Re: Apple Computer changes its name

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

bieling@terra.es wrote:

> > Even if that's true (which I doubt)- it's impossible to test, as
> > there's no way to know what settings Apple used when encoding the
> > tracks that are available on iTunes anyway.
>
> Yes there's a way : get info for the file.
> It will usually be AAC,128kbps, equivalent to MP3,192kbps.

While the sound quality of AAC@128 may be equivalent to mp3@192 the
culling techniques are different, and as I've pointed out before even
two different mp3 encoders won't produce the same results.

> "AAC achieves better quality sound than MP3 for the same compression
> level or smaller file sizes for the same quality audio. For example: A
> 192 kbps song compressed by MP3 will be the same quality as a 128 kbps
> AAC file, which will be smaller in overall size"
>
> "In contrast to MP3's hybrid filter bank, AAC uses the modified
> discrete cosine transform (MDCT) together with the increased window
> lengths of 1024 points. AAC is much more capable of encoding audio with
> streams of complex pulses and square waves than MP3 or MP2."
>
> "In contrast with the MP3 format, which requires royalty payments on
> distributed content, no licenses or payments are required to be able to
> stream or distribute content in AAC format"
>
> "contrary to popular belief, AAC is not a proprietary format".

Jorge, with all due respect, if you're going to quote from another
source could you:

a) Acknowledge the source
b) Quote the entire sentence or paragraph, and not just the subsentence
that suits your point of view.

Here's the full paragraph, from the Wikipedia article on AAC (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding )

<quote>
In contrast with the MP3 format, which requires royalty payments on
distributed content, no licenses or payments are required to be able to
stream or distribute content in AAC format. [3] This reason alone makes
AAC a much more attractive format for distributing content,
particularly streaming content (such as Internet radio).

However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or
developers of AAC codecs. [4] It is for this reason FOSS encoders and
decoders such as FAAC and FAAD [2] are distributed in source form only,
in order to avoid patent infringement.

Although AAC requires a patent license, contrary to popular belief, it
is not a proprietary format.
</quote>

I believe this section of the article to be misleading, so I'm glad you
pointed it out so I can offer a corrected version. In fact AAC is far
from being "not a proprietary format". Consider the following quote
from the AAC Patent license agreement (found at
www.mp3-tech.org/docs/AAC_PLA_Ver._7.pdf )

<quote>
For the purposes of this provision, "software decoder" means a
decoder Licensed Product in
software form which:
            ·   operates in a closed-loop encode/decode system
utilizing a file format
                unique to Licensee, an is kept proprietary so that
interoperability with
                unsecure third party products is prevented and cannot
decode standard,
                unsecure AAC bitstreams (except that interoperability
with third party
                products with copyright protection is encouraged)
</quote>

OK, so read that, accept that anyone who implements the "standard" must
hold a patent license, and ask yourself, is this really an open
standard?

There is in fact an open alternative: Ogg Vorbis
(http://www.vorbis.com/). But please, let's not pretend that obviously
proprietary technologies are open.

> > Besides, going from iTunes to some other mp3 player guarantees you'll
> > be using different codecs.
> > Matt
>
> ...if the target player doesn't understand AAC.

See above. Are any two AAC's interoperable?

Apologies to other comp.sys.apple2 readers for straying miles off
topic.

Matt