iTunes 4 and Rendezvous [Archive]

arn

Nov 13, 2002, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by insidedanshead
Fill me in.. why's everyone so excited and so anxious to get AAC support in iTunes? I guess my confusion is partially due to my ignorance of the file type AAC.. but isn't that the compression used for DVD audio along with MPEG for picture? Why would anyone want that support in iTunes?

:confused:

It's simply more compression with the same quality. So theoretically, you can save space... hold more songs. More important if/when the iPod supports it so you can store more songs on it.

One suggestion to apple though - you should NOT allow people to convert their MP3's to MP4/AAC. It just shouldn't be an option. Cause you know people will do it... and it's just wrong.

arn

Telomar

Nov 13, 2002, 02:24 AM

MP4/AAC has much nicer sound qulity than MP3s. MP3s have a habit of coming out a little dull while MP4s don't.

Of course this is assuming you rip it direct from the CD and aren't recompressing MP3s, in which case you'd just get MP3 quality made worse.

redAPPLE

Nov 13, 2002, 03:00 AM

isn't it a fact, if one converts .cda (normal cd files) to .mp3, it removes data that is not audible to a normal person.

i mean with audible, data that the human ear rarely hears.

that is the reason why .mp3 files are a lot smaller (well compression helps too).

but if .mp3 files have already been "compressed" and data removed which is not necessary, which part would still be removed to make .aac files a lot smaller.

maybe it is the compression, right?

oh god. i wanted to say something else. but i forgot.

well, i ain't an expert, but i could not imagine that converting .mp3 to .mp4 (or .aac) would be a good idea. would the quality not suffer?

in as, converting .cda files to .aac would surely be a great idea.

i hope there would be a plug in device (one for the mac and another for the stereo (hope we do not have to buy a separate one)) to use this tech ASAP.

i would love that for christmas.

my ramblings... my ramblings...

arn

Nov 13, 2002, 03:03 AM

1) Converting MP3 -> MP4 would be stupid.

2) removing the inaudible stuff is the compression.

Booga

Nov 13, 2002, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by arn
2) removing the inaudible stuff is the compression.

This is largely incorrect. While removing the "inaudible" stuff (some people hear better than others) does help, any patterned signal can be compressed. A lot of the quality loss in compression comes from picking a different signal, close to the original, that matches a compressible pattern and substituting it for the original signal. Thus, you get something close to the original, but can still massage it into something that can be described with much fewer bits. This often means "strange" parts of the original signal (something that isn't close to any of the compressible patterns) can sound very different in compressed form, and why some instruments and particular sounds are expressed very badly in MP3 format.

For example, to oversimplify a bit, if you had the signal 2,4,6,8,9,12,14,16,18,... you could replace it with 2n. You'd only be wrong once, and you've now got a representation that takes only 2 characters to express in ASCII instead of 22 :). That is, until the source comes along that is all odd digits. Anyway, you get the idea.

woodsey

Nov 13, 2002, 06:31 AM

Has anyone else noticed that the price for engraving an iPod has dropped from $49 to $20.

Much more reasonable, if you ask me! I guess Apple is just trying to squeze every little bit of revenue out of the iPod as they can, leading up to the holliday buying season.

I cant wait for the new version of iTunes. Ill be able to put all my songs on my G4 and play them anywhere around my house on my clamshell iBook.

Sounds pretty good to me!

springscansing

Nov 13, 2002, 06:53 AM

springscansing

Nov 13, 2002, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by arn
1) Converting MP3 -> MP4 would be stupid.

2) removing the inaudible stuff is the compression.

There's a lot more to it than that. If it only removed stuff we couldn't hear, then we'd be using it on everything. Bottom line is, mp3 encoding has a significant impact on audio.

arn

Nov 13, 2002, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by springscansing

There's a lot more to it than that. If it only removed stuff we couldn't hear, then we'd be using it on everything. Bottom line is, mp3 encoding has a significant impact on audio.

yes... apologies for my error...

arn

McFreggle

Nov 13, 2002, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Macrumors
[B]In July, at MacWorld Expo New York 2002, Steve Jobs demonstrated a beta version of iTunes which incorporated Rendezvous technology, allowing dynamic addition and removal of music libraries from computers within Rendezvous' reach. It was in Paris, not in New York.

k.

DaveGee

Nov 13, 2002, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by McFreggle
It was in Paris, not in New York.

k.

I work in NYC and I was at the keynote so I know I saw that demo... It was MWNY 1st and then a follow-up demo (maybe with a more specific time frame?) in Paris.

D

iJon

Nov 13, 2002, 07:47 AM

Seems like we havent even had itunes 3 that long. oh well, bring on 4.

iJon

JtheLemur

Nov 13, 2002, 08:08 AM

Too bad that Rendezvous is only really suited for home networks or small corporate ones - it doesn't work across subnets!! I was planning on using iChat to stay in touch with my tech crew while running around the building, but our wireless network is on a different VLAN than our Mac desktops which are on a different VLAN than our server room...

Granted, it's early, but come on! That's a really basic requirement of a network protocol... I could always use port forwarding but it may be more trouble than it's worth...

medea

Nov 13, 2002, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by woodsey
Has anyone else noticed that the price for engraving an iPod has dropped from $49 to $20.

Much more reasonable, if you ask me! I guess Apple is just trying to squeze every little bit of revenue out of the iPod as they can, leading up to the holliday buying season.

I cant wait for the new version of iTunes. Ill be able to put all my songs on my G4 and play them anywhere around my house on my clamshell iBook.

Sounds pretty good to me!

Yeah a thread on the price drop is in Current News.
I'm really looking forward to the possibilites of Rendezvous, soon not only [easily] play your mp3s from one computer to another, you will also be able to play them on your home stero etc. Can't wait.

mister880

Nov 13, 2002, 08:28 AM

Updates : iTunes 3 - iMovie 2

iTunes is pretty much a perfect app for me. It works and does everything I could want. The other iApps could use a little more work. They could fix iPhoto up a little better so it can handle larger photo imports. I have had a digital camera for almost 5 years and have collected over 9000 images. Let's just say iPhoto chokes up around 3000!

iMovie needs a few more features to help keep it on top! Microsoft's new version of video editing software "relax there is nothing that would make me switch" is starting to gain ground on Apple's iMovie as far as features. iMovie needs in my guess, at least to make me happy.

1) Support for bigger screen resolutions I hate the fact I have so much extra space on my screen with iMovie running on a 22 inch LCD

2) Better Titles! iMovie really needs some work with it's built in Titler!

3) An option to import video from burnt family videos on iDVD! Right now I am backing up all my old 8mm videos to iDVD because I know the tapes aren't going to last forever. But unless I am missing something I don't know an easy way of getting that footage back into my computer when I want to edit.

4) More built in plug-ins! And while they are at it get faster rendering times! I know they can't make it real time because they can't let their free app compete with FCP 3.0 witch I also use!

5) Just an overall bug fix.. if I see "Application has quit..." one more time I am going to smack one of their "switch" people when they say "it doesn't crash!"

Just my two cents'
Kevin Leidecker
iCEO of BullShRt

Bradcoe

Nov 13, 2002, 08:28 AM

I can't wait until my home stereo has "Tuner, CD, DVD, Computer, etc, etc..." Away will go the the yucky LED and calculator LCD type displays. Full 5 or 8 inch Color LCD's on the front of one fairly large "Tuner-replacement" box. Browse your DVD player, CD Player, or even ANY audio/video files on your computer. Stream them all wireless to you wonderful home stereo speakers.

Integration of HomeEntertainment systems and Computers multi-media functions should be Apples immediate future.

seven5

Nov 13, 2002, 08:38 AM

Who CAREEEESSSSSS about AAC, the real deal here is Rendezvous... WOOOO HOOOO

TyleRomeo

Nov 13, 2002, 08:40 AM

forget MP4/AAC and just import full AIFF files on your computers. Why bother why lossy compression and audio quality loss. Of course you need to get yourself about 500GB though. Which should be a problem with hard drives getting huge. IBM has a 2.5 inch 80GB drive, maxotr is working with 80GB per platter and early next year we will see drives that are 100 GB per platter. ohh and im sure technology will advance and we will have larger 1.8 inch drives. So im saying we'll have a 30GB or 40 GB iPod by next MWNY.

tyler

Bensch

Nov 13, 2002, 10:24 AM

Please note: Converting to mp3 is NOT data compression, but data REDUCTION.

MacBandit

Nov 13, 2002, 10:46 AM

If iTunes 4 doesn't include the ability to organize Albums by foders then they can take there upgrade and shove it you know where.

Get with the picture Apple. I have ripped a large portion of my cds and this is in excess of 2500 songs. Yes I know there is the Organize feature but this is hardly a personalized function. I want to be able to organize my music anyway possible. It seems to me that with the OSX and the iApps Apple has taken more and more personalization away from us. What makes a Mac great? The ability to make it yours. What makes a WinPC a WinPC? The fact that yours is just like everyother one out there. Just one of the hord from 1984.

macjohnmcc

Nov 13, 2002, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Get with the picture Apple. I have ripped a large portion of my cds and this is in excess of 2500 songs.

Your collection is still just a baby. I have nearly 8,000 songs in my iTunes library! ;)

oldMac

Nov 13, 2002, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Bensch
Please note: Converting to mp3 is NOT data compression, but data REDUCTION.

MP3, like JPEG, is compression. While both algorithms do throw away some information, they accomplish what is intended. More specifically, they both compress and reduce the amount of information necessary to communicate a message. This is known as a "lossy compression" algorithm.

To say that JPEG or MP3 don't qualify as compression is highbrow, silly and suggests that you may best belong in a university job rather than a job in the REAL WORLD where ACTUAL WORK gets done. :)

kfury

Nov 13, 2002, 11:58 AM

I seem to recall (please correct me if you can cite references) that Jobs said the Rendezvous-enabled streaming feature in iTunes would be here in September 2002, shortly after 'Jag-wire's release.

I'm pleased as punch to get a new iTunes, but I just wanted clarification that it's not early, but three months late...

ennerseed

Nov 13, 2002, 11:59 AM

Beat matching and bar generation from that would not be that hard... so the visuals could actually change up at a breakdown or a chorus of a song... it would make the visuals go with the music. instead of some colorized wave form.

Oh yeah, Rendezvous yeay yeay... i only have one computer now so...

And double a c is definitely a mega plus. I was in the process of digitizing all my records. I guess I'll stop and wait for iTunes 4. But I wonder how long is it going to be before Traktor Dj Studio can utilize double a c?:mad:

Bensch

Nov 13, 2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by oldMac
To say that JPEG or MP3 don't qualify as compression is highbrow, silly and suggests that you may best belong in a university job rather than a job in the REAL WORLD where ACTUAL WORK gets done. :)

Well, at least it's just TRUE :)

But you're damn good: It has been told me at university....

Bensch

PS: Sorry for my english...

Trekkie

Nov 13, 2002, 12:07 PM

If they could get it so I could put some type of rendezvous info thing on my linux file server, that'd be awesome.

That way, my 750+ CDs ripped to MP3s stored on my RAID5 array of IDE drives would be easilly searched through with iTunes so my wife and I could find the CDs we each like instead of having to add them.

Until they make a 360GB HDD for a laptop, I need to use my network :)

allday

Nov 13, 2002, 12:09 PM

iTunes 4 WILL incorporate Rendezvous. I'm not certain what this "rumoe" means as too, as expected since it was told to us by the top guy himself (Jobs).

Also, I understood that iTunes just uses Quicktime for playing files, so whatever Quicktime can read, iTunes can too. Unfortunately I do not have any AAC content to try for myself. Having seen, or rather heard, a demostration of AAC quality, you can basically have the same quality out of a 64 bit rate AAC as you do from a 128 bit rate MP3, that means my 10GB iPod now can store 4,000 songs.

Don't worry about converting MP3's to AAC. Converting compressed audio to compressed audio will not work as you think since each encoding scheme works different. You'd have to encode AAC from your uncompressed source to get the benefit of the AAC quality and small file size.

All-Day

ennerseed

Nov 13, 2002, 12:09 PM

Has iTunes 3.0.1 been out? I just found it in my software update.

TyleRomeo

Nov 13, 2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by ennerseed
Has iTunes 3.0.1 been out? I just found it in my software update.

yeah its been out for quite some time, there really no difference in my opinion.

tyler

szark

Nov 13, 2002, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Trekkie
If they could get it so I could put some type of rendezvous info thing on my linux file server, that'd be awesome.

Well, if you know anyone good at Linux programming, have them download the Rendezvous source code (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/rendezvous/) and start working on it!

Hopefully, when iTunes 4 is released, it shouldn't take too much effort to determine how to make the two systems link up...

jettredmont

Nov 13, 2002, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by redAPPLE
isn't it a fact, if one converts .cda (normal cd files) to .mp3, it removes data that is not audible to a normal person.

i mean with audible, data that the human ear rarely hears.

that is the reason why .mp3 files are a lot smaller (well compression helps too).

but if .mp3 files have already been "compressed" and data removed which is not necessary, which part would still be removed to make .aac files a lot smaller.

maybe it is the compression, right?

MP3 works by approximating the sound waves, not by just "dropping" irrelevant sound.

A really bad analogy: Imagine lookng at a a wavy line function on an x/y axis. Now, you could go through and say, "at x=1, y=37; at x=2, y=35", etc. That's sampling. That's like PCM/WAV format audio.

You could also look at the line and say, "between x=0 and x=500, it resembles the equation y=38-x^2, and then between x=300 and x=800 it is more like y=x^3-17*x^2," etc (overlap intentional). That's more like (kinda sorta :) ) what MP3 does. It approximates to get a wave form that is "sorta" like what you started out with. And, yes, the standard defines what kinds of approximations are allowed to be made by how noticable such an approximation will be to the "average" user's ear. In standard MP3, the bitrate is defined, so you won't get the same "quality" of approximation amongst all bits of a song (for instance, pure silence will be very well approximated, but will take up just as much space per second as the flight of the bumblebee which is noticably lacking in accuracy); in "variable rate" MP3, the quality standard across any frame is kept consistent, and so the bitrate (bytes/second) required to meet that quality standard will shift from frame to frame.

AAC employs the same principles as MP3, but allows for more involved approximations. For instance, perhaps the two above approximations could be expressed more precisely with a single x^4 order function, and perhaps an x^5th order function would give even more fidelity compared to the original. Also, precisely what is "audible" to the human ear has changed between the standards, such that much of what MP3 dropped AAC keeps preferentially because it has been found that, yes, the human ear can distinguish the difference.

Note that the above functions are completely bogus; real MP3 approximations would involve sines and cosines, not x^n functions, as sound samples tend more towards sine/cosine waveforms than arbitrary x^n functions.

CJYetman

Nov 13, 2002, 12:41 PM

Mpeg4 and AAC is actually integrated into Quicktime, which means iTunes already plays mp4s. If you pay for Quicktime Pro, you can convert cds to mp4 and play them in iTunes already. I guess iTunes "supporting mp4" means that mp4 will be an option when importing directly into iTunes? Will iPod be able to play mp4s with a software update, or would that require a new decoder chip inside?

beatle888

Nov 13, 2002, 12:49 PM

" To say that JPEG or MP3 don't qualify as
compression is highbrow, silly and suggests that
you may best belong in a university job rather
than a job in the REAL WORLD where ACTUAL WORK gets done."

no offense to the guy i pulled this quote from,
but why do we act like this? i can understand
correcting someone when their wrong but
personal attacks like this seem to be the norm
and what we thrive on....its strange.

.

jettredmont

Nov 13, 2002, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
forget MP4/AAC and just import full AIFF files on your computers. Why bother why lossy compression and audio quality loss. Of course you need to get yourself about 500GB though. Which should be a problem with hard drives getting huge. IBM has a 2.5 inch 80GB drive, maxotr is working with 80GB per platter and early next year we will see drives that are 100 GB per platter. ohh and im sure technology will advance and we will have larger 1.8 inch drives. So im saying we'll have a 30GB or 40 GB iPod by next MWNY.

tyler

Aw, heck. You get a PowerMac. Buy four of the Maxtor 200GB drives, and there you have 800gigs of space. Today. You can even throw in a few more on FireWire if the urge overtakes you.

Damn, I remember drooling over a friend's computer that had 800 MB of space!

Personally, I can't hear any differences on 192kbps MP3's (fortunately I have highly untrained ears), so uncompressed isn't worth it to me. AAC would keep the same level of quality (for newly ripped audio) at half the space consumption, so I'd welcome it.

oldMac

Nov 13, 2002, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by beatle888
" To say that JPEG or MP3 don't qualify as
compression is highbrow, silly and suggests that
you may best belong in a university job rather
than a job in the REAL WORLD where ACTUAL WORK gets done."

no offense to the guy i pulled this quote from,
but why do we act like this on?

.

Hi beatle,

I didn't mean offense to anyone. It was just meant as a joke, but you neglected to quote my smiley. :)

wdw_

Nov 13, 2002, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by CJYetman
Mpeg4 and AAC is actually integrated into Quicktime, which means iTunes already plays mp4s. If you pay for Quicktime Pro, you can convert cds to mp4 and play them in iTunes already. I guess iTunes "supporting mp4" means that mp4 will be an option when importing directly into iTunes? Will iPod be able to play mp4s with a software update, or would that require a new decoder chip inside?
Yes, you can drop an aac into iTunes and it will play, but it will not support the equalizer, information tags and many other features.

Everybody here's saying how it's stupid to convcert an mp3 into an aac. I think about it and figure out why you say that, but I just did a test. I made a 96kbps AAC from a 192kbps MP3. I told QT to play them at the same time. I tabbed back and forth between the two files listening to the deep sounds and the highs and the mids looping sections of the song over and over again and I couldn't hear any difference and the aac file was exactly half the size of the mp3. So, my question is what's stupid about ripping mp3s into aacs? I know it's probably something that I have to hear on speakers only the five richest kings of Europe can afford, but if that's so, what's the problom of doing it if your only gonna use your $25 Sony wrap around headphones?

McFreggle

Nov 13, 2002, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by DaveGee I work in NYC and I was at the keynote so I know I saw that demo... It was MWNY 1st and then a follow-up demo (maybe with a more specific time frame?) in Paris.D
Okay, my fault then. He showed it in Paris in september and I hadn't seen it before - I watched the NY-keynote on streaming.

Okay, I was wrong - I apoligize.

k.

beatle888

Nov 13, 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by oldMac

Hi beatle,

I didn't mean offense to anyone. It was just meant as a joke, but you neglected to quote my smiley. :)

sorry, i must be overly sensitive today.

wdw_

Nov 13, 2002, 01:58 PM

I remember Steve doing a demo of iTunes with Rendezvous at both MacWorld Paris and MWNY.

idkew

Nov 13, 2002, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Get with the picture Apple. I have ripped a large portion of my cds and this is in excess of 2500 songs. Yes I know there is the Organize feature but this is hardly a personalized function. I want to be able to organize my music anyway possible. It seems to me that with the OSX and the iApps Apple has taken more and more personalization away from us. What makes a Mac great? The ability to make it yours. What makes a WinPC a WinPC? The fact that yours is just like everyother one out there. Just one of the hord from 1984.

Just turn off iTunes' automatic organization and organize your music folder however you choose. Mine is fairly well organized...

rice_web

Nov 13, 2002, 03:00 PM

The RIAA is already hunting you down to check for your original CDs.....

eric_n_dfw

Nov 13, 2002, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by wdw_ Everybody here's saying how it's stupid to convcert an mp3 into an aac. I think about it and figure out why you say that, but I just did a test. I made a 96kbps AAC from a 192kbps MP3. I told QT to play them at the same time. I tabbed back and forth between the two files listening to the deep sounds and the highs and the mids looping sections of the song over and over again and I couldn't hear any difference and the aac file was exactly half the size of the mp3. So, my question is what's stupid about ripping mp3s into aacs? I know it's probably something that I have to hear on speakers only the five richest kings of Europe can afford, but if that's so, what's the problom of doing it if your only gonna use your $25 Sony wrap around headphones?
Compare them both their uncompressed source and see if you can hear a difference.

Plus, making it difficult to do this to the average user (ie: Not providing a button for it in iTunes) would be a nod to the RIAA and, hopefully, keep them off Apple's backs.

Dephex Twin

Nov 13, 2002, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont

Damn, I remember drooling over a friend's computer that had 800 MB of space!

That much? I remember when our 40 MB drive was huge. And then later we bought a whopping 200 MB external drive (my mom was a graphic artist-- we had to indulge a bit :)). You had to turn it on and wait ~30 seconds for it to spin up before starting up the computer!

Heck, I remember before that when having a hard drive at all was noteworthy.

:)

bentmywookie

Nov 13, 2002, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Bradcoe
I can't wait until my home stereo has "Tuner, CD, DVD, Computer, etc, etc..." Away will go the the yucky LED and calculator LCD type displays. Full 5 or 8 inch Color LCD's on the front of one fairly large "Tuner-replacement" box. Browse your DVD player, CD Player, or even ANY audio/video files on your computer. Stream them all wireless to you wonderful home stereo speakers.

Integration of HomeEntertainment systems and Computers multi-media functions should be Apples immediate future.

From the looks of this article:

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-965565.html

it seems like this technology is already available to a certain degree with Vaios in Japan. It says they will be disabling DVD streaming when this is brought to the U.S. (I have no idea why though).

jettredmont

Nov 13, 2002, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Dephex Twin

That much? I remember when our 40 MB drive was huge. And then later we bought a whopping 200 MB external drive (my mom was a graphic artist-- we had to indulge a bit :)). You had to turn it on and wait ~30 seconds for it to spin up before starting up the computer!

Heck, I remember before that when having a hard drive at all was noteworthy.

:)

Well, as a relative newbie, my first computer had a 40MB drive (which was just slightly above average at the time at least in my "cheap PC" market view) ... And the guy down the hall in our dorm had 800MBs in a massive tower case ... I think those were 8 SCSI-based 100MB drives but I'm not 100% sure about that ... This was 1991 ... 1000x improvement in 11 years (although, if you add up the storage on *all* my computers at home and work I have ... ummm ... 350GB I believe, but only my Macs have more than 30GB on them)!

Fortunately or unfortunately, I was spared the agony of owning floppy-based computers, although a few of my friends had such beasts over the years.

york2600

Nov 13, 2002, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by JtheLemur
Too bad that Rendezvous is only really suited for home networks or small corporate ones - it doesn't work across subnets!! I was planning on using iChat to stay in touch with my tech crew while running around the building, but our wireless network is on a different VLAN than our Mac desktops which are on a different VLAN than our server room...

Granted, it's early, but come on! That's a really basic requirement of a network protocol... I could always use port forwarding but it may be more trouble than it's worth...

It's the simple nature of a broadcast based networking protocol that it wont work accross subnets. Your subnet is your broadcast domain. Rendezvous has no way of knowing that those other boxes exist. You have to have a lot of pain in the but stuff to make it work accross subnets. MS has it kinda in NetBIOS. Boxes hold elections and keep the database of NetBIOS info for each subnet then communicate it with each other. Serious pain. Anyone that's ever gone to network neighborhood knows how it just doesn't work right either. Apple did the right thing. If you want broadcasts to forward to other subnets you can set it up on Cisco routers, but it's not worth it. Nasty traffic everywhere.

wrylachlan

Nov 13, 2002, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by wdw_

Yes, you can drop an aac into iTunes and it will play, but it will not support the equalizer, information tags and many other features.

Everybody here's saying how it's stupid to convcert an mp3 into an aac. I think about it and figure out why you say that, but I just did a test. I made a 96kbps AAC from a 192kbps MP3. I told QT to play them at the same time. I tabbed back and forth between the two files listening to the deep sounds and the highs and the mids looping sections of the song over and over again and I couldn't hear any difference and the aac file was exactly half the size of the mp3. So, my question is what's stupid about ripping mp3s into aacs? I know it's probably something that I have to hear on speakers only the five richest kings of Europe can afford, but if that's so, what's the problom of doing it if your only gonna use your $25 Sony wrap around headphones?

There are many reasons you may not notice a difference between these files:
1.)192 is a fairly good quality mp3 to begin with. It's not 320Kps, but hey... Since the problems of artifacting compound the smaller the file size. 128kps Mp3 to 64Kps AAC with have significantly more artifacting than 192Kps Mp3 to 96Kps AAC. Which will have significantly more artifacts than320Kps Mp3 to 160Kps AAC. Bottom line, the lower quality your Mp3s the more likely you will have to reencode straight from the source to get acceptable quality.

2.) Encoding throws away different amounts of information depending on the source code. What do I mean by that? If you had a 25MB file of a synth playing a sine wave, a 128kps Mp3 would recreate the sound without any artifacts. Heck, a 64kPs Mp3 could probably do it. On the other hand, a file of an orchestra playing Bach in the background while people argued in the foreground might have noticable artifacts at 192Kps. Every song has a different amount of complexity, so saying that because Mp3 to AAC works for one song means it will work for all does not neccessarily follow.

3.)Different encoders have different levels of quality. The Mp3 standard doesn't say which trade-offs to make when encoding a song. It just says which trade-offs are possible. Each different encoder (lame, etc.) makes different decisions of what info to throw out, where to tweak things, how to make the quality compromises necessary to fit a big raw file into a small file space. And, as in the first point, the higher the quality of the initial encoding the less likely you are to notice artifacting when re-encoding it.

4.) The telephone effect. Though you may not be able to hear differences between the Mp3 and AAC, try listening to the source material. You may find that though the Mp3 and AAC sound alike at a certain point, the AAC and Source will have a greater difference than the Mp3 and source.

Bottom line. The higher quality your initial Mp3's the better luck you'll have converting them to AAC. The problem you're going to run into is when you try to convert that already crappy encoding of the live version of that song you love that was bootlegged by the guy standing in the back. And we all have a few of those don't we.

j763

Nov 13, 2002, 04:13 PM

joed

Nov 13, 2002, 04:37 PM

If anyone's interested:

iTunes 3.0.1 Released September 18, 2002
iTunes 3 Released July 17, 2002
iTunes 2 Released October 23, 2001

I personally think a January release for 4 seems a little too quick for a full version. Could it possibly be version 3.1?

Also, in the MWNY keynote he said that rendezvous' integration into iTunes is 'early next year', '6 to 9 months down the track'. I think he also mentioned that Rendezvous would be integrated into all/most of Apple software. Maybe we'll also get iPhoto or iCal with rendezvous come January?

barkmonster

Nov 13, 2002, 05:11 PM

you can basically have the same quality out of a 64 bit rate AAC as you do from a 128 bit rate MP3, that means my 10GB iPod now can store 4,000 songs.

I'd slap whoever told you that round the face with a fresh herring, they're delirious :D

Here's an example, it's just a few bars from a tune I'm working on right now, not the complete tune, just the beats mainly. it's not structured much, just the intro combined with the chorus (kind of) so there's a lot going on. I used soundhack on some of the sounds so it's not the compression that's effecting the triplet pattern underneath the main beats.

first the file compressed at 64Kbps with AAC

AAC audio 64Kbps Stereo (http://www.calculatedrisc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/music/test_64_stereo.mov) (AAC also reduces the samplerate to 32Khz at this bitdepth, even in mono)

Both the files below sound close the original uncompressed version. I'll leave it up to you to decide which one sounds better, to me they sound about the same.

AAC audio 128Kbps Stereo (http://www.calculatedrisc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/music/test_128_stereo.mov) (Retains the 44.1Khz samplerate of the original version)

MP3 192Kbps Stereo (http://www.calculatedrisc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/music/test_192_stereo.mp3) (Medium VBR encoding, Joint Stereo)

I know with professionally mastered material this kind of quality difference might not sound as apparent because most stuff you hear on the radio has had all the dynamic range crushed out of it with a multiband compressor just to make it extra loud. It's still enough to show how AAC isn't the wonder codec it's supposed to be for low bandwidth stuff but it's certainly very good at 128Kbps or above.

jg3

Nov 13, 2002, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by ennerseed
Beat matching and bar generation from that would not be that hard...

Right... ever try coding something like that? Ever try thinking about how to code something like that?

so the visuals could actually change up at a breakdown or a chorus of a song... it would make the visuals go with the music. instead of some colorized wave form.

Yes, it would be very cool. I hope Apple indulges us in this manner, although they would have to think it would be a really neat feature for them to bother putting resources in to something like that. Time will tell.

MacBandit

Nov 13, 2002, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by idkew

Just turn off iTunes' automatic organization and organize your music folder however you choose. Mine is fairly well organized...

I don't have automatic organization on and I'm not necessarily talking about my music folder so much as I am talking about iTunes itself. iTunes needs the ability to be able to categorize the main music library by folder not just a list of all the individual songs.

My Music folder is organized much like yours and this is a joke. WinXP which I can say I have never used but have seen on tv has the ability to organize your music folder in the system using ID3 tag information.

Aetles

Nov 13, 2002, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by seven5
Who CAREEEESSSSSS about AAC, the real deal here is Rendezvous... WOOOO HOOOO

I care. If I can fit more songs on my iPod and on my iBook with better quality, that's a good thing.

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
forget MP4/AAC and just import full AIFF files on your computers. Why bother why lossy compression and audio quality loss.

That would be the best solution if disk size wasn't a matter. But since my iPod only fits 5 GB of music, compression/reduction is a must. And at the right bitrate I can't hear the difference. So I rather fit 1000 songs then 100.

Originally posted by CJYetman
Mpeg4 and AAC is actually integrated into Quicktime, which means iTunes already plays mp4s. If you pay for Quicktime Pro, you can convert cds to mp4 and play them in iTunes already. I guess iTunes "supporting mp4" means that mp4 will be an option when importing directly into iTunes? Will iPod be able to play mp4s with a software update, or would that require a new decoder chip inside?

I'd guess (and hope) you just need an update to iPod. And full support in iTunes for MP4/AAC would mean importing directly to AAC and sync with iPod.

MacBandit

Nov 13, 2002, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Aetles
I'd guess (and hope) you just need an update to iPod. And full support in iTunes for MP4/AAC would mean importing directly to AAC and sync with iPod.

I would have to agree since there is no dedicated MP3 compressing chip in the iPod it just uses dual cpus to run whatever program that is thrown at it.

CJYetman

Nov 13, 2002, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

I would have to agree since there is no dedicated MP3 compressing chip in the iPod it just uses dual cpus to run whatever program that is thrown at it.

I would assume that there definitely is not a "compressing" chip or an encoding chip, since the ipod doesn't record anything.

As far as a decoding chip.. {shrugs} not really sure. I couldn't find anything on their website, but...

It does say on Apple's website,
"Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats"
at http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

I guess that answers my own question.

MacBandit

Nov 13, 2002, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by CJYetman

I would assume that there definitely is not a "compressing" chip or an encoding chip, since the ipod doesn't record anything.

As far as a decoding chip.. {shrugs} not really sure. I couldn't find anything on their website, but...

It does say on Apple's website,
"Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats"
at http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

I guess that answers my own question.

Although it is fully capable and has the ability to convert sound files to MP3. It's just not an implemented feature.

idkew

Nov 13, 2002, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by rice_web
The RIAA is already hunting you down to check for your original CDs.....

unfortunately they were all just stolen. you can check with the local police if you would like.

luckily i back up cds to mp3, otherwise i would be out 1000's of dollars.

CJYetman

Nov 13, 2002, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Although it is fully capable and has the ability to convert sound files to MP3. It's just not an implemented feature.

Well, that would be freakin' nice if they did implement it.

Maybe they should add that to the list of new features for the next iPod, along with...
- 40gb hardrives
- mp4/aac playback and record
- a color screen to view graphics, mpgs and movies
- built-in wireless connection (either bluetooth or 802.11)
- preloading of the next song, so there's no gap between tracks on live or mixed albums
- pitch and/or tempo control

etc, etc hahaha

Now that would be dreamy! :-)

CJYetman

Nov 13, 2002, 10:00 PM

This link may be of interest to anyone that would like to encode their CDs into mp4/aac...
http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/itinfo/makeminempeg4.shtml

danielcroft

Nov 13, 2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't have automatic organization on and I'm not necessarily talking about my music folder so much as I am talking about iTunes itself. iTunes needs the ability to be able to categorize the main music library by folder not just a list of all the individual songs.

My Music folder is organized much like yours and this is a joke. WinXP which I can say I have never used but have seen on tv has the ability to organize your music folder in the system using ID3 tag information.

So do you mean that you want the ability to have itunes base it's browse information on the file structure?

I did want that when I first moved my MP3s over (I was a switcher) but I just went and fixed my ID3 tags and they are almost exactly like my folders now (oddly enough), it was a bit annoying but I much prefer being abstracted from the file system in this case.

daniel

soulbeat

Nov 13, 2002, 10:22 PM

iTunes has importing and playback...it needs to add a recording feature.

Right now, with the new sans audio in macs, recording audio is a royal pain in the @ss! I have a USB Digital Processor (Onkyo MSE-U33HB) for converting my cassette tapes (books-on-tape) into MP3s. I have a 17" G4 iMac.

I have gone through a variety of programs and I end up having to use several just to end up with an MP3 file. The problems/limitations I now experience:
-The USB device is recognized in the Sound Control Panel, however you can not adjust the input gain.
-Some programs have difficulties recognizing this device even though it is configured in the Control Panel. These programs are useless for recording.
-Some programs will skip (lose information) while recording...it is as if the program is lagging while processing and subsequentially loses audio passages while it catches up. This renders the program useless for recording.
-Are there any programs that will record directly into MP3? Right now it is a two-step process; record as an aiff or SD II file and then convert to an MP3 file.
-Other programs will record beautifully, but have limited editing features! I have to use one program to record, another program just to edit the audio (noise reduction, normalize, etc) and then another program to convert to MP3...a three step process! Aargh!

On my old CRT iMac, I could at least use Coaster (freeware) and could simply record audio (with Gain adjustment) directly without any hardware adapters and incompatibilities. Granted, it was still a two-step process converting to MP3, but it was simple.

Apple has a golden opportunity to integrate this recording feature.
-They could incorporate/recognize all of the known external USB and Firewire audio I/O units much like they did with external CD burners.
-Recording directly as an MP3/MP4 file will save time and disk space and would allow other features as voice memos from the microphone directly into iTunes.
-A simple audio editor would allow cleaning up and tweaking of existing MP3 files without jumping through hoops.

Hey, if I'm just "whacked" and there is an existing simple solution, let me know! Otherwise, I am hoping the OS X version of Pro-Tools (when it is released) will do the job. Even that sounds like overkill! It should not be this complicated...

Thx

soulbeat

Arcady

Nov 13, 2002, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by wdw_

I made a 96kbps AAC from a 192kbps MP3. I told QT to play them at the same time. I tabbed back and forth between the two files listening to the deep sounds and the highs and the mids looping sections of the song over and over again and I couldn't hear any difference and the aac file was exactly half the size of the mp3.

You missed the entire point. So your AAC file sounds just as crappy as your mp3 file? Who cares? Compare it to an AAC file made directly from the CD.

Dj Kioto

Nov 14, 2002, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by medea

Yeah a thread on the price drop is in Current News.
I'm really looking forward to the possibilites of Rendezvous, soon not only [easily] play your mp3s from one computer to another, you will also be able to play them on your home stero etc. Can't wait.

dont wait, click here! http://www.ce.philips.com/global/b2c/ce/catalog/product.jhtml;jsessionid=OAX30A0W3KQ5GCRQNE2RYVAKGBUCWHD0?divId=0&groupId=AUDIO&catId=SHELFSYS&subCatId=INTERNETAUDIOSHELFSYS&productId=MC-i200_17

MacBandit

Nov 14, 2002, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by danielcroft

So do you mean that you want the ability to have itunes base it's browse information on the file structure?

I did want that when I first moved my MP3s over (I was a switcher) but I just went and fixed my ID3 tags and they are almost exactly like my folders now (oddly enough), it was a bit annoying but I much prefer being abstracted from the file system in this case.

daniel

Not exactly. I just think it is stupid to have 3,4,5,6 thousands songs listed in one be long list. Give us the option to have it broken down in to folders in the library view by album or genre or what ever. Just give us options to do what we want with the library. That as I have said before is what has always mad the MacOS in my oppinion having options and the ability to customize. I'm including all iApps in with the MacOS in that last sentence.

jg3

Nov 14, 2002, 11:17 AM

Arcady

Nov 14, 2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Not exactly. I just think it is stupid to have 3,4,5,6 thousands songs listed in one be long list. Give us the option to have it broken down in to folders in the library view by album or genre or what ever. Just give us options to do what we want with the library. That as I have said before is what has always mad the MacOS in my oppinion having options and the ability to customize. I'm including all iApps in with the MacOS in that last sentence.

Haven't you tried using the custom playlist function? Just tell it to make a playlist called "Rock" and tell it to include all titles of genre "Rock." Then you will have a folder (playlist) named Rock that you can see all that stuff in. I think you are missing the point of the Library.

barkmonster

Nov 14, 2002, 03:46 PM

Haven't you tried using the custom playlist function? Just tell it to make a playlist called "Rock" and tell it to include all titles of genre "Rock." Then you will have a folder (playlist) named Rock that you can see all that stuff in. I think you are missing the point of the Library.

True, but that doesn't get round the annoying fact that it doesn't keep album tracks together. Create a playlist of any genre you like (as long as you've tagged you're mp3's properly) and tracks by the same artist never appear in the right order, that's assuming you've encoded several albums worth of mp3s by 1 artist and even with only 1 album it tends to go for alphanumeric sorting rather than sorting by the original order of the CD tracks.

I sometimes forgot about Apple being perfect and everything they make being so amazingly coded/designed that it has no faults whatsoever. Someone will have to remind how it goes, It's never seemed to be true for me.

rmac

Nov 14, 2002, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster

True, but that doesn't get round the annoying fact that it doesn't keep album tracks together. Create a playlist of any genre you like (as long as you've tagged you're mp3's properly) and tracks by the same artist never appear in the right order, that's assuming you've encoded several albums worth of mp3s by 1 artist and even with only 1 album it tends to go for alphanumeric sorting rather than sorting by the original order of the CD tracks.

I just made a smart playlist with "genre contains rock". All my songs are displayed in the playlist in order by artist, then within that by album, and then within that by track number. That's what you want right? For this, the column selected for sorting (blue highlight) is genre. I also had added a Track # column (in the menu, Edit -> View Options and then put a check mark next to "track number"). Maybe it doesn't work without this added?

Another problem might involve when the mp3's were made. I think earlier versions of the ID3 tags didn't include track # information, so even if it wanted to, iTunes can't sort the songs the way you want.

Hope this helps.

jettredmont

Nov 14, 2002, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by rmac

Another problem might involve when the mp3's were made. I think earlier versions of the ID3 tags didn't include track # information, so even if it wanted to, iTunes can't sort the songs the way you want.

Hmm. Well, I have an MP3 album ripped from CD with different times (I ripped it all at once on my PC, then noticed a few of the songs had a skip in them, and re-burned the affected tracks). The track numbers are completely consistent, but the file creation dates do not ascend with track number.

iTunes will not order them itself. I can show the "Track Number" field in a playlist and sort on that, but if I add any other song to the playlist that song dutifully gets ordered not at the end of the list but wherever its track number says it should go. The only solution is to just damn the auto-sorting and do it by hand. I imagine a "smart playlist" would be harder to work with in this regard.

Noticing this anomaly, I did a test: rip (using iTunes, to rule out any PC problems or quirks) the latter half of an album to my library, then the first half of the album, and see how iTunes sorted the resulting files. The latter half of the album showed up before the first half unless I sorted by hand.

I am using iTunes 3.0.1 on Jaguar 10.2.2.

In short: you may think that iTunes is ordering based on track number, but in fact it is ordering by time of file creation. It just so happens that the two are usually the same order.

joost538

Nov 14, 2002, 06:04 PM

Have you ever tried pressing Cmd-B in the Library?

Originally posted by MacBandit

Not exactly. I just think it is stupid to have 3,4,5,6 thousands songs listed in one be long list. Give us the option to have it broken down in to folders in the library view by album or genre or what ever. Just give us options to do what we want with the library. That as I have said before is what has always mad the MacOS in my oppinion having options and the ability to customize. I'm including all iApps in with the MacOS in that last sentence.

QuiteSure

Nov 14, 2002, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by idkew

unfortunately they were all just stolen. you can check with the local police if you would like.

luckily i back up cds to mp3, otherwise i would be out 1000's of dollars.
do you have homeowners' insurance?

MacBandit

Nov 14, 2002, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by jg3

Ever try the browse button? The search box is also really nice for breaking stuff down.

I know about the browse button but once again it doesn't allow for customization. Search is only useful when you know what you want.

MacBandit

Nov 14, 2002, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by rmac

I just made a smart playlist with "genre contains rock". All my songs are displayed in the playlist in order by artist, then within that by album, and then within that by track number. That's what you want right? For this, the column selected for sorting (blue highlight) is genre. I also had added a Track # column (in the menu, Edit -> View Options and then put a check mark next to "track number"). Maybe it doesn't work without this added?

Another problem might involve when the mp3's were made. I think earlier versions of the ID3 tags didn't include track # information, so even if it wanted to, iTunes can't sort the songs the way you want.

Hope this helps.

I still want the albums broken into folders.

MacBandit

Nov 14, 2002, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by joost538
Have you ever tried pressing Cmd-B in the Library?

That's just the browse function that has already been mentioned. It is totally uncustomizable unless you want to go through several thousand tags.

stromie952

Nov 16, 2002, 02:12 PM

Well, I have a different opinion of most of this stuff, so here we go.

Rendezvouz is definitely a cool idea that I might use every so often, but not something that I need to have

AAC is a boon for those who will never share their mp3's with anyone who has a PC or doesn't have tons and tons of mp3's already encoded and want to keep things uniform.

That being said, as of now I am using the LAME MP3 encoder witht the iTunes-LAME 1.0.4b AppleScript bridge. The quality from a LAME encoded MP3 is GREAT, if the settings are used correctly.

But, being a command line encoder makes things difficult because of the AppleScript I use. iTunes sometimes will crash when the LAME encoder references iTunes for the ID3 tag information.

Basically, to cut to the chase, I want Apple to put its money where its mouth is and support open source, and in particlular open source MP3 encoders in iTunes. I want to be able to use the LAME command line encoder directly in iTunes without having to mess around with an AppleScript.

Or if I so desire, I want to be able to switch on the fly to using the open source OggVorbis audio encoder that I could build on my machine. Or, as so many want, switch to using the AAC codecd from Apple.

Basically, I want options in the next version of iTunes. And, almost as important, I want SPEED. iTunes is very slow on my iBook 500/320MB and takes up too much CPU.

I never use visualizations and I couldn't care less about them. I want iTunes to be fast, use less CPU, and actually have options for those of us that want to have the best audio quality along with compatibility.

Also, to continue my ranting, I would like iTunes to be able to use something to take AIFF off of a CD and not just copy it over like it does now. There are programs such as Exact Audio Copy for Windows and cdparanoia for Linux that check the audio from the CD by going over it multiple times and fixing any pops of skips in it. Apple could do this, there are already programs that do it for other systems. Soon enough, cdparanoia will be ported to OS X and we will be able to use it in the command line to rip CD's into AIFF or WAV or whatever formet we want, then encode into MP3's using another encoder. But, similarly to the LAME MP3 issue, I want to be able to do this in iTunes.

Now, I want to dispel the fact that I just hate iTunes. I really, really like iTunes. But, it could be so much better than it is now. It crashes for no reason and hogs CPU. I love the library idea and how playlists work. I have tried Audion and it is on the right track. It supports different codecs allows people to change how it looks. But, it just isn't the same as iTunes.

As a discriminating Apple lover, I believe that iTunes could and SHOULD be better. The things I have mentioned would not be miracles if they were implemented. The technology exists. Apple just needs to use it.

THE END.

Wry Cooter

Nov 17, 2002, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by ennerseed
Beat matching and bar generation from that would not be that hard... so the visuals could actually change up at a breakdown or a chorus of a song... it would make the visuals go with the music. instead of some colorized wave form.

Yaknow, I think this degree of intelligence is already built into some of the visualizations, that is, bar counting at least, because the algorithms tend to change every four bars. It is slightly smarter than just a colorized wave form already.

What could be smarter is in addition to this, that some pattern recognition is applied to certain frequencies, so the bass for example, can be separated out and given its own visualization algorithm.

Also, switching between different visualization algorithms, such as from the built in, to WhiteCap, to whatever, from song to song, would be nice.

Wry Cooter

Nov 17, 2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by stromie952

Basically, to cut to the chase, I want Apple to put its money where its mouth is and support open source, and in particlular open source MP3 encoders in iTunes. I want to be able to use the LAME command line encoder directly in iTunes without having to mess around with an AppleScript.

Or if I so desire, I want to be able to switch on the fly to using the open source OggVorbis audio encoder that I could build on my machine. Or, as so many want, switch to using the AAC codecd from Apple.

...

As a discriminating Apple lover, I believe that iTunes could and SHOULD be better. The things I have mentioned would not be miracles if they were implemented. The technology exists. Apple just needs to use it.

THE END.

The end of the iPod maybe.

Because that technology may not exist in the decoding chip at the heart of the iPod as is, which is one reason iTunes hasn't been more open earlier, with different compression formats. I have a feeling you might not be able to take advantage of AAC encoding on any iPod but the NEW model they have planned for this reason.

By the way, if you want software to remove skips and pops from vinyl, buy that software, don't try to wish it into iTunes, which is an MP3 encoder and librarian, a jukebox, not an audio editing application.

stromie952

Nov 17, 2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

The end of the iPod maybe.

Because that technology may not exist in the decoding chip at the heart of the iPod as is, which is one reason iTunes hasn't been more open earlier, with different compression formats. I have a feeling you might not be able to take advantage of AAC encoding on any iPod but the NEW model they have planned for this reason.

By the way, if you want software to remove skips and pops from vinyl, buy that software, don't try to wish it into iTunes, which is an MP3 encoder and librarian, a jukebox, not an audio editing application.

Actually, as said before in this thread, ALL iPods are able to be updated via firmware to use different audio formats.

Quote from CJYetman
"Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats"
at http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html"

So, they all should be able to use any audio format Apple sees fit.

And, I am not looking to remove skips and pops from vinyl, but from scratched CD's and otherwise imperfect CD's. The reason I complained about it is that the software exists and is open source and FREE. Again, Apple could make iTunes SO much better, but haven't yet.

icruise

Nov 18, 2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

That's just the browse function that has already been mentioned. It is totally uncustomizable unless you want to go through several thousand tags.

Is the only reason you want folder browsing because you don't want to edit your id3 tags? Because I don't see how what you are asking is better than the current arrangement. I have 10,000+ songs, all with proper ID3 tags, and iTunes organizes them well.

jettredmont

Nov 18, 2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

By the way, if you want software to remove skips and pops from vinyl, buy that software, don't try to wish it into iTunes, which is an MP3 encoder and librarian, a jukebox, not an audio editing application.

He wasn't talking about skipping vinyl. He was talking about a skipping CD player, which happens quite often in my experience. Most PC (Win/Linux) ripping tools allow "digital error correction" which is essentially double-(or more)-reading of every bit of data to make sure the player is getting the right data off the disk.

As it is, iTunes will generate MP3s with skips and pops in it. Mine certainly has (although not recently, so I can't attest that iTunes3 hasn't fixed this) ... on a G4/733 with the Pioneer DVR-103 as data source (ie, just as shipped from Apple).

I noticed that this was quite common when I first got the machine (running iTunes 1.1 then), and switched over to using a PC to do my ripping since then. Recently, though, I've ripped a few CDs directly on my Mac without any noticable skips and pops, so maybe Apple has already set digital error correction as an unchangable option in iTunes.

jettredmont

Nov 18, 2002, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by stromie952

Actually, as said before in this thread, ALL iPods are able to be updated via firmware to use different audio formats.

Quote from CJYetman
"Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats"
at http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html"

So, they all should be able to use any audio format Apple sees fit.

Well, within the processing power of the iPod's processor. Some have said that the Ogg Vorbis encoder is still too processer-intensive to work on the iPod's processor reliably.

MacBandit

Nov 18, 2002, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by icruise

Is the only reason you want folder browsing because you don't want to edit your id3 tags? Because I don't see how what you are asking is better than the current arrangement. I have 10,000+ songs, all with proper ID3 tags, and iTunes organizes them well.

Sometimes you want to customise the display without actually moving the songs on the hard drive or changing there tags. Another thing is if I only have 300 albums on the computer I don't want a list of 3,000 plus songs I just want it to show me the albums in the library. Not in browse window.

Wry Cooter

Nov 18, 2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont

I noticed that this was quite common when I first got the machine (running iTunes 1.1 then), and switched over to using a PC to do my ripping since then. Recently, though, I've ripped a few CDs directly on my Mac without any noticable skips and pops, so maybe Apple has already set digital error correction as an unchangable option in iTunes.

iTunes has NEVER ripped an Mp3 with a typical digital skipping or hanging you might hear with a real time CD player, and my CD collection is fairly well abused. I used to never put them back in their jewel case, use them as coasters, and at one time stored them by stringing them like beads on a coathanger. I'm using iTunes 3 now, the majority have been ripped with iTunes 2 or newer, never ripped before the iPod was available. And I would blame this on the CD mechanism anyway if it did happen. Since most CD data drives are meant for reading data, they are usually better about getting real data out of a disc in a healthy form.

stromie952

Nov 18, 2002, 05:08 PM

I as well have never had skipping on CD's put I have had, on multiple CD's, pops that really detract from the listening experience.

This is why I want the digital error correction available from an open source project like cdparanoia.

This usually eliminates this problem and usually creates a cleaner sounding rip from the CD.

scem0

Nov 18, 2002, 06:18 PM

I have never had trouble burning CDs with iTunes. What I want
most is a PC itunes. I know that I shouldn't be saying anything,
because people will say that if it is so important to me, that I
shouldn't have switched in the 1st place. Well, I just want a
decent music organizing program for my PC. The closest thing
is WinAmp, which sucks horribly after using iTunes for so long.

Wry Cooter

Nov 19, 2002, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Sometimes you want to customise the display without actually moving the songs on the hard drive or changing there tags.

Why you would want to go to the trouble of moving songs or changing tags to do this is beyond me. You can search AND sort on several criteria, and the extra tags help. And to create a special 'display' of only certain songs, create a playlist, if you don't want to play with the comments tags (by the way, editing the tags goes faster if you use the next button within the info window, if you have a lot of sequential changes you can't change as a batch)

Another thing is if I only have 300 albums on the computer I don't want a list of 3,000 plus songs I just want it to show me the albums in the library. Not in browse window.

Did you know you can show Browser for any playlist? Command B. It tends to only be the default for the main library window.

if you need a list of the albums, rather than merely being able see sort and change them, which I think iTunes handles fine, you can save such a view as a text file using AppleScripts, or by other means. One thing I used to do is drag and drop the iTunes folder over an open BBedit document. This pastes the folder and file heirarchy of the nested finder folders as text, which you could then edit to only the artist and album names by cutting lines with three tab characters (the artist would have maybe one tab, the album name two tabs, and the songs three, sorta like that)

I might like to be able to reduce the playlists themselves to a smaller heirarchy of nested folders, but there is no real inability to manage songs in any form because of the browse and search and sort functions of iTunes, in my opinion.

And the playlists associated with a library can differ under OS X, according to whatever user is logged in.

mpest

Nov 19, 2002, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by soulbeat
iTunes has importing and playback...it needs to add a recording feature.

......

Hey, if I'm just "whacked" and there is an existing simple solution, let me know! Otherwise, I am hoping the OS X version of Pro-Tools (when it is released) will do the job. Even that sounds like overkill! It should not be this complicated...

Thx

soulbeat

I think there is a simple solution to what you're looking for: Quicktime Pro - $30, Quicktime Broadcaster - free, and if you want a Griffin iMic (http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic/index.html) for recording - $35.

Broadcaster can take a live input and broadcast or record as mp4.

I've never used an iMic but i have a griffin powermate and it works very well.

MacBandit

Nov 20, 2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

Why you would want to go to the trouble of moving songs or changing tags to do this is beyond me. You can search AND sort on several criteria, and the extra tags help. And to create a special 'display' of only certain songs, create a playlist, if you don't want to play with the comments tags (by the way, editing the tags goes faster if you use the next button within the info window, if you have a lot of sequential changes you can't change as a batch)

Did you know you can show Browser for any playlist? Command B. It tends to only be the default for the main library window.

if you need a list of the albums, rather than merely being able see sort and change them, which I think iTunes handles fine, you can save such a view as a text file using AppleScripts, or by other means. One thing I used to do is drag and drop the iTunes folder over an open BBedit document. This pastes the folder and file heirarchy of the nested finder folders as text, which you could then edit to only the artist and album names by cutting lines with three tab characters (the artist would have maybe one tab, the album name two tabs, and the songs three, sorta like that)

I might like to be able to reduce the playlists themselves to a smaller heirarchy of nested folders, but there is no real inability to manage songs in any form because of the browse and search and sort functions of iTunes, in my opinion.

And the playlists associated with a library can differ under OS X, according to whatever user is logged in.

Thankyou but I did already know of and use all of the features that you mentioned. I guess it's my own pet pieve about the lack of options that it gives you. I just hate it when they make you do it one way there way. It's so Microsoft.

Wry Cooter

Nov 20, 2002, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Thankyou but I did already know of and use all of the features that you mentioned. I guess it's my own pet pieve about the lack of options that it gives you. I just hate it when they make you do it one way there way. It's so Microsoft.

If you can only see it as one limited way, lacking options, just seems like you may not be using the available flexibility to the fullest. Most people expressing your complaint have brought over habits from earlier MP3 rippers and librarians that have taught them to store heirarchically by album in folders, because that is the only way they could organize, and get upset when that same exact situation is not spoonfed to them by iTunes, although you can browse and sort by the similar criteria, it just isn't the default. It's a bit like people complaining that the OS X finder is not OS 9s finder.

I have 21,370 songs in iTunes at the moment, and the lack of a nested folder view, if that is what you are seeking, doesn't bother me in the least. The browse window serves that purpose, and any playlist can be a browse window. Search and sort takes care of pretty much any other way I might want to organize or seek songs, artist, albums, etc. If you don't want to see song titles in the browse window, you can reduce the list of songs to only four being visible. And search on its own is usuall faster than flipping open nested folders.

I have known people that miss the album paradigm so much they have created playlists by artist or album, which I think is the height of redundancy, and also tends to point out that they really haven't figured out how to use iTunes yet.

Yeah, I'm not all that keen that I have a lot of playlists I would rather not scroll through, just as you have a lot of songs you would rather not scroll through, or that I have thousands of songs ripped in MP3 when AAC might sound better for the same amount of storage space, but I am not about to go back and rerip my collection. There is always room for improvement. Life is tough. You try to think outside of the box you imagine you are crowded into, and you might find a bit more elbow room. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

At this point, I welcome any discussion of iTunes 4 and Rendezvous. What makes iTunes less than ideal in a lot of my friends homes is, their computers are no where near their stereo system, or they may want to pump music throughout the house, so they end up spinning CDs, playing DJ all night, just like they have for the past 15 years, when they could set iTunes on autopilot and spend more time dealing with people at the party, if they could only get the tunes to the room they want them to be in. People get stuck in old habits Maybe something else, a less expensive consumer device, will be created that can take advantage of Rendezvous in this way. I tend not to want to use my iPod in this fashion at a party, because it could walk home with someone too easily.

MacBandit

Nov 20, 2002, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

At this point, I welcome any discussion of iTunes 4 and Rendezvous. What makes iTunes less than ideal in a lot of my friends homes is, their computers are no where near their stereo system, or they may want to pump music throughout the house, so they end up spinning CDs, playing DJ all night, just like they have for the past 15 years, when they could set iTunes on autopilot and spend more time dealing with people at the party, if they could only get the tunes to the room they want them to be in. People get stuck in old habits Maybe something else, a less expensive consumer device, will be created that can take advantage of Rendezvous in this way. I tend not to want to use my iPod in this fashion at a party, because it could walk home with someone too easily.

Thank you for your input. There are certainly ways that I could use iTunes other then the way I want to. That is the point though. There is a certain way I want to use it and it won't let me. Apple use to offer numerous ways to do everything. Since OSX came out I'm now stuck to do things in one particular way. Very Microsoft like. Though I will never switch and the stability and useability is still better it is one step closer to the dark side. I do believe that OSX and the Apps are very early in there development with the main goal of simply making them useable attained. From this point on out I think we will see feature after feature added and we will have a much more familiar Apple experience that we all know, love, and crave.

Now about your friends unable to get there music to there stereo. Why don't they just go to Radio Shack and get a 2.4GHz audio/video transmitter?

soulbeat

Nov 24, 2002, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by mpest

I think there is a simple solution to what you're looking for: Quicktime Pro - $30, Quicktime Broadcaster - free, and if you want a Griffin iMic (http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic/index.html) for recording - $35.

Broadcaster can take a live input and broadcast or record as mp4.

I've never used an iMic but i have a griffin powermate and it works very well.

I have Quicktime Pro and Broadcaster...neither will record to MP3. Quicktime Pro does not have a "Record" button and it and Broadcaster will not save/export to MP3.

As for the USB iMic...they have software that will do exactly what I want, (record directly to MP3 with variable input gain adjustment), however, it is only for the iMic! I have an Onkyo USB Digital Audio Processor...you are telling me that I have to buy different hardware to do simple MP3 recording? Please see my original article.

Still looking for a simple recording solution on the Mac...

soulbeat

Wry Cooter

Nov 24, 2002, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Now about your friends unable to get there music to there stereo. Why don't they just go to Radio Shack and get a 2.4GHz audio/video transmitter?

Where Stereo? There Stereo. Here answer.

When someone invented a gizmo for taking what would be the audio signal coming out of USB for USB speakers, and making it available via RCA jacks, I asked them a similar question- why don't you make it a wireless transmitting device so it can be fed to existing stereo systems.

Their answer was, basically, that the sound quality would suck.

Besides that spectrum is getting fairly crowded with airport and cordless phones already. I don't know if Rendezvous will help provide a solution or not, with what Philips is cooking up, but it would be nice to view iMovies, Quicktime, and listen to iTunes and watch its visuals on the honking big Home theatre system, without having to move the mac closer.

Sorry you can't bend your will to the way iTunes wants to do things, especially as I can find several ways I can easily bend iTunes to my will, to solve your apparent dilemma. Use Adium, or MusicMatch, or SoundJam if you aren't happy. Or ask someone to write a hack allowing you to not see the song listings at all by allowing it to be checked off in view options.

MacBandit

Nov 25, 2002, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

Where Stereo? There Stereo. Here answer.

When someone invented a gizmo for taking what would be the audio signal coming out of USB for USB speakers, and making it available via RCA jacks, I asked them a similar question- why don't you make it a wireless transmitting device so it can be fed to existing stereo systems.

Their answer was, basically, that the sound quality would suck.

Besides that spectrum is getting fairly crowded with airport and cordless phones already. I don't know if Rendezvous will help provide a solution or not, with what Philips is cooking up, but it would be nice to view iMovies, Quicktime, and listen to iTunes and watch its visuals on the honking big Home theatre system, without having to move the mac closer.

Sorry you can't bend your will to the way iTunes wants to do things, especially as I can find several ways I can easily bend iTunes to my will, to solve your apparent dilemma. Use Adium, or MusicMatch, or SoundJam if you aren't happy. Or ask someone to write a hack allowing you to not see the song listings at all by allowing it to be checked off in view options.

I'm not saying that I will not use it the way it is. I'm also not saying that it isn't probably the best MP3 player option out there. I just wish they would give the end users more options. Now that they have the base programming done I believe we will be seeing more options for all there programs including the system.