All true Brian, but remember also that whilst the hardware for playing back mp3s is almost like a cheap commodity nowadays, the hardware capable of playing back AAC (firmware for which is where you gotta pay for a licence! :) is still pretty uncommon.
Also, note that whilst the lossless codec also sports the .m4a extension, the code and structure of this type of files (lossless and compressed) are not the same - don't ask me how, that's where my ignorance starts. Therefore, you're left with the fact that virtually no player on earth can play back a lossless file except an Apple machine, and no files can be in lossless codec unless coded by an individual for their own use. Hence why FLAC is seen as the best option for providing uncompressed audio - FREE LOSSLESS AUDIO CODEC after all! -----Original Message----- From: Brian Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 April 2007 12:18 To: Odeluga, Ken Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: (313) New Strand Release - Soleil Up until about a week ago, I never paid any attention to the apple lossless codec because we currently deal mostly with .aiffs and mp3s. I haven't done a stitch of research on the subject (which is unlike me) but it sounds like some of you have done plenty. However, (after a little research this time) I think you've gotten it backwards on the AAC licensing fee. According to several sources on the web (below), mp3 is the format that requires a licensing fee for implementing the codec in players/software AND distribution of files in the format. AAC also requires a licensing fee for manufacturers/developers to implement the codec in software and embed the codec into players but requires NO FEE for distribution. My understanding is that there's a controversy surrounding who actually owns the various patents needed to implement the mp3 format. Technically, everyone who distributes mp3s should be paying a fee to do so, but until the legal issues get resolved, that probably can't be enforced. Furthermore, at least in the US, the patent has almost expired. They last for 20 years and the mp3 patent was granted in 1991, so licensing fees may never be a real issue. http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/MPEG4_FAQ.cfm?faq=6#6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 Boyer On Apr 20, 2007, at 2:09 AM, Odeluga, Ken wrote: > Thing is though (more sober second thoughts!) I think you need a > licence > to be able to distribute files in Apple file format (at least that's > the > case with AAC/.m4a) and I've never heard of anyone doing so in the > actual lossless codec, which makes me think that it might not even be > possible... :-/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 April 2007 22:36 > To: David Powers > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: (313) New Strand Release - Soleil > > I'm wondering how open people would be to the Apple Lossless codec? It > produces about the same size file as a FLAC, suffers no loss in sound > quality and, according to Apple, can be used with any current Quicktime > application, the most popular of which I'd imagine is the Quicktime > player, followed by iTunes. Somewhere between 70 and 80% of the > portable music player market has an iPod, so things should be > relatively painless for the majority of people. Thoughts? > > Boyer > > > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:44 PM, David Powers wrote: > >> If you are selling to DJ's I'd make WAV's available. I buy from >> beatport and always get WAV unless I'm unsure about whether I'll >> actually play a track out or just want it for listening. >> ~David >> >> On 4/19/07, Brian Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Ken, >>> >>> You're probably right about that and once we can afford to make the >>> change, it wouldn't hurt to offer the option for those who want it. >>> It's nice to know that the increased effort we've put into delivering >>> well produced songs is matched by people's desire to have the best >>> sounding version they can get their hands on. I think we're getting >>> better with each release and one of our goals is to reach a level of >>> quality that stands up to anything out there, regardless of budget or >>> genre. >>> >>> Boyer >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Odeluga, Ken wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Brian. Taking aboard what you say in terms of logistics and >>>> feasibility but we can still say that in fact in Europe (I know I >>> can't >>>> speak for regions outside of here) boradband 'penetration' (as it's >>>> called) outstrips dial-up usage by some majority which I forget. >>>> However I definitely know that's true. The other thing of course is >>>> that >>>> you are likely to have a particularly techy audience - definitely >>>> favouring higher band-width rather than lower and not having any >>> qualms >>>> about larger file sizes if it means better quality. Imho. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Brian Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: 19 April 2007 14:03 >>>> To: robin >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: (313) New Strand Release - Soleil >>>> >>>> Thanks again for the compliments, Robin. We don't pay you nearly >>> enough >>>> for that...I mean...you raise an excellent point. Buying a Strand >>> song >>>> costs less than many checkout counter impulse items. They're less >>> than >>>> some packs of gum and the flavor lasts a lot longer. >>>> >>>> As for the .wavs, after the ecommerce portion of the site was >>> finished, >>>> it dawned on me that I shouldn't have been so fixated on mp3s and >>>> should've at least allowed for AACs and possibly uncompressed > .wavs. >>>> That functionality is going to have to wait, however, because > making >>>> the change isn't exactly cheap. A five minute, uncompressed, stereo >>>> audio file weighs in at about 55MB and the FLAC version is about >>> 35MB, >>>> and you need special software (most are free) to decode them. I > know >>>> some other services are offering uncompressed formats, but I wonder > >>> how >>>> well they sell given the large file sizes. This is really only a >>>> concern for people with dial-up and inadequate DSL connections, but > >>> if >>>> I'm not mistaken, the majority of people connect to the internet >>> using >>>> the slower methods. >>>> >>>> Boyer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 19, 2007, at 5:22 AM, robin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lovely mellow techy vibe on that new track Brian. >>>>> >>>>> Props for the provision of a remastered 'Intact' (the last Strand >>>>> track) for free to previous purchasers too. >>>>> >>>>> UK people, as the dollar is so weak buying these tracks off the >>>>> Harbonder site is stupidly cheap now (99c=50p!). Though I'd like > to >>>>> see .wavs for maybe $1.49 (Brian?). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> robin... >>>>> >>>>> On 17 Apr 2007, at 22:37, Brian Boyer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Today, Strand released the second single on harbonder entitled >>>>>> "Soleil". If you fancy, you can hear it in its entirety on our >>>>>> myspace page for the next month or so. This and all other Strand >>>>>> material is available for download from the harbonder website. >>> There >>>>>> are no plans for vinyl at this time, but when that changes, we'll > >>> let >>>> >>>>>> you know. As always, don't be shy about what you think. We > welcome >>>>>> the feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Boyer >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.harbonder.com >>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/strand313 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
