Does iTunes (and the iPod) Support ACC+?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by Gordon Werner, Jan 24, 2005.

  1. Gordon Werner macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    #1
    I was reading about ACC+ audio codec that XM uses and that internet radio stations will start using soon ... supposedly offers CD quality sound at as low as 48kpbs ...

    Was wondering if iTunes / iPods currently can play these encoded tracks ... and if not whether they will?

    more info: http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112548&
     
  2. mcmav37 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    #2
    My understanding is that AAC+ is rumored to be coming to iTunes/iPod. In fact, I recall rumors that it would have been announced with the new flash iPods to allow these devices--with such smaller memory--to have many more songs than expected. Well, not yet, but maybe iTunes 5, whenever that comes out?
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    My understanding is that Apple won't be supporting it very soon. If songs encoded at 48 kbps sound as good as 128 kbps AAC and mp3 files, then people will encode at 48 kbps or 64 kbps AAC+. What does this mean? It means smaller song files. Greeeat ...... unless you sell iPods. Who would need a 60 GB iPod if people start encoding their music at 48 kbps, especially if the files are now 1.5 MB in size.
     
  4. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #4
    I'm betting that only 1% of the people need the current 20GB iPod to hold all their music. Therefore, it would make little difference in sales, IMO.
     
  5. sjpetry macrumors 65816

    sjpetry

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Tamarindo, Costa Rica
    #5
    Not true, I know a lot of people who have way more than 20GBs of music. :)
     
  6. chameeeleon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    #6
    I'd say the anniversary date of the Music Store is as good as set in stone. Given that it was updated to 4.5 on that day last year, and that it hasn't had a big feature update (Airport and some tweaks aside) since then (and given that Apple does not usually let their apps go without change for over a year), I would say that an incredible 5.0 release is probably being developed as I type. And my guess would be AAC+ is included (I really don't think it would hurt sales like others have said).
     
  7. Freg3000 macrumors 68000

    Freg3000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    Do you know 1% of all iPod users? No, I didn't think so.

    Most people aren't even coming close to filling up their iPods. People on these boards and their friends are not representative of the iPod owning public.
     
  8. sahnert macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #8
    also, not everyone would want to reencode 20-40 GB of music, even if it means smaller file sizes
     
  9. chameeeleon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    #9
    If Apple does adopt AAC+, a way to automatically convert your whole library and retain the play counts, date added and playlists would be a godsend to someone who is not particular to quality.
     
  10. mcmav37 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    #10
    While this is true, I think it would be beneficial for iTMS to be able to offer smaller files for download with the same or even better quality. I would like to see that happen with some choice of quality to silence the people who say they would never buy from iTMS because the quality it too poor. Give us 128kbps AAC+ (with a demonstration showing it is as great as 256kbps normally or whatever it is) and 64 kbps AAC+ that will be half the size but still better quality than the original store files. If they do this, I would like to see an offer to re-download your files with new compression--users should be able to re-download their music files as it is just by signing in. That functionality should be added to the next version too. I know it will be tough to reload all millions songs into iTMS with new encoding, but maybe Apple can just have Automator do it.

    Not to mention the fact that they will be able to justify bigger and bigger iPods with new functionality that will take up disk space--ie photos, videos (please!), allowing you to take all your files with you and just plug into each computer you use, and whatever else they come up with. :D
     
  11. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #11
    My iTunes folder is a little over 20GB so, yes, a smaller bit rate would be very welcome as i only have a 34GB HD.

    As for converting 128AAC to 64 or 48 i think you would probably just have to re import everything again.

    But by then i'll have a new mac and i can say goodbye to 8 - 9 import multipler and say hello to 20 +!!!
     
  12. Mechcozmo macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #12
    1% of all iPod users is 100,000 people. That is based on Apple's sales figure of 10 million iPods, which is a rough guess on my part because iKnow a few people have more than one. Anyway, iDoubt you know 100,000's people's iTunes library sizes in any case. iBarely know mine :)

    My 5GB iPod is getting close to full, but quite a number of the 20GB iPods out there are not. iKnow that quite a number of people with 40GB iPods and can count their songs on one hand... er... can count their songs because it is so low....

    Do you have a Raptor? Those are the only hard drives that I know being sold at 34GB..... and those don't normally go into a computer with a multiplier of only 9x! Just my guesses.
     
  13. saabmp3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    #13
    A guess is that he's talking about a formatted drive where you can lose alot of space (or maybe with system files installed). Never the less, don't pick on the details.
     

Share This Page