I have wondered this as well. Why does NOBODY seem interested in working on tuning FAAC? Even Ivan, for that matter? Obviously, he could lend a GREAT DEAL of expertise in this matter. He relies on FAAD a great deal, perhaps he could contribute something back to Menno's encoder. I've never really been clear on PsyTEL's business plan, but surely FAAC, even if it's well tuned, wouldn't pose a real threat to steal any corporate customers since they would have to scrounge around for binaries and wouldn't really have ANY tech support.

JohnV already pretty much covered this, and I agree with him.

Considering the fact that AAC is so encumbered with legal issues, I can't really see the point behind furthering the development of a non-commercial AAC encoder, when there is an alternative out there such as Vorbis. Vorbis is already higher quality than FAAC, for the most part higher quality than LAME, and is nearing PsyTEL and MPC in quality. Furthermore, it is absolutely free, and totally patent free. Why would you want to spend so much time and effort developing FAAC with the constant legal threat in the background when you could be working on something already higher quality and with a much more hopeful future?

This is just the way I see it. No disrespect to the FAAC project or Menno is intended.



I don't really think this is the problem. The problem is that FAAC is open source, and if Ivan were to bring FAAC up to the level of quality PsyTEL was at, he would have to use basically the same technology present in PsyTEL. This would compromise his product from a technological point of view and would give other commercial AAC encoders a competitive edge over PsyTEL. Given that AAC is such a restricted technology from the start, I think this pretty much makes sense.

What legal threat? Dolby ALLOWS Menno to post the source code. Furthermore, I have a feeling that Monty may very well eventually find himself in court one day. Patent free is in the eye of the lawyer. First, Ivan wouldn't have to share ALL his secrets, just a little guidance would be nice. Second, I think even Ivan will agree that commercial aac encoders are ALREADY superior to PsyTEL's. In fact, if a community effort were to bring improvements that Ivan himself hasn't thought of, he could use them in his encoder and have a BETTER chance of competing with other commercial encoders. I don't really think it's an issue anyway... Ivan really CAN'T market an ISO compliant non-secure encoder anyway, can he? Surely Dolby or their new patent watchdogs wouldn't ever allow it.

If you have followed the history of FAAC some, it has not always been so easy with Dolby. They threaten people who even post source code. Furthermore, you cannot post binaries ever... they will go after you for that. I think that is a pretty big issue.



I think this is totally unsubstantiated FUD. I've seen all of this before, but I'd have to say I disagree. The Vorbis team has spent quite a bit of effort researching patents and the technology behind what they use. That doesn't mean that some company couldn't try to take them to court, but I wouldn't be so certain of this outcome at all. In fact, I'd say at this point that it would be unlikely. With the publicity that Vorbis has been getting, and the fact that Thompson (I believe it was them) stated a long time ago that they believed Vorbis likely infringed on their patents (more FUD), but that no legal action has been taken at all so far, all of this seems to emphasize that fact.



And do you know for a fact that Ivan isn't already doing this?



False. If you look at the results from Ivan's listening test, PsyTEL pretty much outperformed everything except for Fhg AAC. For that matter, I also have some samples where PsyTEL does outperform Fhg (as in LQT). Granted LQT doesn't feature the most advanced Fhg implementation, but it is surely the most widely used.



Now this has nothing to do with open source here, but I'm becoming skeptical of the "community effort" and it's advantages in audio encoding. 2 of the best quality encoders, MPC and PsyTEL AAC were developed mostly by a single person (and PsyTEL used some ideas from MPC as I understand, or at least Buschel helped discuss some things with Ivan). Furthermore, Monty is really the only person working on Vorbis from the psymodel point of view as I understand it.

Compare that to LAME and FAAC. Again no offense to these projects or their members, but it's fairly clear to me at least that a community effort does not guarentee quality at all.



With these comments I'd have to assume you aren't really up on the current happenings with PsyTEL. I'd suggest you go read his page some, he very much plans to market PsyTEL and in fact I believe he already is. His AACEnc being completely ISO compatible in it's current form doesn't mean he can't encapsulate the output in a secure manner, assuming that he wouldn't be able to would be a mistake.

So what? FhG Will go after people posting Lame binaries too. And Menno started posting the sourcecode with Dolby's FULL knowledge, and it has always been at soueceforge. Whatever you disagree with is unsubstantiated FUD, isn't it? I'm sure he'll be able to answer for himself. Oh really? And what other commercial aac implementations were used in his test? I can see that you and I disagree on the value of opensource community effort. I take it you don't use Linux? A secure encoder is really of NO use to us, is it?

Sounds to me like you're spreading a little fear, uncertainty, and doubt yourself there.

So what? There was a big hassle with Dolby, and legal threats. That's what. If you don't believe me, ask around. Also Gabriel has had some experience with Dolby threatening him with legal action just for posting AAC source code. There very much is an issue here whether you like it or not.

QUOTE

Whatever you disagree with is unsubstantiated FUD, isn't it?

Hardly, but if you would like to show me the factual basis for your statements about Vorbis likely having legal troubles in the future, I'd be very interested. Otherwise it's pure speculation, and in the vein of FUD such as that seen elsewhere. Nothing new really.

QUOTE

I'm sure he'll be able to answer for himself.

He's already stated that he works with Menno some, and he has even talked to me about ways in which LAME could possibly be improved. Assuming that he's keeping everything to himself is a little bit unfair, especially when you hardly know anything about the situation.

QUOTE

Oh really? And what other commercial aac implementations were used in his test?

