Talk:Acoustic fingerprint

message: I removed the header mention of a hash code. A hash code is computed from a series of bits and varies dramatically if even one bit is altered. If an MP3 and WMA file have encoded the same waveform they will still have completely different hash codes. There will be no way to compare the two and know that they represent the same waveform. This would even be true if you just flipped one low order bit in an MP3 frame of one file.
:Not correct -> a hash function is that you represent something larger / arbitray lenght data into a smaller (mostly) number value. So a method to change bigger object / sound into a number. Quite common in searching
:if you want also other things like verify stuff, you need a special version of a hash, a cryptographic hash. That type of hash is made to change completely with let's say a single bit different. 
:Currently the most common fingerprints work with direct hashing. With that I mean that if the hash is different the song won't be found. To enhance detection-rate some technologies try to predict with bit's could be wrong and also search those.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.136.61 (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vis a vis Hash Code

message: There exist image and also video fingerprint technologies, and these deserve mention on Wikipedia. At least two options exist:
#Have a separate article for each type of item.
#
##Move this article to Media fingerprint.
##Separate specifics of fingerprinting each type of item, while merging commonalities.
Opinions are needed! --Amit 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular article seems pretty specific to acoustic fingerprinting – I think you would be better off starting an entirely new article for media fingerprints and linking to more specific articles from there. -- intgr 11:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Jimbo (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image and video fingerprints 

message: I removed this from before the list because it seemed like it was instructions for writers and didn't belong in the article: "Products on this list should either have an accompanying existing article link which verifies their notability for acoustic fingerprinting, or reliable sources as footnotes against the name showing they are notable for this reason." I'm sure it is useful to at least mention it here, though. Cleanelephant (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from before list 

message: Isn't a spectrogram a (more elaborate) version of a simple fingerprint? then there would be no difference in the statements between acoustic fingerprint and search by sound. -- Kku 13:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An acoustic fingerprint starts with a spectrogram. But just like a human fingerprint starts with an image, there's a lot more that goes into making the identification. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Note that while it does a fuzzy match to allow for noise, Shazam does an exact match to the CD track. That is, it won't match a similar recording, even by the same artist, at least as well as I know it. It might be nice to have one that did. Gah4 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , see Search by sound#Query by humming. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  exact match 

message: There's a whole section on Shazam's internal functionality, shouldn't this go in Shazam's own article? Shouldn't other applications be discussed? Seems biased that it's the only software mentioned in this article and has an entire section dedicated to it. Halogen487 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume we got here because Shazam was the first to offer this technology commercially. It is a reasonable suggestion to move the Shazam section content to Shazam (application) but that would leave us without a technical explanation here of how the magic works. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shazam bias?