Linked by robojerk on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:09 UTC
Permalink for comment 455227
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
But why would someone do that ? MP3 has proven to be good enough as a de facto standard, so why would someone spend time to implement another patented format, paying another license fee or restricting himself from exporting his product in the US in order to do that ? Wouldn't we be better off waiting for the MP3 patents to expire ?
Is the quality increase so that, say, you can get the same quality as MP3 CBR 128KBps (above which most people don't hear the difference) in twice less space ?
Edited 2010-12-31 07:26 UTC