ORIGINAL: John

Now, a group hug? Naw!

wimper wimper...... OK, but can it have the candy bar mommy??????

ORIGINAL: corvetteguitarman

I find these forums very interesting and informative. I myself bought the mp3 encoder for cakewalk back in 2005 when I bought cakewalk. I was not aware that there were free mp3 encoders back then either. But if I am not mistaken, mp3 is for compressing the file to send it over the net faster, but it certainly decreases the quality of the file, is this true?
I hope this can be answered without getting my head bitten off....but just in case, "AARRGGHH!!" lol

Yes, this is true.

ORIGINAL: Glennbo

I don't think it's a rip-off. If I understand the situation correctly, I believe it has something to do with licensing and Cakewalk CANNOT include the encoder in their software.

I'll only post this link, and let the wranglers, wrangle. ;)

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/

Two things about the above link have me scratching my head.

1- According to that site, under "Royalty Rates", the cost of licensing a "PC Software Application" to use the full MP3 codec is $5.00 per unit. That means five bucks for every copy of Sonar, if I'm reading this correctly.

2- In their list of licensed companies, I couldn't help but notice that Cakewalk is listed.

The obvious question is, if it costs $5.00 to license each copy of Sonar to use the full MP3 codec, then why does it cost 20 bucks to activate an MP3 encoder demo for Sonar? They stipulate a minimum royalty of $15000 per year, which means CW would need to sell 3000 copies of Sonar per year in order to keep the cost of licensing at five bucks per copy. Does Cakewalk sell 3000 copies of Sonar per year? Even if they only sold 1000 copies of each new version, that'd mean 15 bucks per copy of Sonar to license each to use the full MP3 codec. How big a deal would it be to include this by default, whether adding the cost to the customer or not? Surely I must be missing something...? Are the full-codec and the actual Encoder two different things that need to be licenced or are they one and the same?

Edit: Hmm...Also odd is that FL Studio (by Imageline) comes with support for MP3 export, and yet I don't see them listed as a licensed company. Maybe Imageline is a subsidiary of a larger corporation?

I wonder how many of you have read Dave and used his advice in the past? Besides all forums need at least one resident curmudgeon.

Thanks, but hey wait a minute... I've read some stinging posts from CJ and a lot of others so don't pigeonhole me as the only curmudgeon. I think a few of us who have been around for a long time have some pet peeves. Why doesn't someone ask CJ about how to setup his SoundBlaster Live and see what happens?

One last point (and I mean it)... Cakewalk has said it would have to add the cost of the MP3 encoder license and the reason they don't include it is because they don't want to have to charge everyone for something not everyone may want (although given the growth in popularity of MP3s due to the popularity of MP3 players that argument has weakened). However, making the MP3 player part of Sonar would mean that they would have to factor in that cost to every Sonar license purchase because the upgrades are really full versions. Therefore, if the MP3 encoder were included in Sonar, then you would have to pay for it every time you purchased the product including your initial purchase and all subsequent upgrades. By letting you purchase it separately, you only ever have to pay for it once.

I guess the real question is: If CJ had a sounblaster and made a mp3, would it make any sound in the woods if the pope wore a funny hat with a bear and a rabbit who's fur is not sticky? or would he need a dongle to turn on what you hear?


Tom

ORIGINAL: OldGeezer

1- According to that site, under "Royalty Rates", the cost of licensing a "PC Software Application" to use the full MP3 codec is $5.00 per unit. That means five bucks for every copy of Sonar, if I'm reading this correctly.

2- In their list of licensed companies, I couldn't help but notice that Cakewalk is listed.

The obvious question is, if it costs $5.00 to license each copy of Sonar to use the full MP3 codec, then why does it cost 20 bucks to activate an MP3 encoder demo for Sonar?

Probably because that $5 is only for a license to use a technology and does not cover the development costs associated with incorporating the technology into the application or the profit the company wishes to make from selling their software.

ORIGINAL: R!Soc

ORIGINAL: OldGeezer

1- According to that site, under "Royalty Rates", the cost of licensing a "PC Software Application" to use the full MP3 codec is $5.00 per unit. That means five bucks for every copy of Sonar, if I'm reading this correctly.

2- In their list of licensed companies, I couldn't help but notice that Cakewalk is listed.

The obvious question is, if it costs $5.00 to license each copy of Sonar to use the full MP3 codec, then why does it cost 20 bucks to activate an MP3 encoder demo for Sonar?

Probably because that $5 is only for a license to use a technology and does not cover the development costs associated with incorporating the technology into the application or the profit the company wishes to make from selling their software.

Programmers need about fifteen bucks to issue a command like this to the OS for you. <g>

lame -v -V 2 -b 128 input.wav output.mp3 CBR

I will address this directly to, "webseed"....January 24, 2005......I bought the CW MP3 encoder for $29.00. So if they are offering to sell it now for $19.00, jump on it. Or maybe, if we are lucky, according to my calculations, wait until the Year 2013 and you can save $10.00 and buy it then for $9.00. Cheers!

In conclusion

yes and no

ORIGINAL: Saintom

I guess the real question is: If CJ had a sounblaster and made a mp3, would it make any sound in the woods if the pope wore a funny hat with a bear and a rabbit who's fur is not sticky? or would he need a dongle to turn on what you hear?


Tom

I would have thought that was obvious...