Think of it this way: years or R&D and over a million Euros/Dollars went into the standardization of AAC and now USAC. I wouldn't understand why one should give away the use of such highly specialized, sophisticated technology for free.
Because the profit for society and progress in general would be much bigger. It's kinda logical for people with a common need to get together, form a community and to have people from that community trying to satisfy the needs of the community. If you feel you're part of such a community you may want to serve them without a long-term plan on exploiting it. - Cooperation, you know; the internet wouldn't exist without that kind of thinking.- I hope these four sentences can give you a first idea...
In true MPEG style, the quality is absolutely atrocious.
Quote from: Garf on 03 August, 2012, 11:07:01 AMIn true MPEG style, the quality is absolutely atrocious.You mean the audio quality? A higher-quality encoder will become available, but it only does mono at the moment. See http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/stoc...m#_Toc325960263.Chris
You mean the audio quality? A higher-quality encoder will become available, but it only does mono at the moment. See http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/stoc...m#_Toc325960263.
Because I have tried USAC files from official test and it was quite good. Is there any possibility that there will be a commercial encoder besides of reference implementation?
Will it stay mono or will that change? I could see the point in removing some parts of the good encoder so you can license a few copies of the true good encoder, but the stereo coding seems to be an important part of USAC, so leaving that out seems to undermine the point?