QuickTime-incompatible mp3 files

Mikuro

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
I have a few mp3s in my collection that for some reason QuickTime can't open. iTunes can play them fine, but I get an error if I try to open them in QuickTime Player: "it is not a format QuickTime understands. (-2048)"

Does anyone know how/why this could happen? And is there any way to fix my mp3 so that QuickTime can play it?

I suppose I can convert it using iTunes, but that's always a last resort, since reencoding means losing quality.
 
Just a thought, it would be useful to get some info on the codecs used in case there is a problem with the files. Can you browse to the MP3 in iTunes, choose File --> Get Info and then post a screenshot (or copy out) the detailed info on the file?

I was of the impression that MP3 files did not support different codecs or DRM, so this really shouldn't be happening.
 
symphonix said:
I was of the impression that MP3 files did not support different codecs or DRM, so this really shouldn't be happening.
Click to expand...
That's what had me so confused. But when I started copying the info like you suggested, I found out there's a logical explanation for it: it's not an mp3; it's an mp2 that's just named "*.mp3". I looked in iTunes' info window before, but I didn't even notice it said "MPEG-1, Layer 2". Renaming the file "*.mp2" makes everything work fine.

Thanks for the help!
 
Nice suggestion symphonix, and great detective work and problem solving Mikuro.

It is also a sad testimony to Apple's failure to incorporate metadata, in place of the Windoze '.' extension, in MacOS X - as how to determine which files an application actually supports.

The latter was said in memory of the once world class operating system that Apple created and greatly improved upon - System (1.0 - 9.2.2). Sadly, it then divested itself of quality system software engineers and quality control - for the likes of MacOS X (10.0.0 - 10.4.3).
 
Where did that come from? You do understand that whoever posted the music file on the Internet gave it the wrong extension. What makes you think that they would have included metadata? And if they had included metadata, what makes you think that the metadata would have been any more accurate than the extension?
 
'Where did that come from?', from writing 68K code in Assembly, Pascal, C, and C++. Also, please see this Google search result (such as 1, 2, and 3 - to cite but a few).

'You do understand that whoever posted the music file on the Internet gave it the wrong extension.' - yes, I do. And if the System 9.2.2 and earlier metadata scheme ('FREF' [file reference] resource, or equivalent) was within MacOS X'es 'QuickTime Player' - an incorrect or no extension, would have still been properly identified.

'What makes you think that they would have included metadata?' - the music file does not contain the 'metadata', the application internally contains a ('FREF', or equivalent) list of the 'type' of files it can handle via metadata stored elsewhere.

'And if they had included metadata, what makes you think that the metadata would have been any more accurate than the extension?', because such worked (nearly) flawlessly from 1984 to the official orphaning of System 9.2.2.
 
I agree with you, barhar. This has long been one of my biggest problems with OS X. For years I considered the lack of file-name requirements to be one of the core Mac qualities — and I still do. I consider OS X to be very "un-Mac-like" in this regard, and that's really sad.

In theory OS X is very good about this; it still supports type/creator codes just like OS 9. But in practice....it just doesn't use them! Apple's newer programs don't even have creator codes. It's not so much a fault of the OS itself, but the philosophy it has bred. It's like even Apple feels that anything that isn't compatible with Windows isn't worth using.

But the truth is, OS 9 wouldn't handle this particular case any better. In OS 9, when you got a file from a PC, it simply gave it a type/creator code based on its file extension, since there was no other data to go by. So it would have been confused just like OS X in this case.


The real solution to this particular problem lies at the application level. QuickTime just needs to be smarter about how it reads files. It shouldn't matter what it's named or what type code it has (if any). It should be smart enough to identify the file based on its actual data. iTunes is, and so are most other media players — even on Windows!

The only way I can see to fix this on the OS level would be to use Spotlight to analyze the file's contents and then store the result in a Classic-like type code. That would be very cool, but it'd be quite a task to implement it efficiently.
 
barhar said:
Nice suggestion symphonix, and great detective work and problem solving Mikuro.

It is also a sad testimony to Apple's failure to incorporate metadata, in place of the Windoze '.' extension, in MacOS X - as how to determine which files an application actually supports.

The latter was said in memory of the once world class operating system that Apple created and greatly improved upon - System (1.0 - 9.2.2). Sadly, it then divested itself of quality system software engineers and quality control - for the likes of MacOS X (10.0.0 - 10.4.3).
Click to expand...

8.6-9.2.2 were shoddy, unstable, dated, and clunky. true proof of overdevelopment instead of a clean canvas. OSX is the epitome of a stable, elegant and powerful operating environment.
 
'In OS 9, when you got a file from a PC, it simply gave it a type/creator code based on its file extension, since there was no other data to go by. So it would have been confused just like OS X in this case.', but, via the 'Internet' control panel's 'Advanced' tab's 'File Mapping' panel's 'Change...' button, one could assign a type and creator to that extension.

Sadly, 'QuickTime Player' version 5.0.3 (System 9.2.2) does not support '.mp2' format at all - thus, one cannot go further, with respect to '.mp2' files and metadata - in this particular instance.

----

I hear you Lt Major Burns - System 5.0 was known to randomly delete files, and 8.6 had some issues with some Mac models. Overall, though - the Systems of 9.2.2 and earlier were quite good. I never encountered any as shoddy, unstable, or clunky, however (naturally, my experience and opinion).

MacOS X is not as bullet proof as advertised. Going to a few web sites (such as 'http://abcnews.go.com/') with MacOS X 10.4.0 - 2's 'Safari' easily froze many a Mac.

I remain hopeful - for those at Apple to return the Mac experience, speed, consistency, and user friendly interface of past Systems, as they introduce new and useful features.
 
Good detective work indeed.

And I'd have to disagree with your assertion Barhar, the current file-typing system (as of 10.4) is far superior to anything else out there ... unfortunately not all apps use it to its full potential. I'd suggest though Barhar that you read this page, and you might feel a lot better about the new file-type system ...
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/11

Still, like all systems, its GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you give a program an incorrectly typed file, this is the sort of thing to expect.
 
Thank you symphonix for the Arstechnica's 'File types revisited' article reference. I will save it, and read it - once I can.

A quick scan of the article revealed the use of MIME; this is also used on System 9.2.2 or earlier (via the 'Internet' control panel's 'Advanced' tab's 'Helper apps' panel.).
I knew Apple hired Giampaolo, the one behind BeOS'es File System; but, did not connect some of the features of MacOS X 10.4.x, as Apple's implementation of portions of BeOS'es File System into it.

Again, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top