The information is in the threads in the AAC forum. Feel free to read them at your pleasure. If that's not good enough I'm sure you could ask Ivan directly.

QUOTE

I can see that you and I disagree on the value of opensource community effort.

Since this is such a misinformed comment, I won't bother typing up another response. Instead I'll just post the original part again which you apparently missed:

QUOTE

Not that it is related to [b]ANY of this, but yes I do use and have used Linux quite often. I also use OpenBSD some, and many other pieces of open source software. You took my comment completely out of context. I prefaced it with that particular sentence above so that people wouldn't jump to conclusions like you just did. Guess I'll make it in bold from the start next time



What does this statement have to do at all with the original one you made? You said Ivan couldn't market his encoder (which you were very much mistaken about) and I gave you some information showing otherwise. Where does this last part come in?

Let me turn the tables a bit. If you believe in open source software, then why are you interested in using such a restricted format as AAC especially when no high quality implementation exists absolutely for free, but when Vorbis is out there, it works, and it's patent free? I'd certainly like to know.

LOL! As they say... ignorance is bliss..

Perhaps you should check up on your facts some layer3maniac.

You really enjoy putting words in people's mouth, don't you Dibrom? What I said is this:
You DO understand what the words: "I have a feeling" mean, don't you? Furthermore, I have been following compressed music since 1996 and I would appreciate it if you could step down off your high horse and stop acting like people who's opinions differ from yours are just uninformed idiots. But hey, this is your site. You have every right to act like a big anus if you wish. Just don't expect other people to put up with it...

LOL

I hardly think that people who disagree with me are idiots. However I've noticed that often times when you post something as fact or you make a statement about what other people are should be doing, you don't check your facts first and often times you don't even read what has already been stated in a thread. Furthermore, you take offense at anyone that questions something that you say. Evidence of this can be seen in the thread you commented on about MPC ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/oldthread/showthread.php )-- when we asked for simple abx results (and we were exceedingly nice about it) you blew up at all of us and became very offensive (and in the end you never provided the clip).

So perhaps before you point the finger here, you should check yourself.

The only thing I go after is statements which are made which have no factual basis at all, or which are wrong given the facts. My statement about Dolby holds true, if you would have checked up on this some first before going off on me like you did, you would have realized this.

The same goes for my statement about community efforts and audio coding. I don't know how the hell you related my comment to open source with the explanation that I gave beforehand, or even what that had to do at all with the point I was making.

As for me stating the issue about legal problems and Vorbis as being FUD, it quite simply, is just that. The same argument has been used over and over again by people to try and show why Vorbis has no advantage over other encoders in the legal arena, and it's simply not true. Not only is it unlikely that what you mentioned would happen, there is nothing at all to back a single bit of it up. Therefore it is no reason to not use vorbis or to not try and further the progress of this encoder. And given that, one can only assume it was a statement made in the typical FUD fashion.

What have I stated as a fact? My opinion? It is a fact that my opinion is that Vorbis will face legal trouble sooner or later. What have I said other people SHOULD do? I said that I wish Ivan would lend some of his aac tuning expertise to the opensource FAAC encoder project. If you think he has, I think maybe YOU need to check YOUR facts. How long ago was that? How far back does someone have to go to find evidence of your arrogance? One or two posts at the MOST. As for the clip, I decided not to help someone tune an encoder that I would ultimately have to pay for. That's MY right, MY choice, but I just KNOW that you're going to throw around the FUD word again. Rest assured that I will never have the audacity to comment on problems with Andree's encoder again. In fact, I promise not to make the mistake of encoding anything with it ever again. There, are you happy now? The only thing you go after is statements you don't personally happen to agree with. Because, after all, you know EVERYTHING, don't you. Your statement about Dolby holds true? Then why has the source for ISO aac and FAAC ALWAYS been available? Where's the truth in your statements to the contrary? The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between someone expressing an opinion you disagree with and a corporate effort to prevent people from doing something (FUD). Your opinion about the danger people will be wasting their time by working on an opensource aac project are JUST AS SPECULATIVE, just as much FUD, as my opinion about the danger of Vorbis facing or ultimately winning a legal battle.

layer3maniac:

I'm not going to continue bother arguing with you on this matter. I have no desire to waste my time on crap like this anymore. If you want to get informed and have some sort of useful discussion here, then that is fine, but I'm not going to perpetuate this nonsense. As it is I'm already getting fed up enough with crap like this continuing to make its way into the forum.

Further posts from you in this thread on the matter you are discussing will go directly to the off topic forum and I will not waste my time responding to them. Make note of that.

As it is, much of the later posts should already be split out somewhere else, but since they were originally somewhat on topic (before you decided to get so defensive) I will keep them here for the time being.

I can't agree Only commercial encoder I've tested that was statistically better my AAC encoder was FhG/Dolby AAC, but they are out of competition anyway - and they are clearly better for low bitrates only and hard-to-encode clips! As someone mentioned, on some clips PsyTEL is better than FhG's codec used in liquidaudio (probably AAC 3.0, not 2.2 which is their 'slow' 'mp3enc-like' implementation)

I've tested several third-party commercial AAC encoders (unfortunately I can't disclose their identities since their vendors required NDA binding) and none of them was superior, most of them were very similar but without many features of PsyTEL AAC (VBR, for example - or ATH tweaking, or presets...) and some of them were clearly inferior for all critical items (one of the commercial encoders was mentioned in the AAC vs. MP3 @128 and this codec was worse than AACEnc for castanet clip, and I can certify that it behaved pretty much the similar for other critical clips with lots of pre-echo smearing).

My business plan is out of end-user industry anyway. Fortunately, I will probably release full-featured MPEG-4 Audio+Video authoring tool next June when MPEG-4 patent portfolio is finished (MPEG-LA LLC will be in charge for patent licensing). But this will be a commercial product, hopefully the patent agreement price would be fair enough to allow me to make good pricing plans for the end-user product.

Regarding optimized free opensource AAC encoder - I agree with Dibrom, the point of releasing best psychoacoustic model and other tools is useless in case of AAC - no one could legally use it, Dolby would hunt binary copies of the encoders (unlike FhG policy for MP3 - Dolby is very strict when we talk about their intellectual property) - and ALL companies would be able to use that code in their products because they have DRM, Encryption layers and patent agreements with Dolby. That is not fair at all to Open Source community.

And, something about lending my expertise to Menno - I am in contact with Menno every day through ICQ - I also helped him fix some bugs that made FAAC incapable of encoding low-sampling-rate wave files. We also talked on ways how to improve FAAC quality many many times. Perhaps it is not my business to speak about this - (Menno should join this discussion but he is busy this week with his exams) - And finally, despite my believeing regarding optimized AAC algorithms, I am very short on free time to work on FAAC (Menno is out of free time, too). However, I did some work on FAAD, mostly on speed optimization and the results are clearly visible.

-- Ivan

It's not any harder to get binaries of aac encoders than it is mp3 encoders like Lame and Blade. And couldn't the exact same arguments about fairness to the opensource community be made against improving Lame, Vorbis, Linux or ANY opensource project for that matter? When Monty incorperates wavelets into Vorbis, couldn't commercial developers just study the code and utilize the technology?

When Menno said: I believed him. I accept the fact that you don't think it's in your best interest to help improve the quality, even though I don't fully understand it. But what about all the opensource Lame people? I also think that software patents in general, and especially those based on ISO standards, are due for a big court battle someday. That is - if they don't expire first...

This most certainly is not the case. It is much easier to get binaries of LAME than it is to get binaries of AAC encoders. For one, the binaries of AAC are certainly illegal and will be taken down immediately if they are found out. With LAME there have been websites established for a long time, well known, which have everything necessary. As Ivan said, Fhg doesn't really care about LAME binaries. Dolby does care about AAC binaries.



No to the first question. Because these projects are not commercial by nature. AAC is commercial by nature and so is PsyTEL. It is a much more competitive market and it is not meant for the end user. LAME and Vorbis were never started for the purpose of being marketed commercially, so the situation is totally irrelevant in those cases.

In the case of at least Vorbis, they are not concerned with companies utilizing their technology, this is why it ships with a BSD license instead of a GPL license.

Two totally different situations you have there that cannot be directly related to eachother.

QUOTE

When Menno said:

[...]

I believed him. I accept the fact that you don't think it's in your best interest to help improve the quality, even though I don't fully understand it. But what about all the opensource Lame people? I also think that software patents in general, and especially those based on ISO standards, are due for a big court battle someday. That is - if they don't expire first... 

For the record I can't see myself working on AAC as it currently exists. If I ever stop working on LAME (which with all things considered will likely happen sooner rather than later) I'll move directly to working on Vorbis. This would be the wisest choice for nearly anyone IMO.

I cannot see a valid argument for extensively working on a "free" AAC encoder and I'm not sure I can see anyone coming up with one. The technology is heavily restricted and a free implementation is under constant legal threat [b]now. Vorbis, while you may still believe that it will someday have legal issues (without basis), does not suffer from this currently. Furthermore, binaries are easily accessible, as is the code, and the quality is MUCH higher than that of FAAC already. Add to that the fact that Vorbis is being incorporated into many end user programs and that it will likely be gaining hardware support soon.

So really.. what advantage at all does a free open source AAC project offer to the end user (research aside)? I'd really like to see some convincing arguments for this because I can't think of any.

There are several websites that have been around for a VERY long time with aac binaries. Audiogalaxy, a commercial website has hosted one faac implementation for YEARS. It is JUST as illegal to post and use Lame as it is to post and use aac. If you don't think FhG cares about mp3 binaries being distributed, just write them and ask... What??? Operating systems and mp3 encoders are NOT commercial by nature? I suppose Bill Gates got filthy rich by giving away Windows and DOS. This argument makes NO sense. FAAC isn't "concerned with companies utilizing their technology" either. That's exactly my point. Tell that to Menno. The threat of legal action is there. It has already been made. It's NO less eminent for aac developement than it is for Lame and Vorbis developement. Do you really think a lawsuit from Thompson or FhG would be any easier to defend than a lawsuit from Dolby? Why would it? The exact same thing Lame and Vorbis offers the end user. Hopefully, a better encoder.

You are missing something here. Yes, technically it may be just as illegal, but if nobody is doing anything about it then it is a very different story.

Fhg KNOWS about LAME binaries, and they have done nothing. Dolby has. Really its not so hard to understand -- AAC will never take off as a viable free format as long as it is so heavily restricted. Thats all there is to it.

QUOTE

What??? Operating systems and mp3 encoders are NOT commercial by nature? I suppose Bill Gates got filthy rich by giving away Windows and DOS.

First of all, I was not discussing operating systems. However, if you were to trace Linux back to its origins, it was [b]not started as a commercial product. One could even argue that it's not a commercial product now. Companies like Redhat can make it commercial, but that isn't necessarily related to the core project itself.



The only reason it makes no sense is because you are willfully ignoring the points and twisting the meaning out of context. Looking at your statements immediately before this emphasizes that fact.



Yes but Ivan and PsyTEL are, which is what should have been your point since you were originally discussing his role in all of this.



You don't seem to understand something here. Fhg and Thompson have chosen not to do anything about LAME in all the time it has been out. Dolby already took action once in regards to FAAC, and many other times in regards to posted binaries. Therefore it is already established that Dolby is actively enforcing their patents. Fhg and Thompson are not.

And with Vorbis, it hasn't even been established that any company has grounds for legal action against the project in relation to patent rights. In fact, it is more likely than not that they are safe since they have actively researched all of what they have implemented in the format to make sure this doesn't happen.



A freeware AAC will never offer the same thing as LAME and Vorbis do. It will never be incorporated into easy to use products that are mass distributed such as the others will be or are already. AAC for the end user is illegal, it can never take off to any great extent. At the most it will remain a niche codec and nothing more, and whats worse, it will be hard to obtain and totally illegal.

There is no practical reason to use or develop a freeware AAC over a format such as Vorbis. Vorbis has it beat on every single count so far. The only possible advantage I could see is that it may be possible if both codecs were taken to the absolute max that the AAC implementation could maybe edge out Vorbis, but this is still highly unlikely and would probably never happen unless you'd have someone like Fhg actively developing it. And for that matter, by the time the this theoretical and unlikely AAC encoder were developed, Vorbis would likely have support for Wavelets, making the whole argument moot again.

I'm starting to wonder just how long you've been involved in audio compression. You need to study a little history before you make such ludicrous statemenrs. If you think FhG has no proplem with distributing Lame binaries then why aren't they available for download here? Why aren't they available on r3mix? Whay aren't they available on Lame's site? Whay aren't they available at SourceForge? If you don't think FhG HAS gone after people distributing mp3 binaries, ask Tord about it. You are mistaken here, whether you can admit it or not. Please DO look at my statements immediately before this. I brought up Linux because Ivan suggested that contributing to an opensource project is a waste of time since commercial companies will "borrow" the technology.
I see NO difference between commercial companies using the work done on Linux or Vorbis versus FAAC. If you really believe this, why don't you host Lame binaries here? Once again, I think you need to study the history before you make such ridiculous claims. FhG has gone after PLENTY of people. Study the patents. See if any of the patented technologies like MS stereo exist in Vorbis. Products like CDEX and WinLame? You are aware that they support FAAC aren't you? A freeware aac encoder isn't theoretical at ALL. FAAC exists. It just needs to be tuned. Don't get me wrong. I love Vorbis. I am cheering for it's success as hard as ANYONE. But I believe that aac is a superior format to Vorbis. Look at how inferior an untuned Vorbis encoder's outupt is compared to an untuned aac encoder's. If you want, I'll provide hundreds of clips encoded by the original untuned Vorbis encoder and the untuned FAAC encoder at similar bitrates and let YOU decide which format is better.

No one here wants to put LAME binaries because it >might< lead to problems with FhG - but, so far, FhG has done 'codec crackdown' only once, in 1999 - with 8Hz, Blade, etc... Dolby and AT&T actively scan for mass-download link for AAC (sometimes I get their IP addresses and URL referal from big MP3 software sites, which means that they do day-by-day scan).

One more thing - while AACEnc was in development phase I had long technical discussions with people from FhG and they NEVER complained about existance of free AAC encoder link on my site! On the contrary, guys from Dolby were very strict and they stated that they won't talk with me about any matter before I remove the binaries from the web.

In addition, Karlheinz Brandenburg (owner of many MP3 and AAC patents and one of the most important people in audio comrpession) stated implicitly in one of interviews that FhG won't hunt free decoders and I think that it is more than enough to see that FhG/Thomson are less concerned about free stuff. Dolby, on the other hand, does not allow free decoder binaries making entire stuff pointless from the mass-usage point of view

Also, I am quite sure that AAC is currently the best algorithm in terms of quality vs. size. I can certify that because biggest names and companies in audio industry were involved in AAC development, and it would be very hard to match this, not to mention outperforming.

LOL! Ok, you're telling me that I need to check up on my facts with all of the completely uninformed statements you've been making lately? That's a little funny.

As for why people are not posting LAME binaries everywhere, some people choose not to participate in illegal activities as much as is possible. It's fairly simple.

And as I stated, many of the sites that host LAME have been the same for a very long time, they are linked to prominently on the LAME webpage, and they are still up. I have not seen Fhg take any sort of drastic action against any of them, however I have seen Dolby take action many times.



Haha... just like you admitted you were wrong about your "MPC problem" right? Or, I forgot... you just tucked tail and disappeared instead of taking it like a man and admitting you were just perpetuating some BS claims which you knew you couldn't prove (explains why you got so defensive..). Guess you didn't want to lose face..



As usual, you take the meaning of what someone is saying totally out of context to fit into your twisted view of things. Ivan didn't say anything of the sort, he was specifically discussing AAC. I think you need to read what people are saying a little bit more carefully before you jump to such flawed conclusions about their statements.



Again... twisted out of context. You discussed Ivan taking part in the development of FAAC to make it better. Both he and I already explained the issues behind this, yet you continue to ignore them.



I explained this in my above response. And telling me I need to study my history some is just hilarious coming from you. As for Fhg going after people hosting LAME binaries, I'd like some details. AFAIC the major sites hosting LAME have remained unchanged for a very long time. Furthermore Fhg has really done nothing to try and stop the LAME project.



This is about the uninformed comment I've seen. First of all Monty has discussed this MANY times on the mailing list. Joint Stereo in and of itself is not patented, certain methods of implementation are, but there are many that aren't. Vorbis does not use any of the patented methods. Looking for a patent on "MS stereo" and then saying "gee, Vorbis must be violating patents" would simply be foolish. The Vorbis team has already done their homework here and any of the people understanding the technology behind their stereo coding systems (maybe you should go read the page which discusses some of it) would realize there is no problem here, or at the very least it isn't nearly as black and white as you try to make it out to be.



"Incorporated into" means built in. A freeware ISO AAC implementation will never be shipped in one easy to use bundle of program. If it is, it will instantly be a prime target for Dolby and shut down faster than you can imagine.



Again taken out of context. Reread the paragraph. The "theoretical aac encoder" was the one that would already be tuned to the maximum level possible. I was NOT talking about FAAC, I was talking about a highly tuned freeware encoder that does not exist.



I think you are seriously jumping the gun here. Vorbis isn't even really "done" yet, it hasn't reached a release state in any form.

You do realize that Vorbis is nearing PsyTEL and MPC quality and is FAR ahead of FAAC don't you?



Untuned is absolute irrelevant. I don't even know how you could possibly try and judge two codecs side by side with "untuned" modes and then somehow come to the conclusion that one format is better than the other.

Also you have to realize that at the very least FAAC was based on an already existing ISO implementation. Vorbis was built entirely from scratch. Now Vorbis has far exceeded FAAC.

And as for the untuned bit, what release are you even talking about? I'd be inclined to believe that even beta4 was probably higher quality than FAAC. Most people feel that even LAME (based on a totally inferior format) is higher quality... so what does that tell you?

This discussion has spiraled WAY off topic and out of it's original context. You originally asked why more people didn't work on AAC, I gave you reasons for that (at which point you became very defensive). It does not make sense to work on a freeware AAC format from a mass usage (for the end user) point of view. I hope that many of the people working on LAME do not move in this direction because I honestly think that all things considered, it is not the most prudent decision to make. Freeware AAC is doomed from the start as far as ever attaining mass mainstream usage.

Also, I'm growing tired of the tone of this current discussion...

Ok people - there are three legal (more or less) distributions of the AAC technology:


1. ISO reference software
2. FAAC/FAAD sourceforge distribution
3. Cisco MPEG4IP project (http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net)


Cisco's lawyers claim that LGPL distribution is completely legal and that Dolby can't forbid such distribution - BUT, usage of the binaries is quite illegal.

Now, the ONLY difference between FAAC and LAME is: availability of FREE BINARY DECODERS. You have TONS of them for MP3, in the near future they will be integrated in everything. In this case it is easy to tolerate 'illegal' encoders because it is useless to control the format anyway - everybody is using it.

However, in case of AAC - Dolby/AT&T/FHG guys were using following reasoning: 'ok, if we allow free decoders and ISO format then we will CERTAINLY have tons of illegal encoder binaries and no one would be able to stop distribution - just like with MP3' - so they switched to plan B, and from the very beginning they are not allowing free decoder binaries. You can't bundle ISO AAC decoder in anything

Now, there MIGHT be a solution, with upcoming .MP4 format. Because audio patent licensing will be under authority of different company - MPEG-LA LLC, and they might allow 'raw' format. We'll see what happens.

Who said Vorbis is superior to aac? Who said that FhG doesn't go after mp3 binaries? What uninformed statements have I made? And as I have stated, many sites have had aac binaries available for a very long time. You talk about action. The action taken is the same whether it's FhG or Dolby. Threatening letters. Guess again. I didn't want to work on tuning an encoder so I could be charged for using it once it is tuned. Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on an opensource project if commercial companies can steal the improvements. There is nothing twisted about that. I didn't ignore them. As I said, if Ivan doesn't want to contribute, fine. That's his perogative. Dolby hasn't done anything to stop FAAC either. You DO need to study history. You seemed to be COMPLETELY ignorant of the FACT that FhG HAS gone after people who hosted mp3 binaries. You don't even understand the dynamics of the industry. Dolby isn't the one fighting ISO aac implementations. It's the RECORD COMPANIES. The SAME record companies which will urge their partners to go after Vorbis. It cracks me up to have someone SO uninformed accuse me of being uninformed. But hey, Dibrom. You know EVERYTHING. Even when you don't...

How many people have downloaded the FREEWARE Liquid Auido AAC encoder? Doomed, huh?

At this time, it seems there are no patent infringements. Vorbis doesn't use MS stereo. Vorbis has two channel coupling modes. The first is channel interleaving via residue backend #2, and the second is square polar mapping. http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/doc/stereo.html


LOL . Well, firstable, I can't see how could you possible compare untuned version by any means and make conclusions, Vorbis didn't even have channel coupling implemented before RC2. And lacked many basic functions, before RC-releases, even the bitstream was not set.
FAAC is at least based on working ISO AAC source code. And although available ISO AAC source is no quality at all, at least it was proven that AAC can actually achieve high quality (FhG's AAC implementation).
Vorbis had to be created "from a scratch".

[quote]Originally posted by layer3maniac
Who said Vorbis is superior to aac?[/quote]

Geez... do you even read what people post before responding to it? Where did I say Vorbis was superior to AAC? I said Vorbis was superior to FAAC.

[quote]Who said that FhG doesn't go after mp3 binaries?[/quote]

Ivan explained this quite well about 3 times already. Please refer to his posts for details.

[quote]What uninformed statements have I made?[/quote]

I pointed them out quite specifically. Refer to previous posts for details.

[quote]And as I have stated, many sites have had aac binaries available for a very long time.[/quote]

Not nearly as many sites which host LAME, and the sites which host AAC are not prominently linked to from all sorts of places. Also I can assure you that if these sites have been discovered by Dolby and they are in any country which respects patent laws, they'd be taken down immediately.

[quote]Guess again. I didn't want to work on tuning an encoder so I could be charged for using it once it is tuned.[/quote]

Nice excuse. First you throw a fit when someone asks you to prove your claims. Then you mysteriously apologize and decide you want to work together, probably thinking it wouldn't make you look so bad. Then when someone sets up an ftp and it came time to deliver (after you already agreed to), you simply vanished. No word or anything... and you didn't come back to the site and post for quite awhile after that. A tad suspicious wouldn't you say?

[quote]Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on an opensource project if commercial companies can steal the improvements. There is nothing twisted about that.[/quote]

You must have not read that paragraph fully. Ivan was specifically talking about AAC, yet you somehow twist that into implying that is his stance on all open source projects. That's totally ignorant.

[quote]I didn't ignore them. As I said, if Ivan doesn't want to contribute, fine. That's his perogative.[/quote]

I beg to differ, you keep posting the same things in response, as if you haven't even read what people are posting. It's almost like talking to a brick wall..

[quote]Dolby hasn't done anything to stop FAAC either.[/quote]

Oh really? How bout that Dolby enforced their patent rights and disallowed FAAC to post encoders or decoders in binary format, at all, and actively seeking out and shutting down sites that host them. You don't consider that action against FAAC? I certainly do.

[quote]You DO need to study history. You seemed to be COMPLETELY ignorant of the FACT that FhG HAS gone after people who hosted mp3 binaries.[/quote]

As Ivan already stated (and he knows a hell of a lot more about this than you), Fhg isn't actively seeking out and shutting down sites which host binaries. An isolated incident or two may have occurred in the past but that is not representative of current behavior. Dolby is actively enforcing their patents on the other hand.

[quote]You don't even understand the dynamics of the industry. Dolby isn't the one fighting ISO aac implementations. It's the RECORD COMPANIES. The SAME record companies which will urge their partners to go after Vorbis.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even READ what Ivan just posted AT ALL? Jesus..

[quote]It cracks me up to have someone SO uninformed accuse me of being uninformed. But hey, Dibrom. You know EVERYTHING. Even when you don't... [/quote]

You know, I don't think I've ever seen you post anything useful anywhere layer3maniac, and yet when someone disagrees with you on the slightest detail or responds to your posts in a manner contrary to what you'd prefer, you have to make such a big deal about it. Even if you know you are wrong, you simply can't stand that fact so you post the same thing over and over, no matter who says what or who shows you to be wrong. If that doesn't work, you drag the discussion all over hell to try and take it off topic or twist it out of proportion to where it has no meaning anymore... Why don't you just let it go already?

So far, looking from the posts from people who KNOW wtf they are talking about on these matters (Ivan for one), they seem to be agreeing with my statements here. So you can think all you like but for the most part you are alone in your beliefs.. take a look around, that's a sure sign that you are wrong.

What remains to be seen is whether an opensource developer can withstand a legal battle with paranoid record company backed patent holders. The financial resources of these people can NOT be matched by Vorbis. And in court, this makes a BIG difference.

Freeware as in opensource ISO AAC Freeware (as was implied in the context of the dicussion.. you seemed to miss that unsurprisingly..).

LQT certainly does NOT meet those criteria at all. It is a secure and encrypted format which is totally useless out of the Liquid Audio environment. Furthermore LQT is paying licensing fees for using this technology... hardly the same thing as FAAC at all.

Now you are really becoming ignorant -

As Dibrom said, my message was related to AAC - not opensource projects in general. Imagine you work on something that nobody is allowed to use, patent holders are busting your balls every few weeks with their letters and threats, and somebody else with the license is just stealing your code and making product that everybody could use, but guess how - for a $$$ and without any openess of any kind! JUST BECAUSE HE HAS $10,000 TO SPEND ON A PATENT LICENSE AND HAS A MARKET. And that company is certainly not an opensource fan.

You can ask Menno for my contribution to AAC and helping him in MPEG audio coding in general, I think you will change your opinion if you spend few minutes for asking him. I know that this sounds stupid and too egoistic, but I can't tolerate someone claiming that I don't have interest and I don't want to help FAAC team. Just like Andree helped me in my psychoacoustic knowledge, but he didn't write a single line of code for me or analysed my code for bugs.

Also, there are at least two papers on my site describing efforts and some of technologies begind 'optimized' and 'fast' AAC implementations. You won't find these sort of papers flying around - only most advanced AES papers from FhG contain such data, and they are being sold on commercial basis.

[quote] Geez... do you even read what people post before responding to it? Where did I say Vorbis was superior to AAC? I said Vorbis was superior to FAAC. Sure, TUNED Vorbis is superior to UNTUNED FAAC. [quote] Ivan explained this quite well about 3 times already. Please refer to his posts for details. [/quote] See Dibrom, unlike you I didn't NEED Ivan to tell me that FhG HAS gone after people who hosted mp3 binaries. [quote] Not nearly as many sites which host LAME, and the sites which host AAC are not prominently linked to from all sorts of places. Also I can assure you that if these sites have been discovered by Dolby and they are in any country which respects patent laws, they'd be taken down immediately. [/quote] And which countries host Lame binaries? If you honestly think FhG is cool with hosting Lame binaries, put yopur money where your mouth is. Host them HERE and see for yourself. [quote] First you throw a fit when someone asks you to prove your claims. Then you mysteriously apologize and decide you want to work together, probably thinking it wouldn't make you look so bad. Then when someone sets up an ftp and it came time to deliver (after you already agreed to), you simply vanished. No word or anything... and you didn't come back to the site and post for quite awhile after that. A tad suspicious wouldn't you say? [/quote] As I started WASTING my time looking for the samples I had problems with I realized the folly in doing Andree's work for him so he can turn around and charge me for it. It seemed perfectly sensible to me at the time. If that's suspicious to you, fine. Be suspicious. Frankly I couldn't care less what you think about me. [quote] Oh really? How bout that Dolby enforced their patent rights and disallowed FAAC to post encoders or decoders in binary format, at all, and actively seeking out and shutting down sites that host them. You don't consider that action against FAAC? I certainly do. [quote] Exactly the SAME way FhG enforces THEIR patent rights. Against BINARIES - NOT source code. [/quote] As Ivan already stated (and he knows a hell of a lot more about this than you), Fhg isn't actively seeking out and shutting down sites which host binaries. An isolated incident or two may have occurred in the past but that is not representative of current behavior. Dolby is actively enforcing their patents on the other hand. [/quote] Ivan clearly knows more about it than you. You were COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the FACT that FhG goes after people who host mp3 binaries. What makes you think Ivan knows more about it than me? You're SO sure of that. Host them and SEE for yourself. But you won't. You're are afraid to put your money where your know-it-all mouth is. You're wrong on this one, and you're just too proud to admit it.

It's exactly the same for Lame. It's the binaries you can't host, not the source. This is what you haven't explained: How is it ANY different to have a company steal your ideas from Vorbis and Linux verses FAAC?

Small clarification - FhG DID MP3 >E N C O D E R< binary hunting only once! And it was few years ago.

- FhG never hunted free decoders

- FhG never hunted encoder source code

- FhG supported plain-vanilla-unprotected ISO MP3 format
(ISO/IEC 11172-3, available from ISO bookshop)

- FhG's patent agreements are less tight than Dolby's


From what I see now, there are many companies even selling their MP3 encoding products on the biggest websites while they are not listed on 'licensed companies' list at www.mp3licensing.com! Which means that they are selling and making profit without a license - also, I haven't heard for any threat letter from FhG regarding MP3 for a while.

Now, my opinion is that FhG plays double-game here, when they are concerned about MP3 they only want to increase number of products floating around. This is quite good reasoning because:

1. They (FhG) know that they can't stop illegal mp3 binary distribution

2. More illegal binaries means more MP3s which means more legal products Quite simple - and cost effective. Does anybody wonder why Windows never had copy protection (until XP) while other OSes (like SCO) had?

But, when they are concerned about AAC - they are playing different game, probably to make RIAA & Co happy.



NO - again, binary policy for LAME is quite different (as I described earlier in this post) than FAAC because of situation. And, Vorbis is free project which could be used legally in binary form by ordinary users. Same goes to Linux. Also, it would be much easier to use ideas from already finished optimized AAC encoder in some commercial AAC encoder than trying to sell commercial Vorbis implementation.

LOL LOL. So you, layer3maniac, are saying that Dolby isn't fighting free ISO aac implementations, like FAAC? This must be the single biggest wrong information so far in the history of this site...

EVER heard of patent fees, license fees??? I'm sure Ivan can inform about these better...

Of course record companies wouldn't want any non-secured lossy digital audio around if it was up to them, but surely Dobly has very large financial interest also.

Tell that to Tord. Dolby ENFORCES FhG's aac patents for them. I agree COMPLETELY. In stifling aac, FhG, Thompson, and Dolby are thier own worst enemies.

Oh please.. that's about the most pathetic excuse one could think of. "Doing Andree's work for him".. lol. The fact of the matter is that you fell for the "me too" trap, and you couldn't deliver what you said you could. You and I both know it. And you behaved there in the same manner you behaved here, you simply couldn't stand the fact that people questioned what you said.. so you became exceedingly defensive.




Yes, I willingly admit Ivan knows more about it than me. He WORKS with Fhg and Dolby, he has been in contact with them, he knows the licensing policies and he has intimate exposure to their technologies. He knows far more about it than I do, and I also know that he has a much greater knowledge of it than you do as well. If you think otherwise, that's also pretty ignorant. When have you ever been involved in any psychoacoustic audio development, let alone AAC?

As for the Fhg stuff, I've explained it probably about 5 or 6 times now. I was stating that Fhg is not actively pursuing binaries. Ivan stated the same thing many times. I've also stated before that I've stated it, and I'll probably end up stating that again because you can't seem to read these particular parts of the post for some reason.



Of course I won't. Hosting LAME is illegal, and even if it is not actively pursued, I'd rather not participate in this aside from any development builds I may have no other option with. It is simply a matter of it not being something I desire to do on PM. I have hosted LAME on my home server many times in the past though for your information, and you probably would have known that if you had paid attention to the posts on this forum in the past.



I think you're really getting desperate on this one layer3maniac... lol

Dolby is protecting their patents just like FhG does. It doesn't MATTER if you pay liscense fees. You STILL CAN'T release an unsecure ISO aac encoder. NOT because of Dolby, because of the RIAA.

We have been talking about free ISO AAC. That's why I quoted some of Dibrom's text... "Open source" and "free" have been the issue here all the time in this thread, if you haven't noticed...

See - and that is the reason why ISO AAC can't be widely used. MP3 is de-facto standard not because of LAME but because of worldwide availablity of MP3 decoders, players, CD-Rippers, Bundles... sure, some of them are "illegal" and unlicensed, but no one cares - they are cross-compatible with legal products, and some way they are increasing FhG's income.

