Non-Apple AAC download services
From an article in the Independent on 2004 predictions:
* At least one other download store will join Apple in using the Dolby "AAC" encoding format, because that's the only way to reach iPod owners.
http://news.independent.co.uk/digita...p?story=477004
My question - are other download services able to use the AAC format? Does Dolby own the rights or Apple?
* At least one other download store will join Apple in using the Dolby "AAC" encoding format, because that's the only way to reach iPod owners.
http://news.independent.co.uk/digita...p?story=477004
My question - are other download services able to use the AAC format? Does Dolby own the rights or Apple?
Comments
Or not release their products in America, but that's not really an option.
Barto
Originally posted by gobble gobble
* At least one other download store will join Apple in using the Dolby "AAC" encoding format, because that's the only way to reach iPod owners.
MP3 works just fine with iPods...
Originally posted by wmf
MP3 works just fine with iPods...
MP3 doesnt have DRM
Originally posted by gobble gobble
From an article in the Independent on 2004 predictions:
* At least one other download store will join Apple in using the Dolby "AAC" encoding format, because that's the only way to reach iPod owners.
http://news.independent.co.uk/digita...p?story=477004
My question - are other download services able to use the AAC format? Does Dolby own the rights or Apple?
Yes, others can use AAC. when you read a report that says Apple uses its own format instead of the open WMP, that is wrong. WMP is the closed format(also has drm and license fee). AAC is an open format and not controlled by apple. It is usually just 'reporters' making sh*t up because they dont know anything.
I would like to see Apple supporting more lossless codecs though on iPod, AAC and MP3 are crap if you like quality.
Originally posted by scavanger
From what I've learned in reading on this site, the DRM code in the AAC format that Apple uses is not open source tho.
I would like to see Apple supporting more lossless codecs though on iPod, AAC and MP3 are crap if you like quality.
lossless codec = 1 hour of battery life, no skip protection, and likely other problems.
Originally posted by scavanger
I would like to see Apple supporting more lossless codecs though on iPod, AAC and MP3 are crap if you like quality.
AIFF is not good enough for you?
Originally posted by Barto
It's an open format, but because the world is ****ed up, you have to pay license fees to Dolby. Anyone can use the format, they just have to pay.
Or not release their products in America, but that's not really an option.
Barto
Actually you have to pay the MPEG LA. This was the major item that held back the QuickTime 6 release. Apple publicly put pressure on the MPEG LA to ease the licensing terms that they were imposing on MPEG 4 because Apple feared that it would hinder MPEG 4's adoption in the market place. Apple has been partially right in this regard, but there are a few companies, namely Apple, Nokia, and Sony that have adopted MPEG 4 and AAC as their preferred files.
Similarly, I think it would be wise off Apple to allow another company to utilize the infrastructure that Apple has built with iTMS to start selling music. As we know the money isn't from song sales, but from iPod sales so besides the prestige factor there is little reason for Apple not to open up the iTMS technology to other companies. Allow other companies to use a web interface to iTMS like MS is starting to do or perhaps create an affiliate program for their link builder application. So artist and users can get a small cut of every song that is sold from a referring web site. I'm sure that more artists would put links to their iTMS music like Pearl Jam does. 1¢ per song 50¢ per album maybe? Hell for individual user the money could be put into their iTMS account so they use to buy more music. Have 99 songs purchased from your site, you get a free song.
lossless codec = 1 hour of battery life, no skip protection, and likely other problems.
I'm unsure of how that would happen? Are you refering to the fact that it would have to constantly stream from the HD since the memory buffer is only as big as a large wav file?
Also, as to AIFF, I'd prefer Ogg Vorbis, Flac, and Ape support. If nothing else, to support the open source community some more.
Originally posted by scavanger
I'm unsure of how that would happen? Are you refering to the fact that it would have to constantly stream from the HD since the memory buffer is only as big as a large wav file?
Also, as to AIFF, I'd prefer Ogg Vorbis, Flac, and Ape support. If nothing else, to support the open source community some more.
yes
Originally posted by applenut
lossless codec = 1 hour of battery life, no skip protection, and likely other problems.
The FLAC lossless codec was designed from the start for decoding on low power platforms. Lossless doesn't come for free as the files are bigger and so you get less buffer and more disk spin-ups. But using Flac the very minimum you're going to get is better performance (very roughly x2) than AIFF which is your only lossless option now.
I would love to see true Apple-backed FLAC support in iTunes / iPod / Quicktime, (though I could live without it on the iPod) especially as some work done recently suggests there's some pretty great speed gains to be had by vectorizing the FLAC code but I'm not holding my breath.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The FLAC lossless codec was designed from the start for decoding on low power platforms. Lossless doesn't come for free as the files are bigger and so you get less buffer and more disk spin-ups. But using Flac the very minimum you're going to get is better performance (very roughly x2) than AIFF which is your only lossless option now.
I would love to see true Apple-backed FLAC support in iTunes / iPod / Quicktime, (though I could live without it on the iPod) especially as some work done recently suggests there's some pretty great speed gains to be had by vectorizing the FLAC code but I'm not holding my breath.
what's the chances that the processor in an iPod could decode FLAC in real time and allow scrubbing?
Originally posted by applenut
what's the chances that the processor in an iPod could decode FLAC in real time and allow scrubbing?
The Linux on iPod project (http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/faq.shtml) has two mp3 decoders running at "near real-time" and "99% realtime (due to disk-buffering issues)" and the Ogg Vorbis integer decoder (Tremor) running at about 80% realtime.
I'm guessing that means FLAC will easily make it to real-time and remember that is on 1st gen hardware without hardware support or Apple's inside knowledge.
You can see how much faster FLAC decoding is compared with other lossless option here:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/All.htm
I can't find similar info on FLAC versus mp3 etc. but I'd assume it to be much faster.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'scrubbing'. On my iPod playing AAC I can jump to any point but it is discontinuous. I thought scrubbing referred to when you fast-forward and rewind through a clip and it speeds up, slows down and even plays in reverse.
Whether the iPod can do this with any codec, I have no idea. If you're just talking about seeking then I'm fairly certain you can do that with FLAC as its design includes "fast sample-accurate seeking", whatever that is.
In the end, the iPod is a consumer device, not a pro device, and lossless files aren't what it is designed for.
Barto
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The Linux on iPod project (http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/faq.shtml) has two mp3 decoders running at "near real-time" and "99% realtime (due to disk-buffering issues)" and the Ogg Vorbis integer decoder (Tremor) running at about 80% realtime.
they cant even decode MP3 in real time and you expect them to decode FLAC in real time?
FLAC isn't too fast on my G4/400 and I cant seek with them, nevermind on an iPod
Originally posted by applenut
they cant even decode MP3 in real time and you expect them to decode FLAC in real time?
FLAC isn't too fast on my G4/400 and I cant seek with them, nevermind on an iPod
Why do you think mp3's are easier to decode than FLAC? It is far easier to decode flac than mp3's or vorbis, particularly on platforms that only have integer math available. Flac decodes at well less than realtime on a variety of ARM platforms. The PortalPlayer chip in the iPod is an ARM with some extra DSP bells and whistles which if taken advantage of would reduce decode effort still further.
If you can't seek and are seeing big processor usage it sounds like you're doing something wrong with your FLAC files. MacAmp Lite X decodes at around 4% of CPU on my iMac G4 800, which is the same as a 96kbps mp3 I tried.
FLAC files need a seek-table for fast seeking but these should be generated by default and the fall back code should still be plenty fast.
Seeking works fine for me in MacAmp Lite X and in MPlayer OS X (though scrubbing makes the whole window move, an MPlayer bug).
I've had some issues with VLC but they are apparently rewriting a lot of the audio stuff for the 7.0 release.
Real Networks is expected to launch a digital music storelater this week based on technology similar to that used in Apple's iTunes Music Store. "The new pay-per-song service, which is expected to be announced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas this week, will see the company playing catch-up to Apple, which has won kudos from Windows and Macintosh users for its iTunes store and jukebox software," reports CNET News.com. "Sources said the new store will be based on the Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format -- as are the songs in Apple's rival service -- but wrapped in RealNetworks' own Helix digital rights management technology... Apple's iPod will not be able to play Helix-wrapped songs unless Apple licenses that technology."