I was wondering does anyone know if there is any chance of AAC support anytime in the future, hopefully soon?
Contrary to popular belief, AAC is not an Apple codec, but is a Faunhofer codec, the successor to mp3. Apples iTunes is now no longer tainted by the DRM filth, and there are over 6 billion AAC encoded tracks out there, and it might be useful if people could play them on things other than iPods - such as the Fuze. I have bought a number of iTunes tracks now that they are sans-drm, most of which are songs that are not available anywhere else (unless you don’t mind a spot of piracy). It is annoying that I can only play them on my Fuze after re-encoding them and losing sound quality in the process. I can play them on my Cowon D2 and I note that many other players, including I believe the Sansa View can now play AAC. So why not the Fuze?
I would be quite prepared to pay (at a reasonable price) for a special firmware upgrade that includes AAC support, if its a matter of royalties.
Failing that, I guess I will have to bide my time till Rockbox is ported to the Fuze (not long now).
I hope it does get ACC support but I would prefer an inclusion method that does not promote iTunes. While iTunes may be the largest digital market for music they have done little to garner that title on the music side, despite their position they dont work with labels that really want to participate, and they have a complete strangle hold on the digital releases from the labels they do work with. Supporting ACC is fine but if it goes hand in hand with iTunes Im not a fan.
@conversionbox wrote:
I hope it does get ACC support but I would prefer an inclusion method that does not promote iTunes. While iTunes may be the largest digital market for music they have done little to garner that title on the music side, despite their position they dont work with labels that really want to participate, and they have a complete strangle hold on the digital releases from the labels they do work with. Supporting ACC is fine but if it goes hand in hand with iTunes Im not a fan.
I have no love of Apple or iTunes - far from it. I only bought material from them out of desperation as there was no where else to go - most of the others still have DRM, and I will NOT buy music with DRM. I have no objections to someone discriminating against Apple or iTunes, but AAC is NOT an Apple codec. It is perhaps rather unfair to rope an “innocent” codec into a vendetta against a proprietary company. There are lots of companies I hate that sell MP3’s, but I would not advocate boycotting the MP3 codec on that account.
AAC is also the codec used by DVB (European Digital TV), DAB (European Digital Radio), and of course MPEG4 videos.
I have been saying for some time now that AAC support would be a smart move on Sandisk’s part. There are constantly issues with people trying to get their iTunes music onto a Fuze, and they simply can’t (unless they have some computer skills). So what do they do? Mostly, return the Fuze and buy a Nano. No one could blame Sandisk for not supporting Apple’s proprietary DRM, but that excuse is gone now. The top-selling players (Zune being #2) support AAC. Even my car CD player and home DVD player support AAC. Its a good codec, and its an ISO standard.
iTunes isn’t just the biggest digital music store, by the way - they’re the biggest music store period (digital or otherwise).
That being said, I don’t see much enthusiasm on Sandisk’s part to support AAC.
If royalties are based on past sales, then ok it’s too late, but Sandisk should have never released these without it.
The top ten aren’t having any problems, including the AAC supported Zen.
Sorry for the frustration, but I’ve been listening to blind tests of all the lossy codecs, and agree that while Ogg is outstanding, a converted AAC file just doesn’t cut it.
Fuze/Clip with Ogg, MP3, WMA, and AAC would move them much higher than thier current 14-23 slots and falling.
OT - Ogg and Nero’s AAC via Foobar2000 Rocks
OT2 - Please bring back the independent volume control, it was another deal killer for the Fuze. It’s a great feature on the Connect and Clip.
If royalties are based on past sales, then ok it’s too late, but Sandisk should have never released these without it.
The top ten aren’t having any problems, including the AAC supported Zen.
Sorry for the frustration, but I’ve been listening to blind tests of all the lossy codecs, and agree that while Ogg is outstanding, a converted AAC file just doesn’t cut it.
Fuze/Clip with Ogg, MP3, WMA, and AAC would move them much higher than thier current 14-23 slots and falling.
OT - Ogg and Nero’s AAC via Foobar2000 Rocks
OT2 - Please bring back the independent volume control, it was another deal killer for the Fuze. It’s a great feature on the Connect and Clip.
Message Edited by Trac on 06-08-2009 01:26 PM
When I just looked, the top ten were all iPuds…the Zen was 11th, but I have read an awful lot of posts over in ABI about Zens with problems. The only other brand in the top 20 was …Sansa, with 2 diffferent Fuzes and one Clip. Then there were 3 more Sansas mixed with 2 iPud shuffles from 21-25. I don’t think it’s necessarily the AAC that makes all the difference. iPuds sell because they are the stereotype DAP.
iPods sell because Apple can afford to market them.
Ever see a Sansa commercial on TV? Or even a Zune commercial?
Print ads. Yes. Not TV.
That’s why Apple rules. Plain and simple. It’s not iTunes, it’s not the player. It’s marketing.
Apple does rule and will continue to, no argument there, but honestly, where would Sandisk rank if the Fuze/Clip supported AAC and increased the price by $1 or less. Ppl with huge AAC library files would drive Sansa sales up or Pud prices down.
I agree AAC would be very helpful as a selling point, but I think it’s not useful to store lossless codec files on the Fuze. As a former iTunes user (switched to foobar) I have hundreds of files in AAC format and initially I was unhappy they wouldn’t be supported on Fuze. However, I don’t think it’s worth it to keep lossless files on this kind of device (even though I did put some flac files on to test the feature early on). I usually compress all my flac and aac now to ogg for the Fuze. I keep the files lossless on my drives but you can’t even hear the difference in the compressed format with normal headphones and space is a big issue on 8 gb device (mine is 16gb with the expansion and nearly full with all compressed music). I also listen sometimes with very good headphones (Grado SR80) and still I can’t hear a difference. My ogg’s are at 192.