We will never achieve this level of interoperability for AAC. I am aware of at least one project of "cracking" LQT files and stripping the header making the file ISO 13818-7 but it is impossible, something inside their RAW AAC bitstream is different and so far nobody has managed to write LQT2AAC convertor. Same goes for Panasonic AAC '.acp' files, or NEC AAC '.nac' files, or with Mayah AAC files (encrypted with some stupid XOR or MS MD5 algorithm)

Philips webcine .mp4 files could be converted to AAC, but you won't find their encoder anywhere. However, one good news is that both Menno and I am working on MP4 encoders and tools and this could make our bitstreams readable by worldwide players such as Philips WebCine or EnvivioTV.... actually, EnvivioTV is already compatible with my products on the elementary bitstream level (but the MP4 multiplexer is quite problematic)

Gee Dibrom, I didn't realize that you could read minds too. I guess when you know everything that includes mind reading. Can you guess what I'm thinking right now? Let me save you the trouble. I'm thinking I'm sorry I ever CAME to your site and subjected myself to your arrogance. We're not discussing psychoacoustic developement Dibrom. We're discussing PATENT ENFORCEMENT and LEGALITY. I have been in contact with Dolby and FhG for YEARS on these subjects. What you seem to be missing is that USING Lame is ALSO illegal. You actively promote and discuss your use of Lame on this site. Where's your fear of legal ramifications there?

So am I. And you are very welcome to leave this forum as well.



No, we were discussing AAC and the development of a freeware encoder which very much does fall under psychoacoust audio development -- that was before you decided to drag the discussion totally off topic because you couldn't find anything else to argue about.

Now your comments about LAME have nothing to do with the original points made about FAAC. Both Ivan and I have already stated the differences between LAME and FAAC from a legality point of view (didn't I said I'd have to state I'd already stated this again? heh..). LAME and MP3 make sense because they are already established and MP3 is pretty much ubiquitous. Freeware AAC is not.

And as far as I'm concerned this back and forth stuff is going to stop soon. You've attempted to make your point, now the discussion is totally off topic and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you'd like to continue this, I'll just move these increasingly personal comments to the off topic forum, and then you can have fun talking to yourself. Consider this a warning.

Ok, layer3maniac, this is going totally off-topic and personal. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many people supporting your point of view... If you can't deal with it, you shouldn't start playing in the first place...

I advise everyone to take a look at the 1998 snapshot of the FhG IIS website related to AAC:

http://web.archive.org/web/19981206125458/...cfaq/index.html



Conclusion: From the very beginning of AAC commercial history (AAC was standardized in 1997) it was IMPOSSIBLE to make free decoder. This is not the case with MP3, because Mr. Brandenburg already stated that FhG has no intention to 'hunt' free, non-for-profit unlicensed MP3 decoders.

I can deal with it just fine. When Dibrom makes personal attacks on me based on errant assumptions, am I not allowed to respond in kind? But hey, you guys can stroke each other's egos to your heart's content. I for one don't intend to join in it...

Also, for you and Tord regarding MP3 DECODERS:

http://web.archive.org/web/19981206001526/...egal/index.html

Opensource and free - the EXACT same issues that face Lame. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it stop. Filesharing hasn't stopped. And unlike shady software patents as opposed to copyrite infringement, filesharing HAS been tested in court and found to be illegal. Did it stop?

Ok, messages containg Off-Topic or personal things, will go here from now on:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...s=&threadid=371 regardless whether there are also on-topic text included or not...

Impossible. And yet I posess SEVERAL of them. Homeboy, Astrid Quartex, FAAC. Heck - one of them even bears YOUR company's name. Go figure...

I suggest you take some breath, and read all the Ivan's comments above. Lame and free ISO AAC are not treated the same. Period.

layer3maniac:

Enough of this.

You are not longer even trying to debate a point, you are simply arguing to start a fight. You are completely disregarding everything everyone else is saying here and taking all comments totally out of context so you can continue this back and forth nonsense. As far as I concerned this manner of conversation ends NOW. You have attempted to make your point already enough and it is clear that you have no desire to reach any meaningful conclusion here. I'm on the verge of locking this thread which would be a shame considering other stuff mentioned here, but if that is necessary, that's what I'll do. This entire discussion has gone WAY off topic now and is pretty much pointless.

If you don't like that, then you can save me the bandwidth and go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of other people around here to have a meaningful discussion with.

To everyone else involved, please just stop responding to him.

You know what I mean: A LEGAL free decoder, and that is absolutely required if you wish widespread use of the format.

Ok, we could technically make lqt2aac tool (maybe - spending days and days on reverse engineering), and post decoders, optimized encoders, etc... - but there is not a single company that would incorporate ISO decoder in their worldwide product and that was my point.

I also said that IT COULD be possible with MP4, we'll see - so far Philips and Envivio are using raw MP4 format (without IPMP) and it is perfectly OK - if this trend continues we will be in position to make authoring tools for MP4 with huge industry support for ISO compatibility. In that case patent issues would be of less importance since legal or not - these encoders would be accepted by licensed decoders. Got it?

Now, If you can't understand this after 10th time then I really believe that you have some problems...

I believe Ivan means that it is "impossible" (very hard) to offer AAC decoder openly in the net, while nobody won't do nowadays anything if you host MP3 decoder binaries.

Also Astrid Quartex is/was not AAC at all. It was hacked version of PAC (by Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs) encoder/decoder.