hi,

I've just read this article about mp2 :

http://wiki.themixingbowl.org/MP2

This is very interesting.

It says that mp2 should be compatible with any mp3 player.

I've just tried renaming some mp2 files to mp3 and put them
on my ipod but no luck.
The ipod tried to play the files but couldn't.

So is there any mp3 player out there that can really play mp2 files?

It could be interesting to use mp2 instead of mp3 because sound quality
of mp2 is better than mp3 (for bitrate>192 kbps)

The people at Apple could probably care less about mp2, as you can probably count on one hand the people in the world that use it.

I hate to say it but at such high bitrate (ie 192kbps+) don't all encoders begin sounding alike? Lame mp3, FhG mp3, iTunes mp3, Nero AAC, iTunes AAC, etc. should all start sounding alike once you get up past the 192kbps bitrate. I would like to see some of your personal ABX tests comparing mp2 at 192kbps to Lame mp3 at 192kbps. The wiki link didn't have any documentation supporting their superior quality claims. That is why I doubt any claims that the page makes, that and Wiki entries can be edited by anyone. I am sure there is a die hard mp2 fan out there (just like Lame mp3, Nero AAC, and even ATRAC3) that just refuse to let it die.

I understand that standard support for MP2 goes up to a higher bitrate than MP3, and I think MP2 is less subject to pre-echo, but I believe that at equivalent bitrate MP3 is generally higher quality than MP2, so unless you are willing to go over 320 kbps I would stick with MP3.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I believe that there are Layer 2 hardware patents that are more enforced/enforceable than the software patents.

Rather no. The licensed Fraunhofer hardware decoder contains both the MP2 as well as MP3 decoding engine. Always. One gets all MP3 players to work with MP2 files if one renames them from MP2 to MP3. The hardware chip inside an MP3-player then detects MP2 instead of MP3 and the MP2-decoder part of the chip decodes the audio.

There is only one exception: in a situation where price is almost the only argument for fabricating and/or selling an MP3-player the 2-3 cents for the extra silicon required for the MP2-decoder part surely plays a role and they will remove it from the player.

As you all (might) know, iPods are very expensive to buy for the consumer (mostly because of the design hype) but their fabrication costs in China are extraordinary low because they squeezed anything out of it that might cost a few cents or more. They essentially cripple the iPod ... I myself consider an iPod a crippled, low quality device that simply sells because of the design hype and naming and I will never ever buy one in my lifetime...

I quote your whole post because I don't want it to be lost in the sands of time.
The iPod is, and always has been, a software decoding MP3 player.
In fact, I challenge you to name a modern MP3 player which does hardware decoding.
The entire basis for your rant is bunk.

Ah yes?? Read this: http://www.eetimes.eu/semi/193501653.

Be a bit more careful next time!

I was plenty careful.
The poor wording in that article notwithstanding, I'm still right.

The Nano (also mentioned in that article) was and is using a general purpose CPU. If you don't believe me ask the gurus at Rockbox, at IpodLinux.

The Shuffle was using a (programmable) DSP(which is as close as you are going to get to a hardware decoding chip such as you describe), and is now using an ARM core (according to IpodLinux and others).