Talk:Bitrate peeling

message: I'm curious what is left to be cleaned up on this article? It seems pretty good to me. Triddle 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the article did a great job of expanding it, however the article doesn't bother to dive into the "technical aspects" of bitrate peeling, such as how it is done using set of cascaded vector quantization codebooks, residue, etc.  There are two "prototype peelers" that exist one was developed by a company called Vinjey Software and is on their website (the packets aren't ordered correctly, however in the encoder so it makes it hard to peel down streams). The other peeler was written by Segher Bossenskool and might be in the archive of the xiph.org mailing list somewhere. ;-D  -Hydrogenaudio.org lurker 05:53, September 3, 2005 (EST)
:Thanks for the note but thats got nothing to do with cleanup; I've added the expansion tag to this talk page. Triddle 20:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Here are several clean-up suggestions: In my opinion, the article is basically a confusing mix between being a description of two different things:
* a description of a generic algorithmic concept that can be applied to many compression encoding scenarios, versus
* a description of a specific proposed or existing feature of Ogg Vorbis.
If the intent is to describe a generic algorithm concept, then the article needs to be substantially rephrased to reflect that (for example, Ogg Vorbis should not be part of the introductory sentence unless it is just one entry in a longer list of technologies that may be relevant to understanding the concept).  If the intent is to describe something particular to Ogg Vorbis, then probably Ogg Vorbis should be part of the article title or the whole article should be merged into the existing article about Ogg Vorbis.  In either case, there should be an effort made to provide a more precise description of what the subject of the article is.
On top of all this is additional confusion over whether the feature actually exists in the described Ogg Vorbis context or not.  Much of the article is about Ogg Vorbis and the opening sentence says that the technique is "used on Ogg Vorbis", but there are various places in the article where it contradicts this by saying that "it is not available in Ogg Vorbis" and "exists only as a concept".  A cleanup tag is definitely appropriate.
The article should also make more clear whether there is anything that distinguishes the concept from well-known compression concepts known by such terms as scalable coding or progressive coding or embedded coding, as have existed for many years and are supported in many well-known designs (e.g., JPEG, JPEG 2000, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC-based Scalable Video Coding, MPEG-4 Part 2 scalability, MPEG-2 video scalability, etc.).  If the concepts are the same, then there may already be some other article on the topic and this one should be merged with that one.
—Pawnbroker (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the cleanup tag?

message: Information is from Hydrogenaudio : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t34172.html
65.93.156.239 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added information on prototype peeler 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bitrate peeling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050512075854/http://www.vorbis.com:80/ot/20021201.html to http://www.vorbis.com/ot/20021201.html#id2726625
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified