combatcolin said:Surprised no-one has moaned that they will have to re-encode all their music
I'm moaning now. If I can get better quality at the same size. (I'm not sure if this is what it means.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
aacPLUS - Tomorrow?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm moaning now. If I can get better quality at the same size. (I'm not sure if this is what it means.)
jbembe said:
I decided before I ordered my iPod (2nd gen) that I would use 192kbps for my CD collection. I'm very happy with the results. In my case, I don't see re-encoding at a lower bit rate because frankly, my iPod has lots of free space as it is!
Not worth the trouble for me.The new codec could also require significantly more performance from the onboard decoders. While there would be less reads from disk this increase in CPU load could keep people from getting much more battery life.
My music is also stored as VBRs made from LAME. The iPod plays them all well, but battery performance suffers in dramatic fashion. However this new codec would have to provide superior sound at 128k (vs my 192k+VBRs) before I would consider re-encoding my music.
My music is also stored as VBRs made from LAME. The iPod plays them all well, but battery performance suffers in dramatic fashion. However this new codec would have to provide superior sound at 128k (vs my 192k+VBRs) before I would consider re-encoding my music.
sounds pretty unbelievable, but if it's true, It's one kickass codec. Getting 128kbps (or even 112kbps) sound fit into 48kbps is great! I sure would re-rip my music
files encoded at 48kpbs=less space. Wouldn't that mean less caching in the ipod and more battery life due to less hd activity?
The H.264 codec demo at WWDC blew me away in terms of compression ratios. It's unbelievable! If aacPlus is based on similar codec, I don't see why not. I'm guessing that this is going to be the audio codec for the 10-way audio chat in Tiger iChat. If you are really going to be able to open that many simultaneous streams on a 256Kbps (some people only have 128Kbps) you're going to have to pack the stream into 12-25Kbps while retaining a sound quality that won't make your ears bleed talking to your friends and family.
mulletman13 said:
man i didn't even get to think about the battery life yet!
now I REALLY hope it's true!Reality Check
WMA is advertised (or used to be, when they first started making noise) as "Near CD-Quality" at 64kbps. Yes, 64. Now, you and I both know that 64kbps WMA sounds roughly akin to a swarm of bees attacking a mosh pit two miles from a concert, but apparently that's good enough for the "Near CD-Quality" moniker.
As such, I'm naturally quite pessimistic about any claims of 48kbps being able to replace my music (which is 160kbps AAC, as 128kbps AAC can show too many artifacts in unexpected places for me). On the other hand, the claims of 30% bitrate reduction (which, strangely enough, would push 64kbps to around 48kbps ... hmmmm...) will be much more likely to bear out in a real-world music library. Meaning, I might be able to jump doen to 128kbps AAC+ for my future CD rippings instead of 160kbps! And Apple might be able to jump down to 96kbps on iTMS!
This is, approximately, the same or slightly greater level of "even-quality" switchover I got going from MP3 (192kbps+, depending on the specific song) to AAC (160kbps across the board).
So, this would be quite welcome, and certainly I'd take advantage of it in my own future ripping activities, and I'd guess that Apple might be able to take advantage of it in iTMS ... but it's not reducing the size of everyone's library by 66%!
WMA is advertised (or used to be, when they first started making noise) as "Near CD-Quality" at 64kbps. Yes, 64. Now, you and I both know that 64kbps WMA sounds roughly akin to a swarm of bees attacking a mosh pit two miles from a concert, but apparently that's good enough for the "Near CD-Quality" moniker.
As such, I'm naturally quite pessimistic about any claims of 48kbps being able to replace my music (which is 160kbps AAC, as 128kbps AAC can show too many artifacts in unexpected places for me). On the other hand, the claims of 30% bitrate reduction (which, strangely enough, would push 64kbps to around 48kbps ... hmmmm...) will be much more likely to bear out in a real-world music library. Meaning, I might be able to jump doen to 128kbps AAC+ for my future CD rippings instead of 160kbps! And Apple might be able to jump down to 96kbps on iTMS!
This is, approximately, the same or slightly greater level of "even-quality" switchover I got going from MP3 (192kbps+, depending on the specific song) to AAC (160kbps across the board).
So, this would be quite welcome, and certainly I'd take advantage of it in my own future ripping activities, and I'd guess that Apple might be able to take advantage of it in iTMS ... but it's not reducing the size of everyone's library by 66%!
I'm Skeptical
Although if this is true, my iTunes music library would be reduced by 60%, saving precious space on my ibook's 10GB hard drive.
Although if this is true, my iTunes music library would be reduced by 60%, saving precious space on my ibook's 10GB hard drive.
combatcolin said:Surprised no-one has moaned that they will have to re-encode all their music
Tell me about it. Not only did I finish encoding my whole collection about a month ago, I *just* finished (yesterday) finished encoding the collection of my little brother (and 60 covers is tedious to scan, resize and crop).
The really weird thing is, this morning I was doing AAC tests to see how low I could go (in kbps) before it really annoyed me. And guess what, 48kbps was my trade-off choice (AAC 32KHz stereo).
On the up side, if the 3rd gen. iPods can be upgraded with that new CODEC it means my 10GB iPod is now like a 26.6GB iPod.
It also means the iPod mini is now like a 10GB iPod, and a 1GB Flash iPod mini would be like a 2.6GB iPod (and so would be another point suggesting a low-cost Flash iPod mini).
I love free upgrades!
SiliconAddict said:
Yeah, it's really a pain. After all, there's never been a format to switch to/from before. Well, except for MP3, VQF, MP3Pro, WMA and OGG, that is.
Rip everything to Apple Lossless, add artwork, burn to DVD-R.
Next time a new CODEC comes out, your job will only be easier.
I have my doubts about this, but I would love it if it was true. Unfortunately, if it is true it will probably only be available for the 4G iPods and the iPod Mini. Both of which I don't own.
Yvan256 said:Yeah, it's really a pain. After all, there's never been a format to switch to/from before. Well, except for MP3, VQF, MP3Pro, WMA and OGG, that is.
Rip everything to Apple Lossless, add artwork, burn to DVD-R.
Next time a new CODEC comes out, your job will only be easier.
Actually with iTunes and AAC is the first time I've ever ripped my collection. I've never been overly impressed by any other music player until now. Took me a week and a half to rip everything and find good cover art to download and add to the tracks. Was a PITA but if good enough so be it.
I'm confused. Will this be used for streaming music, or encoding music on your own HD? If it's on your own hard drive, does it mean that 48 now equals 128, and you can choose 48 if you want space, if you want higher quality you can do 128, or something in between? What would the music store sell in, then? I'm highly skeptical that 48 could be good enough, but if they stand behind the codec, and the claim that it is CD quality sound, that's where they have to sell the music at....
OR, maybe you choose the bitrate now?
And, what happens to the itms songs I've already bought in normal AAC? suddenly they're either way bigger or worse sounding, or I have to rip from AAC to aacPLUS, and loose sound quality? Maybe the store would automatically update them for you, if apple was really nice?
OR, maybe you choose the bitrate now?
And, what happens to the itms songs I've already bought in normal AAC? suddenly they're either way bigger or worse sounding, or I have to rip from AAC to aacPLUS, and loose sound quality? Maybe the store would automatically update them for you, if apple was really nice?
dontmatter said:I'm confused. Will this be used for streaming music, or encoding music on your own HD? If it's on your own hard drive, does it mean that 48 now equals 128, and you can choose 48 if you want space, if you want higher quality you can do 128, or something in between? What would the music store sell in, then? I'm highly skeptical that 48 could be good enough, but if they stand behind the codec, and the claim that it is CD quality sound, that's where they have to sell the music at....
OR, maybe you choose the bitrate now?
And, what happens to the itms songs I've already bought in normal AAC? suddenly they're either way bigger or worse sounding, or I have to rip from AAC to aacPLUS, and loose sound quality? Maybe the store would automatically update them for you, if apple was really nice?
Calm down wise one, this is all specuation. aacPLUS is supposed to have cd quality tracks at 48kbps, but we still haven't hear it for ourselves yet. I'd wait to tomorrow before you get to worried.
Sounds like good detective work to me!
But some of the implications--sound THAT good at such low rates--do sound too good to be true.
There are lots of ways to measure the claim "CD quality"... and not all of them equate to "lossless" or even "indetectably" compressed (with the right ears, equipment, and experience).
But some of the implications--sound THAT good at such low rates--do sound too good to be true.
There are lots of ways to measure the claim "CD quality"... and not all of them equate to "lossless" or even "indetectably" compressed (with the right ears, equipment, and experience).
A 75GB gift from Apple!!!
I have my entire CD collection ripped on a 250GB drive. I was about to go through and delete some files to make room for more.
This is really cool, if this codec gives me a 30% decrease in file size at the same quality, this will save me 75GB of disk space.
That's well worth the time to re-rip and encode the collection again. This isn't that big of a deal. The first time I did it I used 4 high speed CD drives and an automated process, so I just kept feeding the disks as I did other tasks. It should be just as easy this time, but the cool thing is that I can simply replace CDs as I re-encode...for the next say 75 days, I get 1GB a day!
I have my entire CD collection ripped on a 250GB drive. I was about to go through and delete some files to make room for more.
This is really cool, if this codec gives me a 30% decrease in file size at the same quality, this will save me 75GB of disk space.
That's well worth the time to re-rip and encode the collection again. This isn't that big of a deal. The first time I did it I used 4 high speed CD drives and an automated process, so I just kept feeding the disks as I did other tasks. It should be just as easy this time, but the cool thing is that I can simply replace CDs as I re-encode...for the next say 75 days, I get 1GB a day!
chromos said:
Does Synergy work better than Clutter? I gave up on Clutter after its bugginess drove me batty.
TopCatz said:
The "mostly pretty good quality" and size is the factor here.
I'm scanning all the artwork at 200dpi and resizing to 513x513 pixels, saving to JPEG at 100KB. Amazon is nowhere near that.
And why 513x513? Well, I've search high and low, and I've read once that this is supposed to be the size for the ITMS. But I'm not even sure. Can someone confirm the "specs" for the artwork from something bought at the ITMS? (pixel size, format, file size/quality setting)