6 ms·

So is the thesis here that there is no other way to have non-crap sound on a laptop than this Apple patent? No alternative? No patent-non-infringing approach?

So is the thesis here that there is no other way to have non-crap sound on a laptop than this Apple patent? No alternative? No patent-non-infringing approach? Because if not, the real reason is as the author suggests: other manufacturers don't bother. I have been working a long time - decades - in a part of the industry that is not just patent happy but patent berserk and it has never been my experience that other approaches are not available when a single approach is patent-walled off.

brudgers 4y ago
I’m not saying there might not be another way. But iTunes and the other big music distribution power players have requirements and use encoding technologies based on loudness rather than power. [1] This is why your playlists don’t require adjusting the volume between songs from different artists/albums/eras/genres. So it is likely that Apple’s method works hand in hand with the technical constraints of iTunes requirements and other streaming encodings. And why the threat of Apple’s patent may be providing a moat. Like Dolby, except that licensing patents isn’t a core revenue stream for Apple. [1] TFA doesn’t cut a bright line between power and loudness within its argument. But that’s a critical part of contemporary audio engineering in today’s commercial music production.
- rendaw 4y ago
  What audio encodings are loudness rather than power based? Does that mean they don't encode waveforms directly? > I’m not saying there might not be another way. Are you ggp?
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  How many people are using their macs to listen to iTunes? I get YouTube, Netflix, anything you can watch on chrome, but iTunes is more of a phone, home pod, Apple car thing, and even then many people use Spotify rather than iMusic. Are other providers using QuickTime or similar encodings for non-Apple provided media?
  - brudgers 4y ago
    It’s not Quicktime. All the streaming services normalize music on loudness. That’s why you aren’t constantly adjusting the volume of your speakers/headphones to compensate for the way each song was originally mixed and mastered. Apple/iTunes got there first.

brudgers 4y ago

I’m not saying there might not be another way. But iTunes and the other big music distribution power players have requirements and use encoding technologies based on loudness rather than power. [1] This is why your playlists don’t require adjusting the volume between songs from different artists/albums/eras/genres. So it is likely that Apple’s method works hand in hand with the technical constraints of iTunes requirements and other streaming encodings. And why the threat of Apple’s patent may be providing a moat. Like Dolby, except that licensing patents isn’t a core revenue stream for Apple. [1] TFA doesn’t cut a bright line between power and loudness within its argument. But that’s a critical part of contemporary audio engineering in today’s commercial music production.

rendaw 4y ago
What audio encodings are loudness rather than power based? Does that mean they don't encode waveforms directly? > I’m not saying there might not be another way. Are you ggp?
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
How many people are using their macs to listen to iTunes? I get YouTube, Netflix, anything you can watch on chrome, but iTunes is more of a phone, home pod, Apple car thing, and even then many people use Spotify rather than iMusic. Are other providers using QuickTime or similar encodings for non-Apple provided media?
- brudgers 4y ago
  It’s not Quicktime. All the streaming services normalize music on loudness. That’s why you aren’t constantly adjusting the volume of your speakers/headphones to compensate for the way each song was originally mixed and mastered. Apple/iTunes got there first.