Or maybe they think the limited engineering effort they have is better applied to some other enhancement.
Does it really make that much difference to a would be purchaser if a player costs $87 or $88? Are purchases really made or broken by such a small difference? Certainly I have never in my life decided not to buy something because of such a miniscule price difference, and I seriously doubt if any one ever has.
If the royalty fee really is such a showstopper, why not offer a paid AAC-enhanced firmware download from the site for those that want to pay for it - I would gladly buy such an upgrade for even up to $10 in price.
Most other major companies, including Microsoft, have decided to support drm free AAC, and in my opinion the decision not to do so by Sandisk is a mistake, which hopefully one day they will rectify. At the moment I can only explain this lack of support by the fact that Sandisk makes most of its money from flash, and does not care too much about its Sansa operation.
It’s not AAC lossless that iTunes users want. AAC lossless could be converted to flac or high-bitrate .ogg or .mp3.
It’s the regular iTunes music in m4a, which sounded only adequate to begin with and degrades further when converted to mp3.
Apple built a walled garden, people bought into it and didn’t notice the walls because they were hidden by sleek graphics, and only when they tried to escape to another player did they find they had been quietly deceived. They could preserve what’s left of audio quality by converting .m4a into high-bitrate mp3. But it’s not going to be a no-brainer.
If the royalty fee really is such a showstopper, why not offer a paid AAC-enhanced firmware download from the site for those that want to pay for it - I would gladly buy such an upgrade for even up to $10 in price.
_________________
Spot on tempusfuzit that’s what Archos did for H264, but they just don’t get it. Part of marketing is giving the consumer what they want. But I guess 15th is just fine for everyone but Apple.
Where would Sansa rank if they had commercials on TV? Much better, I bet.
I sincerely doubt royalties are an issue. Let’s be honest it probably costs Sansa $20 to make a 4GB Fuze. They could eat $1 if that’s all it was to implement AAC.
Is it really SanDisk’s fault that some people were misinformed or uninformed enough to buy music from iTunes in that format? The phrase “caveat emptor” comes to mind:wink:
@marvin_martian wrote: Is it really SanDisk’s fault that some people were misinformed or uninformed enough to buy music from iTunes in that format?
It’s Fraunhofer et al.'s codec not Apple’s. @fwiw I never owned a pod or puchased any iTunes music pre DRM/128kb, but that was over 2 years ago, before the Clip or Fuze were released. And “that format” @256kb made some unavailable tracks elsewhere worth it.
Where would Sansa rank if they had commercials on TV? Much better, I bet.
I sincerely doubt royalties are an issue. Let’s be honest it probably costs Sansa $20 to make a 4GB Fuze. They could eat $1 if that’s all it was to implement AAC.
Exactly
There’s more to marketing than advertising. Listening to the consumer is very profitable. Should Sandisk shoot themselves in the foot just because some people don’t have/use AAC. For those who did buy into 128kb, if they want it on there player, a good marketer would allow them that option.
Last question:
If most/all manufacturers supported AAC(and they will) as they do MP3, what format would be the de facto standard?
@marvin_martian wrote: Is it really SanDisk’s fault that some people were misinformed or uninformed enough to buy music from iTunes in that format?
It’s Fraunhofer et al.'s codec not Apple’s. @fwiw I never owned a pod or puchased any iTunes music pre DRM/128kb, but that was over 2 years ago, before the Clip or Fuze were released. And “that format” @256kb made some unavailable tracks elsewhere worth it.
Where would Sansa rank if they had commercials on TV? Much better, I bet.
I sincerely doubt royalties are an issue. Let’s be honest it probably costs Sansa $20 to make a 4GB Fuze. They could eat $1 if that’s all it was to implement AAC.
Exactly
There’s more to marketing than advertising. Listening to the consumer is very profitable. Should Sandisk shoot themselves in the foot just because some people don’t have/use AAC. For those who did buy into 128kb, if they want it on there player, a good marketer would allow them that option.
Last question:
If most/all manufacturers supported AAC(and they will) as they do MP3, what format would be the de facto standard?
Trac and Peregrine, Apparently Royalties are an issue. It might not seem like it, but if SansaFix says it is then it must be. He would know. I do notice that the Connect played (I dont know if it still does) ACC files, but thats been a while ago, before this kind of stuff really mattered.
@marvin_martian wrote: Is it really SanDisk’s fault that some people were misinformed or uninformed enough to buy music from iTunes in that format?
It’s Fraunhofer et al.'s codec not Apple’s. @fwiw I never owned a pod or puchased any iTunes music pre DRM/128kb, but that was over 2 years ago, before the Clip or Fuze were released. And “that format” @256kb made some unavailable tracks elsewhere worth it.
Where would Sansa rank if they had commercials on TV? Much better, I bet.
I sincerely doubt royalties are an issue. Let’s be honest it probably costs Sansa $20 to make a 4GB Fuze. They could eat $1 if that’s all it was to implement AAC.
Exactly
There’s more to marketing than advertising. Listening to the consumer is very profitable. Should Sandisk shoot themselves in the foot just because some people don’t have/use AAC. For those who did buy into 128kb, if they want it on there player, a good marketer would allow them that option.
Last question:
If most/all manufacturers supported AAC(and they will) as they do MP3, what format would be the de facto standard?
When I said people were mis- or un-informed when they bought stuff from iTunes in that format, I was referring to the fact that people obviously didn’t know that the format did not have universal hardware support, like MP3…hence my “caveat emptor” remark.
