro2k01|talk]]) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Audio formats, container formats and codecs ==
 +
I am a bit confused how to handle the differences between these. Since this wiki is about file formats they should obviously be the main focus. There are a lot of audio compression formats, some of them come with their own container formats (e.g. FLAC) and other use standardized container formats (e.g. Vorbis uses OGG and AAC uses MP4). There are also codecs that look like they come in their own container but they only fool you (e.g. Speex uses the .spx extension which really is an OGG container). Should codecs that don't have their own container format be in the list? It kind of make sense since they are also a binary format that is part of a container format as a chunk or bitstream (or what you want to call it). I am also thinking about how to organize formats with multiple extensions (e.g. ATRAC uses .aa3, .oma and .at3). Comments and suggestions? --[[User:PN|PN]] ([[User talk:PN|talk]]) 19:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:38, 19 November 2012

I'm not sure how formal this whole effort is in terms of rules / guidelines, but I figure I should take a minute to explain how I intend to organise this page. If anyone has a better system I'm happy to talk about implementing that instead.

We're obviously going to have massive trouble with ambiguity, given the relatively small number of filenames and the vast number of different kinds of files (to pick just one example, a ".ps" file might be a PostScript document or an Amiga module created by Paul Shields).

For the Audio section, as you can see, I've picked up from whoever started it and kept on with the format FILE EXTENSION (Brief Description). For the most part, I intend to create new pages simply at FILE EXTENSION. When ambiguity arises, I've been turning FILE EXTENSION into a disambiguation page and creating new pages using Brief Description, then altering the links on the main page to "Brief Description|FILE EXTENSION" - see "PSF" for example.

Anway, that was boring, but I thought I should explain my thinking. --Halftheisland (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm functioning as Final Editor on this project (unlike most Wikis), so there's a solid voice and less time spent bickering. Your system makes sense, and that's how we've been doing it for everything. The intent is to use Categories to help people coming in from sideways issues, like "I have a pile of cartridges, what is on these" or "I have a floppy disk, what kind of floppy disk could it possibly be".
--Jason Scott (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Any chance you could knock together some basic editing guidelines for us, Jason? I've been limiting myself to just basic scaffolding at this point, imitating what you had already put up. -- Rhetoric X (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering what the feeling is on pulling in extant documents and wikifying them? I've been linking to various file format specs, but I'm concerned that those links have an expiry date. It would be nice to take them and stick them in a sub-page (e.g. S3M/Specification) just so we've got a backup. ETA: This has been clearly addressed in the FAQ --Halftheisland (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that there's a separate category for music files, and that many of these formats seem to be more like music files than audio files. MOD being one example but there are many more.

I think this is definitely something that will need sorted shortly - for now, I have literally hundreds more formats to add many of which I am unsure of beyond that they contain audio / music data of some kind. For that reason, I'm going to keep adding them here for consistency - we can always move them to the appropriate section later on. --Halftheisland (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the notion that audio files should be separated from music files, eventually. There's room for an even finer categorization, audio stream, sample formats (such as xi, rex and other containing specific metadata), modules (self contained files containing samples), music software documents (predominantly note data, eg mid, or Cubase etc documents), music files for specific hardware, not containing samples (nsf, gbs, sid etc). --Nitro2k01 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Audio formats, container formats and codecs

I am a bit confused how to handle the differences between these. Since this wiki is about file formats they should obviously be the main focus. There are a lot of audio compression formats, some of them come with their own container formats (e.g. FLAC) and other use standardized container formats (e.g. Vorbis uses OGG and AAC uses MP4). There are also codecs that look like they come in their own container but they only fool you (e.g. Speex uses the .spx extension which really is an OGG container). Should codecs that don't have their own container format be in the list? It kind of make sense since they are also a binary format that is part of a container format as a chunk or bitstream (or what you want to call it). I am also thinking about how to organize formats with multiple extensions (e.g. ATRAC uses .aa3, .oma and .at3). Comments and suggestions? --PN (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox