PDA

View Full Version : iTunes 3


arn
Jul 16, 2002, 09:34 PM
For the last minute rumors... RandomAccess posted (http://www.randommaccess.com/newspro/articles/1026776419.shtml) that an iTunes 3 reference was temporarily revealed on Apple's QT Streaming Server (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/) page:

The page promoting the new version may have also leaked the imminent release of a new version of iTunes. "Build a playlist of MP3 files," the page reads, "and serve them to MP3 clients such as iTunes 3..." (Update: as of this writing, the reference to iTune's version number has been removed.)

ConradG4
Jul 16, 2002, 09:40 PM
first iDVD 2.1 now iTunes 3!!! Jeez, steve is going to be very upset....

-Conrad

gandalf55
Jul 16, 2002, 09:56 PM
mp3s? ya they popular, but we want mp4s in iTunes 3 :)

steve should be pissed...

foofan
Jul 16, 2002, 10:17 PM
the following websites is also reporting that itunes 3 will be released at MWNY:
http://www.macdigitalaudio.com/

http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwny02ipoditunes.html

dsamsa
Jul 16, 2002, 10:19 PM
I bet with iTunes 3 you can convert your MP3's into MP4's so there smaller, and higher quality. Add a firmware upgrade to your iPod, and a 10GB iPod could be 10,000 songs to go. Am i wrong? This would be good for me, because i only have a crappy iMac 400DV SE with a 13GB HD. And my MP3's take up like 25% of my drive! :eek: MP4's as i've herd are smaller then MP3's with better quality, and better compression. Am i wrong?

bobartig
Jul 16, 2002, 10:27 PM
From what I've seen and read, iTunes3 really fixes a lot of UI problems that ppl complained about with previous itunes, like:

- improved visualizer playback (I think it's finally HW accelerated, or bypasses quartz), especially while multitasking

- lets user display, position, and search _any_ columns in the main interface window, including a few new catagories I can't remember. Has a smart search and smart filtering that lets you set "favorites" in your library with a point system

- simplifies "reconstructing" playlists and libraries when you remove files from your hdd, and lets you move playlists across machines easily.

- allows importing to ANY directory, along with numbered imports, joined imports (importing several tracks as a single mp3)

I didn't really see anything about MP4/AAC, but its bound to be in there as well, since QT6 has it built in.

Not only is there new itunes tomorrow, but a BIG point update to iPod firmware, v. 1.2, (havn't seen anyone else mention this one), with updates for itunes3 features, along with lots of new date and time features (i.e. clock and calendar) that inches EVEN closer to making the iPod a PDA, although I still don't think apple's releasing one any time soon. I'm HOPING they prove me wrong, and soon! (my PalmV is looking rather long in tooth these days.)

theranch
Jul 16, 2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by bobartig
From what I've seen and read, iTunes3 really fixes a lot of UI problems that ppl complained about with previous itunes, like:

- improved visualizer playback (I think it's finally HW accelerated, or bypasses quartz), especially while multitasking


Who even uses the visualizer? I don't see a use for starring at the visualizer on my computer while listening to music.

foofan
Jul 16, 2002, 11:06 PM
People who listen to a lot of old Pink Floyd like the visualizer

szark
Jul 16, 2002, 11:22 PM
I wonder if Quartz Extreme will have enough power to eventually allow the Visualizer to be used as your desktop background...

That would be awesome! :)

(And no, I don't listen to Pink Floyd.)

TyleRomeo
Jul 16, 2002, 11:45 PM
dear dsamsa,

While AAC files (MP4s to you) are higher in quality and are smaller in comparison to MP3s, they are not backwards compatible (which sucks). So you have re-import your Cds to AAC audio instead of just converting MP3s to AACs.

ibookin'
Jul 16, 2002, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by szark
I wonder if Quartz Extreme will have enough power to eventually allow the Visualizer to be used as your desktop background...

The sad thing is you can actually do this on a PC with Winamp. Pretty cool, but it gets annoying after a while.

evilpenguin21
Jul 16, 2002, 11:57 PM
You can go straight from Mp3 to Mp4, I just did that with quicktime 6 today. Took a 9 mb MP3 down to 5 mb with no noticeable loss. And i'm talking a good MP3. 192 kbs live acustic guitar. I was very impressed.

Macette
Jul 17, 2002, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by evilpenguin21
You can go straight from Mp3 to Mp4, I just did that with quicktime 6 today. Took a 9 mb MP3 down to 5 mb with no noticeable loss. And i'm talking a good MP3. 192 kbs live acustic guitar. I was very impressed.

You might be able to convert with no loss, but you don't make any quality GAINS by doing it that way. AAC is capable of much better quality than MP3, and I want to make the most of it. I've set aside a couple of weeks to reimport all my tunes - all 3000 of them...hoping iTunes 3 improves the import speed!

szark
Jul 17, 2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny

The sad thing is you can actually do this on a PC with Winamp. Pretty cool, but it gets annoying after a while.

Didn't know that -- I'll have to play around with it...

eyelikeart
Jul 17, 2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by foofan
People who listen to a lot of old Pink Floyd like the visualizer

he he he....I wouldn't say a lot of it....but it definitely helps out when feeling the need for creative influence...

iTunes 3.0....who would have thought?! ;)

mymemory
Jul 17, 2002, 01:05 AM
All I want in iTunes is to be able to sync the visuals to external audio surces.

madamimadam
Jul 17, 2002, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by evilpenguin21
You can go straight from Mp3 to Mp4, I just did that with quicktime 6 today. Took a 9 mb MP3 down to 5 mb with no noticeable loss. And i'm talking a good MP3. 192 kbs live acustic guitar. I was very impressed.

I think you are neglecting to remember that programs like QT and iTunes do a lot of the work for you. Sure you can convert them in QT but QT, and similarly iTunes, converts the file to another format then into the format you want it in. You see it in iTunes when it says "extracting", I think, and then says converting.

madamimadam
Jul 17, 2002, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by mymemory
All I want in iTunes is to be able to sync the visuals to external audio surces.

Just get the standalone version of G-Force... kicks the iTunes visualiser and works from your audio in source. Of course, this is a problem on OS X.1.x and below due to a lack of Audio In option but would be good under X.2 or 9.x. G-Force also has an iTunes plug-in.

deejemon
Jul 17, 2002, 02:49 AM
*

Geert
Jul 17, 2002, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by szark
I wonder if Quartz Extreme will have enough power to eventually allow the Visualizer to be used as your desktop background...

That would be awesome! :)

(And no, I don't listen to Pink Floyd.)

I agree, that would be insanely great!
but not just the visualiser, but other stuff as well. perhaps a trailer or ... you name it.

sluthy
Jul 17, 2002, 07:07 AM
I just wanted to point out that the iPod already does support AAC - since the first release. dsamsa didn't know that.

barkmonster
Jul 17, 2002, 07:16 AM
Here's what's wrong with iTunes right now, it's just my opinion but they're all obvious points only a fool would defend as acceptable compromises because it's a free product :

Example 1 :

Open a streamed playlist on mp3.com. It doesn't open as a seperate playlist, just adds it to the library and doesn't play them in order.

Example 2 :

Add an album to the playlist, not only won't it play them in order but sorting by artist will throw the play order off even more. If you've encoded several albums by an artist, it won't keep them in album order or track order.

I've got over 10Gb of MP3s, all in folders named by artist and album, they have the track numbers in the file name too, nothing plays back in the correct order, absolutely nothing. I've tried adding the folders using the menu and it's just as disorganised as dragging them over the iTunes window.

Example 3 :

Encode some random audio files :

Select one or 2 audio files from a folder, let it encode them, wait for the encode menu item to stop being greyed out so you can encode more. You can't even create a simple playlist to encode multiple files from different sources. Dragging files over the encoding files list while it encodes the ones you've added with the menu isn't as easy as simply creating a playlist and then encoding from it.

General problems / missing features :

No record audio input option, this is a pretty basic feature and it's hardly a way of organising you're music library if you can't transfer from tape/vinyl and other sources easily. Obviously even if you could, the concept of "Organising" by any means in iTunes is laughable to say the least.

larger than necessary and fairly slow interface, 9 point text in the geneva font would be better, you could scroll faster too without the large smoothed typeface in the playlists. (the search field is cool though)

What they need to enhance in iTunes :

Sort out that damn interface, at least add the option of changing the font playlists use.

Add mp4 support now QT6 is out.

Add a "create new playlist for new files" option like soundjam had so that streamed playlists don't infest you're library playlist.

Play files back in the correct order, it's a joke right now, sorting by any field related to title or artist is hopeless, We need a "keep album tracks together" option aswell.

It's just soundjam with a lot of it's ease of use and organisation features stripped out and given a crappy brushed metal cranky interface, iTunes compared with soundjam is like Sherlock compared with Sherlock 2, with all the extras in the world it still isn't as good because of the awful interface.

For a freebee it's okay, as it's the only option now Soundjam is dead it needs a lot of work before it's totally useful.

On the subject of Mp4...

by my ears, a 128Kbps Mp4 is easily on a par with a 192 or 256Kbps mp3, better even. If you try encoding any lower than 128, it drops to 32Khz, this makes perfect sense to me but i'd love it if they're implementation of mp4 in iTunes allows you to choose the Khz instead of choosing it for you like quicktime does. It slightly lowers the quality of the audio while lowering the lossy effect of the compression, 32Khz makes a lot of sense for lower bandwidth files anyway, infact for low bandwidth streamed media it's perfect.

peterjhill
Jul 17, 2002, 07:42 AM
For those who can not understand why converting an MP3 to AAC makes no sense, here is a good analogy (that i just came up with).

Compare music to photos.

A JPEG is better than a GIF, but if you take a GIF, no matter what you do, when you convert it to JPEG, you will have a picture that is worse than if you took an original TIFF and converted it to JPEG.

Once the data is lost (MP3 is lossful compression) it is gone forever.

So yes, you will need to re-rip all of CDs again. Or else try to find .aac files in your P2P programs.

Me (not that you asked), I will wait until Jaguar is released, back up my data, and reinstall everything from scratch. I will also throw CLASSIC out the window. I use VPC more than Classic.

Edge100
Jul 17, 2002, 08:01 AM
Here's a question:

Will iTunes 3 be useable even if you dont have QT 6 installed? I am reluctant to install QT 6 because it breaks Divx playback, even when using VideoLan. I'm not really willing to sacrifice Divx playback for AAC audio, the latter of which isnt widely available yet (in terms of files available for dl).

eyelikeart
Jul 17, 2002, 10:11 AM
5 star ratings...
playcount lists...
same volume playing...
audible.com support...
smart playlists...

the smart playlists is probably the coolest part of it...

he he he...I can't wait to get my hands on this one!! :D

blogo
Jul 17, 2002, 11:23 AM
WE NEED DOWNLOAD MIRRORS!

peterjhill
Jul 17, 2002, 12:23 PM
I like the consolidate library, which copied all my previous songs that i did not import directly with itunes to my music folder, also the new option that whenever you copy something to the library in itunes, it moves the files to the music folder. There were some other new prefs that i liked, but can not remember right now.

I am sad about the lack of aac support in itunes. That might leave something open for a third party developer for an itune plug in. I would guesss that itunes could play aac. Let me try.

barkmonster
Jul 17, 2002, 01:58 PM
I agree, opening a DivX encoded Avi file does cause QT6 player to freeze or it simply won't play it. If you use DivX Doctor II on every divX format Avi file and only open the doctored .mov file in QT6 it works fine. I know if you have a large collection of old TV shows and cartoons like I do that turning them all into doctored movie files could sound like a chore. You just drag the lot onto the DivX doctor window or on the application icon and it creates doctored movie files of the all, saving them in the same folder as the original avi files are. Plus because they're not saved as self contained movie files you just end up with the original Avi and a small Movie file pointing to it.

Download divX doctor II version 2.1 here (http://doctor.3ivx.com/download.html) it works in OS X and 8.6 and above. There's links to all the latest codecs and quicktime plug-ins on the same page. It should solve all you're problems with DivX and QT6.

fretless
Jul 17, 2002, 02:33 PM
Is there any news on when we will be able to use iTunes to encode AAC?

User X
Jul 17, 2002, 03:24 PM
Has anybody had a chance to download it yet???? Sitting at work sucks ....especially during a Macworld expo.......is it 5:30 yet?

foofan
Jul 17, 2002, 03:40 PM
It works great for me. The new features sounded exciting but after using a little while it really isn't a big deal.

deejemon
Jul 17, 2002, 03:55 PM
*

alex_ant
Jul 17, 2002, 04:49 PM
I like the new Show Browser feature of iTunes 3 (that wasn't there before, was it?), but I really wish it had AAC support, and by that I mean good AltiVec-accelerated encoding and playback of AAC files. Even AltiVec-accelerated MP3 playback would be nice; 15% CPU usage on a 550MHz chip with an onboard vector unit is insane. Let's get that CPU usage down, Apple! And let's get AAC support in there! Maybe they're saving it for the big iTunes 3.0.1 release. :)

amnesiac1984
Jul 17, 2002, 05:27 PM
okay on playing around with AAC format (qucktime put .mp4 on the end) I am a little dissappointed with performance. It stutters when doing anything in iTunes

Also a bug:
The visualizer does not work with any AAC files i have tried, and neither does the little visualiser in the title BAR, it jsut shows a blank.

GEt it sorted apple

peterjhill
Jul 17, 2002, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
okay on playing around with AAC format (qucktime put .mp4 on the end) I am a little dissappointed with performance. It stutters when doing anything in iTunes

Also a bug:
The visualizer does not work with any AAC files i have tried, and neither does the little visualiser in the title BAR, it jsut shows a blank.

GEt it sorted apple

It works great for me. It would not import into iTunes without the .mp4 extension. Now I need to find an app to automate the ripping and cddb stuff and I will start going through my collection.

Huked on Fonick
Jul 17, 2002, 07:15 PM
barkmonster

I have never had a problem with the track order being messed up and i have imported over 3 gigs of songs.

You have to name the Artist/Album/Track Names and then drag them to the playlist folder you want eather by eather hylighting all the files and drag them or just draging the icon of the CD..

If you dont like itunes becuase its free even thow it is the best out there i suppose you could allways use like realjukebox or something
:D

-Pat

bradnd99
Jul 17, 2002, 09:38 PM
Did anyone else have this problem?:

Installed iTunes3 and only had about 15 playlists out of about 30, not all of my songs were in my library (had to reconnect them to the files on my HD) and many songs were duplicated in my library.

This "upgrade" is causing me a headache. At least this time it didn't delete MP3s from my HD, but re-creating playlists is a pain in my butt.

I need to find some non-Apple application that will allow me to import the playlists from my iPod so I won't have to re-create all of my playlists.

madamimadam
Jul 17, 2002, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster

It's just soundjam with a lot of it's ease of use and organisation features stripped out and given a crappy brushed metal cranky interface, iTunes compared with soundjam is like Sherlock compared with Sherlock 2, with all the extras in the world it still isn't as good because of the awful interface.

For a freebee it's okay, as it's the only option now Soundjam is dead it needs a lot of work before it's totally useful.


Except Soundjam had a cool karaoke function.
:)

MacUser1
Jul 18, 2002, 12:00 AM
Does iTunes 3 allow for the playback of AAC Audio? If so, wouldn't I be able to encode all my mp3's into mp4's via QuickTime Pro (thus reducing the file size) and then put them into iTunes 3? Is this possible?

pwfletcher
Jul 18, 2002, 02:25 AM
I am getting 40 fps full screen visualizations on my Ti 800 with iTunes 3 whereas I was only getting 22 fps with iTunes 2. It must be utilizing the graphics card to achieve almost 100% improvement over the prior version. Any thoughts?

(Enter full screen visualization and hit the "F" key.)

peterjhill
Jul 18, 2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by MacUser1
Does iTunes 3 allow for the playback of AAC Audio? If so, wouldn't I be able to encode all my mp3's into mp4's via QuickTime Pro (thus reducing the file size) and then put them into iTunes 3? Is this possible?


I think I have covered this like 3 times in the past week.

MP3 is lossful compression. Data is lost during the compression. It will never come back. This compares to JPEG vs uncompressed TIFF. Sure you could convert from MP3 to AAC, but the sound quality will DECREASE!!! It is like taking a compressed picture, and recompressing it. A great comparision is GIF to JPEG.

GIF came first, it was pretty good at getting small pictures, as MP3 compares to AIFF (uncompressed sound).

JPEG's came next. The picture quality was great. JPEG supports a far deeper color depth. The algorithms are better, the pictures can be smaller.

If you take a GIF and convert it to JPEG, you will end up with crap!

Unfortunately it is a pain in the ass to use qt pro player to convert a CD to AAC. Plus if you want to play it on an mp3 player, guess what, you will need to convert it. Plus, if you look at the iPod tech specs, AAC is not listed as a supported audio format. It says that future software upgrades could add new formats, but nothing written in stone about support for AAC. I am reluctant to spend 450 bucks for a 20GB iPod if a future model will support hardware decode for AAC, and the current iPod would not support it. hardware decode would presumably use less power than using a general processor to do the decode in software.

Talon1138
Jul 18, 2002, 05:16 PM
so will ipod be upgradable to suppod AAC...and if so when?

is it worth waiting to buy an ipod until it supports AAC in hardware, or will software decode work fine?

ShaolinMiddleFinger
Jul 19, 2002, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by pwfletcher
I am getting 40 fps full screen visualizations on my Ti 800 with iTunes 3 whereas I was only getting 22 fps with iTunes 2. It must be utilizing the graphics card to achieve almost 100% improvement over the prior version. Any thoughts?

(Enter full screen visualization and hit the "F" key.)

yeah....The minute I turned on the visuals there was a big difference. I'm now getting 20frames/sec on my iBook 500

alex_ant
Jul 19, 2002, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by ShaolinMiddleFinger


yeah....The minute I turned on the visuals there was a big difference. I'm now getting 20frames/sec on my iBook 500
That's just what I'm getting as well. You suck. Why did I pay so much extra for this 550MHz PowerBook? Oh yeah, for the chipping paint and shorter battery life. :mad:

Over Achiever
Nov 4, 2002, 07:09 PM
Um....right.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


This thread is brought back from the dead after almost four months and the post that brought it back makes no sense! Too bad this thread will stay on top for other misinformed newbies to post on...


