Slashdot Mirror

Except for the fact that AAC isn't at all proprietary; AAC is a part of MPEG-2 meaning that it is highly standarized, and is a practical replacement for the MP3 codec as it offers better quality sound at a lower bitrate.

So what you really hate is the DRM emposed on the media, but guess what? No company is interested in selling their media these days without DRM. So you have a choice to make: boycott all companies that sell DRM'd media (basically your only option is Indie stuff, which if you're okay with that..), or buy into a DRM system that's incredible easy to crack (as FairPlay, Apple's Licensed DRM, is).

"Proprietary formats"? No, that's what WMA is. Microsoft's idea of creating their own standard just because they want a licencing cut of everyone using it. Apple's AAC-protected would be that way, only they've made it *perfectly* clear they are not interested in licencing it to anyone. (Hell, there's even a DRM module for OGG. Not that anyone would ever use it).

So please, no more FUD.

Considering that AAC is an mpeg format, it is really the logical successor to mp3; that everyone is creating wma + mp3 players and Apple seems to be the only major purveyor of AAC seems downright backwards. AAC is MPEG; as much as DivX or XviD or MP3 is MPEG.

WMA is the proprietary interface; AAC is the industry standard (both in theory as well as in practice)

I'm as much in favor of competition in markets as anyone else, but the particular complaint you make is pretty silly.

I would want to know who else is payeing already for the other mp3 players and decoders and encoders on the net. Are all these illegal software?

As somebody else pointed already out:
(Link)

A. For the FREE distribution of decoders we do not charge a royalty. [...]
More in general, as long as desktop software decoders are distributed free-of-charge for personal use, no license fee is expected. However, in all cases we expect that MPEG Layer-3 products reference the licensors, like "MPEG Layer-3 audio compression technology licensed by Fraunhofer IIS and THOMSON multimedia".

There are several patents related to MP3 listed here. MPEG.org has a FAQ about licensing.

I am thinking of a player that supports MPEG 1, 2, & MPEG 4 in a palm sized form factor:

5"x2.9" screen

5.5"x3"x1.75" body

user removable batteries (Think Digital Camera or DV Cam)

AV RCA plug ports (to connect to anything from a Hotel/Motel TV to a HToB

Since it will be the evolution of the ipod, it will have some of the same iCal connections. How about calling it:... iiNewton

Nope; it's short for "MPEG Audio Layer 3", where the MPEG is the first version, later called MPEG-1. (References: mpeg.org, Fraunhofer.)

AAC was developed for MPEG-2, and improved for MPEG-4.

I'm a tad confused by this paragraph...

I was trying to put the restrictions on AAC into a context people would be familiar with. As you say, it's not treated exactly the same as MP3, but it's very close in most respects, as compared with WMA, FairPlay-protected AAC, Real, or other formats.

I have yet to encounter a single consumer implementation of an AAC encoding/decoding piece of software other than Apple's.

I came across FAAC earlier today. As you say, there's not a lot else; but considering the high usage of iTunes, QuickTime, the iTMS, and the iPod, I expect to see more in future. (MP3 took a while to take off, too.)

"Me, I'm sticking with buying and ripping my own CD's until someone gives me a real standard format for download."

Just curious. What "standard" format are you ripping to, AIFF, WAV or MP3?

If it's to WAV then that's not really a standard. It's a format that Microsoft created for use on their Windows operating system. It's basically AIFF (the format that is used on CD's) with a different header file, and a couple of other tweaks, to make it into a full on Microsoft format.

If you're ripping to the MP3 "standard" you may as well rip to AAC instead. It's the new standard.

Please take a few moments to check out the link and see what the people who invented MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer 3) have to say.

How about with OSX? Granted it's a small monopoly, but only Apple makes the Mac. (Tired analogies about only Toyota making Camrys to /dev/null--Toyota doesn't make a Camry that can't use the gasoline in a Chevy.)

Since you are some kind of crazy MS zealot, you were blinded by the fact that I didn't even say it was OK for Apple to do what they did. Instead, you have an unhealthy protective reflex for your MS leaders.

Since you're some kind of Jobs worshipping, black turtleneck wearing, smug nutcase Mac fanatic (see how productive name calling is?), you didn't get that it's ironic for the usual legion of faithful Apple apologists to be blind to the fact that Apple is doing exactly the same thing that Microsoft would be virtually tarred and feathered here for.

