On 16/05/2013 10:44, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
The question is if e.g. Apple would tolerate if you send them a file that's two or three times the size it needs to be, because it adds an extended tag that points to additional audio streams, particularly if the iTunes.app couldn't play them back and it would require a third party app to play it back.
I think that for horizontal surround the file would not be more than around 1.5 x the size - it would depend on how you did the encoding. The thought DID cross my mind that "an extended tag that points to additional audio streams" might perhaps not have to point solely at streams within the same file - it could get them from somewhere else, eg the content-producer's site, thus meaning that the system you bought the file via would not have to carry any overhead - but I doubt this is a good idea. And even if f you were going to do that then the surround playback system might as well retrieve the entire surround file from elsewhere and not bother with any additional embedding at all.
So Apple would carry the cost of extra bandwidth and some other vendor would reap the benefits of fully utilizing the audio files. They'd not swallow that. That's why the deals need to be made with the Apple's, Google's etc. of this world, because they provide the infrastructure. Nobody has as seamless a purchase and playback experience as Apple does. So from that POV, gaining Apple as an ally for such an enterprise would be top.
If you have to change the distribution mechanism then you need to have the clout to do it. As I say, you need to be Dolby or someone. We have no chance. Next?
--R _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