Ok, unless ya'll have anything pertinent to post on this thread, make sure you read the date of the post...we don't want any misguided posts now do we?;)

AK-47
Nov 4, 2002, 07:13 PM
I don't quite get it, when people make statements like this. It is way to general. Doesn't it kind of depend on what the individual persons reasoning for the conversion is. Let's assume that their main goal is to save disk space, and they do not really care about losing a negligible amount of quality, (possibly so little that it's virtually undetectable by the human ear. I personally don't really care what a computer annalysis says. If I can't hear the quality difference with my own ears, for all practical purposes, their is no differenceOriginally posted by peterjhill
For those who can not understand why converting an MP3 to AAC makes no sense, here is a good analogy (that i just came up with).

Compare music to photos.

A JPEG is better than a GIF, but if you take a GIF, no matter what you do, when you convert it to JPEG, you will have a picture that is worse than if you took an original TIFF and converted it to JPEG.

Once the data is lost (MP3 is lossful compression) it is gone forever.

So yes, you will need to re-rip all of CDs again. Or else try to find .aac files in your P2P programs.

Me (not that you asked), I will wait until Jaguar is released, back up my data, and reinstall everything from scratch. I will also throw CLASSIC out the window. I use VPC more than Classic.

madamimadam
Nov 4, 2002, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by AK-47
I don't quite get it, when people make statements like this. It is way to general. Doesn't it kind of depend on what the individual persons reasoning for the conversion is. Let's assume that their main goal is to save disk space, and they do not really care about losing a negligible amount of quality, (possibly so little that it's virtually undetectable by the human ear. I personally don't really care what a computer annalysis says. If I can't hear the quality difference with my own ears, for all practical purposes, their is no difference

Plus, converting from MP3 to AAC is COMPLETELY different from conveting from GIF to JPEG. It is like saying that converting a 128Kb MP3 to a 128Kb MP3 will lose quality... it will not... you have 128Kb to start with and 128Kb when you are finished. Going to AAC, though, is different in the sense that you use a lower encode rate to = the same quality as the MP3.

wrylachlan
Nov 5, 2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam


Plus, converting from MP3 to AAC is COMPLETELY different from conveting from GIF to JPEG. It is like saying that converting a 128Kb MP3 to a 128Kb MP3 will lose quality... it will not... you have 128Kb to start with and 128Kb when you are finished. Going to AAC, though, is different in the sense that you use a lower encode rate to = the same quality as the MP3.

Um... not to rain on your parade, but re-encoding an MP3, a second time, even to the same bit rate WILL loose quality. Yes you will have the same 128Kb of information, but less of that information will correspond to the original sound you are compressing.

Though if you are encoding MP3s to 128 you probably won't care about the small amount of loss when going direct MP3 to AAC. It does become an issue to those audiophiles who currently use 192 or even 320.

Bottom line: If the loss doesn't bother you, great, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

wezelboy
Nov 5, 2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by mymemory
All I want in iTunes is to be able to sync the visuals to external audio surces.

I don't listen to much Pink Floyd, but I am one of those "raver kids" that has a sweet DJ setup. The visuals in iTunes are some of the most amazing I've seen. I would love to just hook up an LCD projector to my Mac, feed my mix into iTunes, and have the visuals sync up... Boom! Instant party!

peteMG
Nov 5, 2002, 11:50 AM
Remember this (promised) feature? Where you could publish a playlist over rendezvous and others on the local network could listen to your library... I'd love to get it before I go home to visit folks for the holidays. Has it popped up anywhere?

plehrack
Nov 5, 2002, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by peterjhill
Now I need to find an app to automate the ripping and cddb stuff and I will start going through my collection.

Try this applescript, available at versiontracker.

Make Mine MPEG-4 v3.5.1

Works great and it's cheap!

Peter Lehrack

jettredmont
Nov 5, 2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by peterjhill
For those who can not understand why converting an MP3 to AAC makes no sense, here is a good analogy (that i just came up with).

Compare music to photos.

A JPEG is better than a GIF, but if you take a GIF, no matter what you do, when you convert it to JPEG, you will have a picture that is worse than if you took an original TIFF and converted it to JPEG.


Huh? The GIF format is lossless compression. Unless you're talking about lack of color space (most GIFs are 256 colors palatted, so obviously you're going to lose colors if your TIFF isn't 256 colors), in which case that's what you should be talking about, not GIF vs JPEG/TIFF.

Down-shifting the color space will cause loss of information. The GIF format and compression routines will not.

On the other hand, taking a 16-color bitmap, "compressing" it with JPEG, and then converting it to GIF will result in a much uglier result than taking the original 16-color bitmap and going to GIF with it. And that *is* because of lossless compression.

peterjhill
Nov 5, 2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont


Huh? The GIF format is lossless compression. Unless you're talking about lack of color space (most GIFs are 256 colors palatted, so obviously you're going to lose colors if your TIFF isn't 256 colors), in which case that's what you should be talking about, not GIF vs JPEG/TIFF.


Imagine if you will...

Photos Music
TIFF AIFF
GIF MP3
JPEG MP4

You need to use your imagination here. tiff and aiff are pretty much uncompressed photos and audio formats. GIF and JPEG are two different means of compressing a photo. Sure, a GIF is lossless, if you feed it a photo that is less than 256 colors, but if you take a photograph, chances are it will have more than 256 colors. jpeg is another means of compressing files, that uses a different scheme. MP3 and MP4 use much different means to compress audio.

So, converting a photograph of the grand canyon that is in uncompressed TIFF format, with a 24 or 32 bit color range to GIF will cause a loss of original data. To me, lossless implies being able to take a compressed file and restore it to its original format without any loss of data. Maybe you think that the color space change is different, I see it as two different methods to attempt to do the same thing.

So converting a tiff to a gif and then the gif to a jpeg would be silly. In the same manner, converting an aiff to an mp3 then to an mp4 would also be silly. It also probably would not be any faster than re-encoding the original cds. It might actually take longer to convert an mp3 to an mp4. Typically the process is limited by the CPU and not the spindle speed.

IMHO

P-Worm
Nov 5, 2002, 03:34 PM
How did THIS resurface?:confused:

P-Worm

peterjhill
Nov 5, 2002, 03:54 PM
no idea really. I have a shortcut to "search for new posts" and saw the thread. I thought there was something about a new update to itunes, it took me a few seconds to realize that this is old news. It is completely random that the post was refering to one of my comments

madamimadam
Nov 5, 2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by peterjhill


Imagine if you will...

Photos Music
TIFF AIFF
GIF MP3
JPEG MP4

You need to use your imagination here. tiff and aiff are pretty much uncompressed photos and audio formats. GIF and JPEG are two different means of compressing a photo. Sure, a GIF is lossless, if you feed it a photo that is less than 256 colors, but if you take a photograph, chances are it will have more than 256 colors. jpeg is another means of compressing files, that uses a different scheme. MP3 and MP4 use much different means to compress audio.

So, converting a photograph of the grand canyon that is in uncompressed TIFF format, with a 24 or 32 bit color range to GIF will cause a loss of original data. To me, lossless implies being able to take a compressed file and restore it to its original format without any loss of data. Maybe you think that the color space change is different, I see it as two different methods to attempt to do the same thing.

So converting a tiff to a gif and then the gif to a jpeg would be silly. In the same manner, converting an aiff to an mp3 then to an mp4 would also be silly. It also probably would not be any faster than re-encoding the original cds. It might actually take longer to convert an mp3 to an mp4. Typically the process is limited by the CPU and not the spindle speed.

IMHO

You have a different oppinion to the people who develop the terms, then, unless you add loss to a GIF (like programs like PhotoShop let you do) GIF is lossless. While there might be less colours, there is no loss in the clarity of the image (to an extent).

vixapphire
Nov 5, 2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
All I want in iTunes is to be able to sync the visuals to external audio surces.

excellent! and here i was, thinking i was the only one...

i have my blue and white g3 holding court in my living room, where it's a music studio centerpiece as well as the "tv" (formac studio and a vcr attached) and general goofy-looking entertainment unit, aside from being the main computer in my digs (sort of the late 20th century equivalent of a philco television); i've got a turntable that's wired into my mixer for recording loops, etc.; have always thought it was a little lame that at parties, i can't have itunes visuals syncing with the external input material b/c it only works with the internal stuff or the cd-drive.

i think your idea would be a great improvement, and moreover it really makes sense as part of apple's "hub" strategy, if such an idea still has any currency in cupertino...

madamimadam
Nov 5, 2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by vixapphire


excellent! and here i was, thinking i was the only one...

i have my blue and white g3 holding court in my living room, where it's a music studio centerpiece as well as the "tv" (formac studio and a vcr attached) and general goofy-looking entertainment unit, aside from being the main computer in my digs (sort of the late 20th century equivalent of a philco television); i've got a turntable that's wired into my mixer for recording loops, etc.; have always thought it was a little lame that at parties, i can't have itunes visuals syncing with the external input material b/c it only works with the internal stuff or the cd-drive.

i think your idea would be a great improvement, and moreover it really makes sense as part of apple's "hub" strategy, if such an idea still has any currency in cupertino...

While it is not iTunes doing the syncing, G-Force has a standalone program that will read the external audio source.

AK-47
Nov 5, 2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by wrylachlan


Um... not to rain on your parade, but re-encoding an MP3, a second time, even to the same bit rate WILL loose quality.
Well, This is not necessarily true. In any given mp3, the lows and highs that are left out in the incoding process, are already gone. So when it is reencoded into mp3 format, you don't have to worry about losing them a second time. As long as good decoding and encoding software is used. It is possible to go through this proccess as many times as you wish, without losing any additional quality. Unless, of course, you have some sort of hardware failier.[/

madamimadam
Nov 5, 2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by AK-47

Well, This is not necessarily true. In any given mp3, the lows and highs that are left out in the incoding process, are already gone. So when it is reencoded into mp3 format, you don't have to worry about losing them a second time. As long as good decoding and encoding software is used. It is possible to go through this proccess as many times as you wish, without losing any additional quality. Unless, of course, you have some sort of hardware failier.[/

Otherwise, how could you have 128Kb of information after re-encoding a 128Kb MP3 if you have dropped data... right?!

springscansing
Nov 5, 2002, 10:34 PM
Okay! Let's go!



No record audio input option, this is a pretty basic feature and it's hardly a way of organising you're music library if you can't transfer from tape/vinyl and other sources easily. Obviously even if you could, the concept of "Organising" by any means in iTunes is laughable to say the least

I hope you are aware that this would require more than a record button.. you'd have to be able to normalize the recordings, adjust input levels, etc. I'd rather them not clutter iTunes with such things, as it would confuse a lot of people. There's a TON of freeware that can do this already.

Add an album to the playlist, not only won't it play them in order but sorting by artist will throw the play order off even more. If you've encoded several albums by an artist, it won't keep them in album order or track order.

I've got over 10Gb of MP3s, all in folders named by artist and album, they have the track numbers in the file name too, nothing plays back in the correct order, absolutely nothing. I've tried adding the folders using the menu and it's just as disorganised as dragging them over the iTunes window.

You obviously are doing something wrong here, as I've encoded several albums direct from CDs and they all play in order. Are you SURE you have the track numbers in there? I've never heard of this problem.

As for the rest of your complaints, they're either trivial or silly (I mean common, the text sizes are fine in my opinion... they want them to look good smoothed, remember? heh).

iTunes is BY FAR the best mp3 player available... ease up man. And use the right 'your's next time, hehe.

springscansing
Nov 5, 2002, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by AK-47
I don't quite get it, when people make statements like this. It is way to general. Doesn't it kind of depend on what the individual persons reasoning for the conversion is. Let's assume that their main goal is to save disk space, and they do not really care about losing a negligible amount of quality, (possibly so little that it's virtually undetectable by the human ear. I personally don't really care what a computer annalysis says. If I can't hear the quality difference with my own ears, for all practical purposes, their is no difference

Well, in all fairness, many people can hear the difference. Most likely though, your method of reproduction (cheap PC speakers/cheap headphones) does 100x more damage than mp3 encoding, so you can't notice it.

springscansing
Nov 5, 2002, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by AK-47

Well, This is not necessarily true. In any given mp3, the lows and highs that are left out in the incoding process, are already gone. So when it is reencoded into mp3 format, you don't have to worry about losing them a second time. As long as good decoding and encoding software is used. It is possible to go through this proccess as many times as you wish, without losing any additional quality. Unless, of course, you have some sort of hardware failier.[/

This is incorrect. Continual encoding and decoding does degrade quality. When the compressor goes back over the second time, there's different data in that aiff file than the first time, hence you will get a different output. mp3 enocoding is far more complex than low and hi shelving EQs.

springscansing
Nov 5, 2002, 10:43 PM
And just for the record, encoding mp3s to mp4s takes even longer than encoding directly from the album (as they have to be converted to raw aiff files first anyway), and reading from the disc takes a few seconds. Anyway, the new mp4s will sound WORSE than the mp3s they were encoded from if you go from mp3 to mp4. The files will be smaller though. Who's really having trouble with a packed HD nowadays anyway that convertings mp3 to mp4s would fix? The ability to convert mp3s to mp4s would be a stupid feature.

springscansing
Nov 5, 2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by madamimadam


Otherwise, how could you have 128Kb of information after re-encoding a 128Kb MP3 if you have dropped data... right?!

Continual reencoding does degrade quality. :-) See above.

AK-47
Nov 6, 2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by springscansing


This is incorrect. Continual encoding and decoding does degrade quality. When the compressor goes back over the second time, there's different data in that aiff file than the first time, hence you will get a different output. mp3 enocoding is far more complex than low and hi shelving EQs.
What you say is only correct if you transform digital audio to analog, and then back again to digital. Every time you go through this process quality will be lost. It is, however, very possible to transform a compressed digital audio file into another form of a compressed digital audio file without losing any quality, what so ever, as long as the software is specific enough.
As long as a file can be broken down into idividual bits of information, and these bits can be used indiviually to produce specific sounds. Taking each one of these individual sounds, I can then use them as samples and reproduce them identically on the bit level, into another encoded format. When this transformation is done on a bit by bit basis, it is impossible to lose information. Unless, of coarse, a mistake is made by the person, or the software, doing the transformation.
If programs that perform these sorts of tasks, don't infact, produce a file with identical quality to the original. It is due to a weakness in the software, caused by the authors lack of knowledge, or desire.

jettredmont
Nov 6, 2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by AK-47

What you say is only correct if you transform digital audio to analog, and then back again to digital. Every time you go through this process quality will be lost. It is, however, very possible to transform a compressed digital audio file into another form of a compressed digital audio file without losing any quality, what so ever, as long as the software is specific enough.


As long as the codec is the same, and you are only changing the wrapper (say, from a QuickTime wrapper over MP4 to an AVI wrapper over MP4), this is true. But that's not going through a decode/code cycle, it is just repackaging the bits.

I am not sure what you mean by transforming the digital audio to analog. While a true D/A + A/D conversion cycle would obviously cause signal degradation (that is patently obvious, right?), I don't think anyone here is suggesting such. Going from MP3 -> WAV (PCM encoding, which is not analog) -> MP3 is known to cause signal degradation.

You can see this visually as well. Take a JPEG image, convert it to TIFF. Convert back to JPEG (same quality setting). Do a file diff: are the original and recoded JPEG files bit-for-bit identical? No, they are not. Some information has been lost (by definition, if the round-tripped file is not bit-identical with the original in the same compression format). Look at them: do they look pretty similar? Of course they do. Repeat the process ten times, however, and you'll likely start noticing differences. Repeat it a hundred times and you'll definitely see differences (I'm not sure if OS X has the JPG-tiff command-line conversion tools or not, but you should be able to download them and build them for OS X fairly quickly, or just go to a Linux box ... writing a script to do 100 round-trip conversions would be an extremely simple matter).

Understand two terms:

Lossless: a decoding/encoding round trip of encoded data will not result in loss of data. Encoding of unencoded data may result in a loss of data due to the format's limitations; re-encodings are guaranteed to retain all data. This is the type of encoding most commonly desired for editing applications.

Lossy: a decoding/encoding round trip of encoded data will result in loss of some data. Editing applications generally avoid such formats as each edit/save cycle will lose more data.

JPEG is lossy. It loses information on compression, and it loses information on a round-trip JPEG-to-JPEG recompression. MP3 is very similar in its lossy-ness.

PCM is not lossy. Going from non-PCM to PCM will lose information that the format can not handle, but a round-trip PCM-to-PCM recompression does not lose additional information.

Going back to earlier, someone was comparing GIF to MP3, which is a very bad comparison as, again, by definition, GIF is not lossy. Yes, going from a 32-bit TIFF to 8-bit-palletted GIF is obviously going to lose data (see the definitions above). But GIF-to-GIF recompression will not lose any additional information.

Basically, if you could take an existing MP3 file, convert it to any other encoding (ie, not the MP3 codec, not just change the wrapper) then re-encode it as MP3, and end up with a bit-for-bit identical file as that which with you started, then MP3 would not be a lossy format. It would be lossless compression. That, my friend, would be a really neat trick, and would be a tremendous surprise to the MPE Group that developed the MP3 standard.

jettredmont
Nov 6, 2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by AK-47
As long as a file can be broken down into idividual bits of information, and these bits can be used indiviually to produce specific sounds. Taking each one of these individual sounds, I can then use them as samples and reproduce them identically on the bit level, into another encoded format. When this transformation is done on a bit by bit basis, it is impossible to lose information. Unless, of coarse, a mistake is made by the person, or the software, doing the transformation.
If programs that perform these sorts of tasks, don't infact, produce a file with identical quality to the original. It is due to a weakness in the software, caused by the authors lack of knowledge, or desire.

Lossy compression introduces artifacts. Visually, take a boldly-colored cartoon drawing and encode it at a low quality setting in JPEG; notice the halos, etc. Steps are taken to reduce the effects of the artifacts, but many survive nonetheless.

Recompressing data that has "artifacts", the compressing engine can not know if the "artifacts" were supposed to be there or not, and so instead of trying to "diminish" the artifacts, it tries to keep them accurate, which in turn introduces other artifacts (why? Because of the nature of the calculations involved, and the purposeful performance-related optimizations built into the standard ... though obviously there is a way to encode the data that is 100% identical to the source data, finding that particular combination again would take an inordinate amount of processing). Such artifacts multiply through multiple recoding cycles.

It's like the guy who walked into the barber and asked him to cut one side shorter than the other, and shave a bald spot just off center on the top of his head. When the barber told him he could not do such a thing, the man responded, "but you did it last time!"

With an infinite amount of computing power and time, and a codec that is specifically designed to allow round-trip recompression, yes, re-encoding MP3 to MP3 could theoretically be mostly lossless. But that was never the intention of MP3, and it is not even a real-world reasonably useful trait for a codec (if you want the original compressed data, just copy the original file directly instead of decompressing/recompressing).

Back to the point: Going from MP3 to AAC, there is not necessarily a way for AAC to properly reproduce the artifacts introduced in MP3, no matter how much time and effort is expended in tring to find such. Thus, the artifacts will find themselves surrounded by secondary artifacts, and the resulting AAC will, by definition and in the absense of extraordinary luck, be a less faithful reproduction of the original than the MP3.

AK-47
Nov 6, 2002, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont


though obviously there is a way to encode the data that is 100% identical to the source data, finding that particular combination again would take an inordinate amount of processing). Such artifacts multiply through multiple recoding cycles.


For computers that existed during the time that todays common compression methods were created. Perhaps it would have taken an inordinate amount of processing power, But according to todays standards of processors, this is so, not true, especially with the processing power that is being achieved with pc's.
It's time for new compression methods, for both audio, and video. Which both, are so very possible to create.
Their creation is not limited by posibility, because it can most certainly be done, but rather, by will.

AK-47
Nov 6, 2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont


Recompressing data that has "artifacts", the compressing engine can not know if the "artifacts" were supposed to be there or not, and so instead of trying to "diminish" the artifacts, it tries to keep them accurate, which in turn introduces other artifacts (why? Because of the nature of the calculations involved.

It is not due so much to the nature of the calculations involved, but more so, to the lack of much needed calculations

AK-47
Nov 6, 2002, 04:32 PM
I admit that the smaller you try to compress a digital file, the harder it is to retain quality. So compression ratio is the real issue, when it comes to quality loss. Because, don't forget, even with a common archiving program, a wave, or aiff file can be compressed to about 42.5 percent of it's original size, and when it is uncompressed it produces an exact replica of the original file.

Somebody
Nov 6, 2002, 10:55 PM
It's time for new compression methods, for both audio, and video. Which both, are so very possible to create.
Their creation is not limited by posibility, because it can most certainly be done, but rather, by will.


So why don't you go do that? If you're capable of doing it, shouldn't you be putting up? And if you're not capable of doing it, then how can you know that what you want is possible and that lack of will is the reason it isn't happening?

There's obviously quite a lot of will to create more efficient compression schemes. If there weren't, we wouldn't be seeing MPEG 4.

But compression is tricky; If you stick to purely lossless schemes, you aren't likely to do much better than 50% -- and in some cases, it'll do *much* worse. (If you feed random data into a lossless compression algorithm, the 'compressed' version will, on average, be larger than the original. It's mathematically impossible for a lossless compression algorithm to produce an output smaller than its input when given random data.)

And once you go to lossy, a big, difficult question immediately rears its head: How do you decide what to 'lose'? It seems obvious: You drop the information that is least 'noticable' to the listener/viewer. But finding out what that information will be isn't a simple logical/mathematical problem in the way that lossless compression is: You need use a lot of empirical data to build a really detailed model of the human auditory and visual systems. (i.e. you have to do a lot of experiments with real human subjects) This takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money, and at the end, there's still a fair amount of guessing involved.

wrylachlan
Nov 6, 2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by AK-47


It is not due so much to the nature of the calculations involved, but more so, to the lack of much needed calculations

Um no. No amount of calculation is ever going to be able to remove artifacting from lossy to lossy transfers. And if you mean that we need to use more powerful calculations to make better lossless compression, that's not going to happen because you hit a theoretical limit. Every file has a theoretical limit to lossless compression, which represents the total amount of unique information in the file.

And also, if you were to, in a lossy codec, map out which bits were original, and which artifacts, so that you could transfer to another codec without doubling artifacting... well that information embedded in the file would add more size to it than you took out by compressing it, so what's the use in that?

And lastly, since compression's main goal is to minimize bandwidth, this whole arguement will probably be moot in ten or fifteen years anyway when next generation broadband really takes off.

vixapphire
Nov 7, 2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam


While it is not iTunes doing the syncing, G-Force has a standalone program that will read the external audio source.

thanks. by the way, if your username taking after the song by The Tubes of the same name? if so, cheers to you!

madamimadam
Nov 7, 2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by vixapphire


thanks. by the way, if your username taking after the song by The Tubes of the same name? if so, cheers to you!

I wish I could say that that was the case.... just worked out once while I was pissed that it worked backwards and forwards and my name is Adam so.......

AK-47
Nov 7, 2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Somebody


So why don't you go do that? If you're capable of doing it, shouldn't you be putting up? And if you're not capable of doing it, then how can you know that what you want is possible and that lack of will is the reason it isn't happening?


Well, first of all. I am not in a financial position to invest the time necessary to fully develop this type of method, and to be quite honest, I don't have a whole lot of intrest in doing so. I suppose lack of ambition is a big part of me not doing more research and devolepment.
And how I know that what I want is possible, is because I am a physicist, and I have a very good understanding of physical propertys, and mathematical equations, and this is mainly what these sorts of things consist of. There are certain laws involved that can't be bent, or broken. I'm sorry that I am no authority on teaching, and that it's difficult for me to put it in to words that the average person would understand. It would be possible for me to explain, but it would take a great deal of time longer than what I am willing to spend on this subject. This has already gone way beyond what I originally intended. Besides it is pointless for me to argue this anyway, because time will give the argument for me. Those of you who are into computers, and keep up to date on new technology, will see soon enough that much better compression methods will be created. There are new methods in the works as I speak.
I would suggest that you surf the web and read up on some of the research and development that is currently in progress. I think that you will be surprised with the direction that they are going, and how far along they already are.

vixapphire
Nov 7, 2002, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by AK-47



Well, first of all. I am not in a financial position to invest the time necessary to fully develop this type of method, and to be quite honest, I don't have a whole lot of intrest in doing so. I suppose lack of ambition is a big part of me not doing more research and devolepment.
And how I know that what I want is possible, is because I am a physicist, and I have a very good understanding of physical propertys, and mathematical equations, and this is mainly what these sorts of things consist of. There are certain laws involved that can't be bent, or broken. I'm sorry that I am no authority on teaching, and that it's difficult for me to put it in to words that the average person would understand. It would be possible for me to explain, but it would take a great deal of time longer than what I am willing to spend on this subject. This has already gone way beyond what I originally intended. Besides it is pointless for me to argue this anyway, because time will give the argument for me. Those of you who are into computers, and keep up to date on new technology, will see soon enough that much better compression methods will be created. There are new methods in the works as I speak.
I would suggest that you surf the web and read up on some of the research and development that is currently in progress. I think that you will be surprised with the direction that they are going, and how far along they already are.

um, i think that what you are saying in this post, i.e. new methods are currently under development, rings differently than the tone of your earlier posts, in which your words implied that someone could/ought to have come up with these new methods already, like, yesterday. in your current post, you seem to have backed off of that argument, since you are conceding that the development of newer, better methods requires substantial investment of time and money, coupled, of course, with the experience and knowledge developed up to that point. obviously, no one is going to disagree with that. but i don't think it's surprising that many readers found your earlier statements a little odd, if not strangely arrogant. but i'm not one to deny anyone their opinions!

AK-47
Nov 7, 2002, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by vixapphire


um, i think that what you are saying in this post, i.e. new methods are currently under development, rings differently than the tone of your earlier posts


I'm sorry, but I havn't backed off of my earlier statement. I still stand behind it 100 percent. I, myself am not a multi billion dollar sofware develepment corporation, with a team of hundreds of engineers, and developers. There for, I am in just a little bit different of a situation than they are. They should have developed better compression methods (yesterday). And there is a difference between somthing that is being researched, and is in the development stage. that somthing that has already been developed. Wouldn't you agree?

vixapphire
Nov 7, 2002, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by AK-47



I'm sorry, but I havn't backed off of my earlier statement. I still stand behind it 100 percent. I, myself am not a multi billion dollar sofware develepment corporation. There for, I am in just a little bit differnt of a situation than they are. They should have developed better compression methods (yesterday)


looking at things in that way, why haven't those "multi billion dollar corporations" (oh no! not the "evil corporations" again!) released to the public the technology for teleportation and cars that perform like a corvette but run on electricity... or even water, and emit no pollution (air, noise or other)! hmmm... i'm not sure i'm buying your argument for the simple reason that, if it were possible - i.e., if someone had the goods or the ingredients to create the goods so easily, and creating those goods was their business, the market advantages to be gained by going for it and developing and marketing as quickly as possible the goods would outweigh any nefarious schemes to hold their boot on the neck of human technological progress. could you imagine: they could take all their earnings and buy television commercials with which to promulgate their evil ideas and brainwash the masses, enslaving them with the comforts of modern living!

I just don't think that people - particularly those people that form and grow businesses into multi billion corporations (esp. corporations that are publicly held) - are irrational in the way your theory appears to require them to be. i'll only mention the word "enron" here to cite the fairly obvious point that it and its ilk were essentially criminal enterprises, in the same way that ivan boesky etc. were in the 80's, and they are anomalous in our economy. perhaps your theory more accurately represents how technological development might have worked in monopolist/command & control economies like the soviet union and eastern europe before the fall of communism, but to follow it seems like a recipe for mediocrity and/or outright failure in a competitive market economy like america's. remind me why any crackerjack engineer would want to stay at a mediocre company that would bury his/her innovative work, rather than go to (or form) a company that would bring that work to market faster, generating more profit for the engineer and the company?

wrylachlan
Nov 7, 2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by AK-47



Well, first of all. I am not in a financial position to invest the time necessary to fully develop this type of method, and to be quite honest, I don't have a whole lot of intrest in doing so. I suppose lack of ambition is a big part of me not doing more research and devolepment.
And how I know that what I want is possible, is because I am a physicist, and I have a very good understanding of physical propertys, and mathematical equations, and this is mainly what these sorts of things consist of. There are certain laws involved that can't be bent, or broken. I'm sorry that I am no authority on teaching, and that it's difficult for me to put it in to words that the average person would understand. It would be possible for me to explain, but it would take a great deal of time longer than what I am willing to spend on this subject. This has already gone way beyond what I originally intended. Besides it is pointless for me to argue this anyway, because time will give the argument for me. Those of you who are into computers, and keep up to date on new technology, will see soon enough that much better compression methods will be created. There are new methods in the works as I speak.
I would suggest that you surf the web and read up on some of the research and development that is currently in progress. I think that you will be surprised with the direction that they are going, and how far along they already are.

Gimme a break. This is asinine. How did we get to this fluff?
First it was argued that MP3 to AAC would not see a degradation in quality. It will.

Second you argued that the digital artifacting of going from one codec to another was the fault of the original codec programmers. But, as I pointed out above, the amount of information that would need to be embedded into a compressed file to prevent artifacting is larger than the original gains of compression... who would do that?

Thirdly you argue that it is a matter of computer power. But artifacting is not a result of the limits of computing power. It is a basic fact of all lossy compression schemes. All of them. Inherently.

And Lastly you claim that these magical codecs are already being developed. This is plain BS.

Lets be real specific here. According to you there is a developer somewhere who is working on a codec which will allow you to take a source file and run multiple iterations of encoding/deconding on it with no artifacting whatsoever?

I looked on google for such a codec but was unable to find any information on it. Perhaps your "very good understanding of physical propertys[sic], and mathematical equations" will enable you to get google to pull up some information that this "average person" was unable to find. If so, could you please post this information here.

Thank you.