That said, I haven't seen where it says that the AAC format will be kept secret. It looks to me like AAC is just as proprietary as any other MPEG format. Also consider that it's a major feat to store every song in multiple formats, just so that windows people will be happy, especially when AAC has been shown to be of a superior quality.

Both MPEG layer 3 and AAC are standards that are open (for a fee). What's not open, and not likely to be open, given that analysts have reported that Apple's intent is to leverage iTunes is to sell iPods, is the DRM associated with AAC. Why would Apple, unless legally compelled, license its proprietary DRM extensions to AAC to Creative or the like and damage its (yes, it is) lockin?

There is another article at the LA Times. The service will be making use of a technology known as AAC or Advanced Audio Codec. There is a project at Sourceforge with an implementation.

Uhhh huuuuh.. And standard DVDs don't support that? Check your sources, kid.

Besides, above about 20 bits / 90khz, there is no real difference that is perceptible.

Check out this and this.

I like JPGVideo a lot, since I can choose any encoder I have.

Dave

Sinjun trolls:

Way to go there buddy. Kick them for using the most widely supported media format out there. How dare they ensure that the largest number of people can view their stuff!?

Um, the MPEG-2 Video Codec works in Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quicktime Viewer, DVD Players, VCD Players, and dozens of Free Software programs on pretty much any platform with decent processor speed and video specifications. It produces good quality video in a reasonable file size as well, and lets the producer decide just how much to compress the video. By any sane measure, it is the "most widely supported [video] media format out there".

Calling a Windows-only media format that just one program can view "the most widely supported" is either naively ill-informed or a deliberate lie.

More might be found at the MPEG website.

"[..supports MP3 and MPG..]"

*Sigh*.... Kids these days..I swear.

Time for a clue, children:

One of those formats is called MPEG Audio Layer 3 Compression. That's what you youngsters call "an MP3 file".

The other is called MPEG Video, or, as you call it, an "MPG file".

See the similarities between the two? Those four pesky little letters that you keep hearing about? Its an acronym, gang. Motion Picture Experts Group. The same standard yeilds two different media formats.

Saying your product supports both MP3 and MPG is redundant. Its like saying your vaccum cleaner pulls up dirt and as an added bonus, it also pulls up dirt as well.

Why Apple for it's FireWire and not IEEE for it's same 1394-1995 spec or Sony for it's i.Link (again the same)? Because Apple is the one that did the development and the popularizing of the technology thus their holding the majority of the patents & controlling the licensing.)

They also seem to have trouble understanding that watermarking is not technically feasible. It won't take some really smart guys from Princeton to break this or future systems. Given Chiariglione's inelegant and messy technical track record, I doubt they are going to get a technical clue any time soon either.

Let them add poor watermarks to poor content and create players with all sorts of limitations. In the long run, it's only going to hurt their business. Dealing with these people is a waste of time in my opinion.

Try www.mp3-tech.org or www.mpeg.org for more technical information.

• Some people say that Yamaha's VQF has better quality than MP3 given the same bitrate: http://www.yamaha-xg.com/english/xg/So undVQ/, http://www.vqf.com/
• AAC had some popularity for a while but I haven't heard much about it lately: http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/aac.html
• Many people use shorten for lossless compression: http://www.softsound.com/Shorten.html
• Some proprietary formats:
• Windows media: http://www.mi crosoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en/download/defau lt.asp
• Liquid audio: http://www.liquidaudio.com/
• Realplayer G2: http://www.real.com

Actually the DivX ;-) codec is just a hack of a hack (patch to an early implemenation).

The MPEG standards seem to be more complicated than most people are assuming. They aren't just about compression algorithms.

Take a look at MPEG.org and check out the FAQ there.

Try to predict the infuence of Napster technology, compression, and Terabyte storage on the future of the music industry. Their future looks grim. Now it is possible for consumers to store 12 audio CDs/ CDrom. With recordable DVDs and the AAC compression standard the audio track/disc are raised to more then 2500... Here at the Delft university of Technology we are working on compression algorithms that compress audio with a factor of 24, without perceptual loss. Combined with new recordable devices it will become possbile in 5 years to store all the popular music produced of the last year on a single disc. Just imagine the impact on the music industries business model.