aacPLUS - Tomorrow?

[brettj]

For all who don't know, aacPlus is well known as HE AAC. Nero (windows) has been using this for a while. Here's some info on the quality: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19358&hl=aacplus

 

[veedubdrew]

This codec is incredible! I downloaded the samples of MP3 and AAC+ at 24kbps and the quality of AAC+ is unreal. If I encoded my stuff at 60 or 96 kbps (down from 160kbps AAC I have now) I could fit a lot more stuff on my iPods and clear up some space on my HDD. Bring on an AAC+ encoder tomorrow Apple!

-Drew

 

[SiliconAddict]

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)

Try http://www.coverkingdom.net/

They have a freaking HUGE library of covers both back, front, and in many cases inside. Most of my collection has all three at 600 x 600

 

[iMeowbot]

Religious arguments aside, I do hope it gets included and quiets down the ogg vorbis contingent a bit. I sooooo don't want that CPU pig to catch on.

 

[Nermal]

I think the iTMS album art is 600x600 saved as 24 bit PNGs. I found this out by dragging the artwork to the desktop and opening and comparing file sizes. Fun stuff.

I've found that different albums have different resolutions. I think the record companies supply the art, therefore different record companies yield different sizes.

 

[Diatribe]

Hmmm that would give you near lossless quality in what, 192kbps? That would be awesome.
I was just going to rerip my collection but I guess I'll wait with that a bit.
And I do have to figure out how exactly I rerip from my lossless DVDs without losing the playcounts, ratings, playlists, etc.
Ahh great more work, glad I hadn't started yet.

 

[JordanNZ]

The thing about this AAC+ (or any codec with SBR) is that it adds in sounds that weren't there in the first place (it actually synthesises the high frequencies). It's very good for low bit-rates, but it doesn't work quite so well for high bitrate stuff.

It is kick ass for low bandwidth applications (or something with a lack of storage space).

 

[aswitcher]

Wishful thinking...new iTunes will include a way to compress your old library to the new level...

 

[Diatribe]

Wishful thinking...new iTunes will include a way to compress your old library to the new level...

I don't think I would do that even if they offered it. Converting songs from one lossy codec to another is NEVER a good thing to do.

 

[Abstract]

Probably cos they won't have to ! Though if it is possible to get close to CD quality at 48 kbps, then quite a few of us may want to.

Our iPod battery life is going to be a LOT higher than 12 hours at that bit rate.

 

[redAPPLE]

This sounds absolutely WAY too good to be true!

Great sound reproduction at 48kbps?!?!?! I just cannot believe it. If so, Apple will have to update iTunes, perhaps this is why they aren't going to continue to support outdated versions of iTunes??

And HOT dang it, I've recently been working on re-encoding all of my music into 192kbps AAC. I've done ~1000 songs, now I'll have to start all over. However, if it is really true, then I'll finally be able to put all of my music on the iPod without purchasing the 60giger!!!

I cannot wait to see tommorrow's spectacular event!!!!!

there won't be a live feed, would there?

 

[Rantipole]

The thing about this AAC+ (or any codec with SBR) is that it adds in sounds that weren't there in the first place (it actually synthesises the high frequencies). It's very good for low bit-rates, but it doesn't work quite so well for high bitrate stuff.

It is kick ass for low bandwidth applications (or something with a lack of storage space).

Based on what I read on that one web-site, it did sound like really only the low bit-rate sound quality is what gets improved. But, my question is, what is "low bit-rate"? 64? 128? At what point is AAC+ no different, or even worse, than regular AAC?

And, while I'm at it, is there ever going to be a VBR AAC?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Looks like this rumor was false

Looks to me like no aacPlus support just yet. I'd guess that it'll come - eventually (probably as part of iTunes 5 - released with iLife '05).

 

[fpnc]

I think the earliest we'll see HE-AAC (accPlus) and H.264 (next generation MPEG4 codec) is with Tiger. Make that spring or early summer 2005. Any sooner and I'd be very surprised but very pleased.

 

[Yvan256]

Wishful thinking...new iTunes will include a way to compress your old library to the new level...

It's already there. It's called "select all -> convert to AAC".

Just change your "importing" parameters in "preferences".

 

[wrldwzrd89]

It's already there. It's called "select all -> convert to AAC".

Just change your "importing" parameters in "preferences".

The only problem with that is that iTunes doesn't remove all the old songs when you convert - so you'll have two copies of all your music, which you probably don't want. Unfortunately, as of right now there's no easy way around this other than manually deleting the duplicates.

 

[MacSlut]

I don't think I would do that even if they offered it. Converting songs from one lossy codec to another is NEVER a good thing to do.

Not to throw in a Metoo, but this is really an important point and should be emphasized. NEVER re-encode from lossy to lossy even if you're going to a better codec or better bitrate. Always go back to the lossless source.

The only reason to go from lossy to lossy is when there is no lossless source available and you absolutely need it in another format. Coverting a WMA to AAC would make sense if there was no other source available and you wanted it to play on an iPod.

Converting from MP3 to AAC would not make sense.
Converting from AAC to AAC+ would not make sense.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Check out this AppleInsider article

You want some insight as to why Apple didn't unveil AAC+ support just yet? Look here.

 

[jrv3034]

You want some insight as to why Apple didn't unveil AAC+ support just yet? Look here.

Interesting article... And a good point. Don't release AAC+ now, because if you do, the 60GB iPod Photo loses some of it's appeal.

 

[aswitcher]

Interesting article... And a good point. Don't release AAC+ now, because if you do, the 60GB iPod Photo loses some of it's appeal.

Its an interesting theory but I dont see it being the real reason - although my reasoning doesn't necessarily clash with the authors.

I think Apple would hold off on the AAC+ until their rumoured tiny (128/256/512?) flash based mini mini iStick comes out, and then they will use AAC+ as the lever to excuse Steve's rants about only having dozen songs on a device.

 

[Yvan256]

Try http://www.coverkingdom.net/

They have a freaking HUGE library of covers both back, front, and in many cases inside. Most of my collection has all three at 600 x 600

I've seen that website. However, the people who send the scans are so random, the quality is random too.

I'd rather still scan the covers myself just as I like to rip the CD myself rather than rely on "free sources". Heck, the last album I downloaded even had random bitrates and ID3 infos in it, like the "album" was created from different sources. And I'd rather use AAC than MP3 anyway.

Today is 2004-10-29, and there doesn't seem to be a "AAC+" in iTunes 4.7, which means my iPod is still stuck at "10GB" instead of "26.6GB".

 

[Yvan256]

The only problem with that is that iTunes doesn't remove all the old songs when you convert - so you'll have two copies of all your music, which you probably don't want. Unfortunately, as of right now there's no easy way around this other than manually deleting the duplicates.

Two very easy ways to do this:

1. when you "select all, convert to AAC", don't deselect your tunes just yet. Once they've all been converted, just delete the selected tunes (which should still be your first selection, high-bitrates tracks)

2. after the tracks have been converted, add "bitrate" to your listing, sort by it, then you can easily select the high bitrates ones and delete them.

Both methods can be done in under 10 seconds.

 

[Yvan256]

Not to throw in a Metoo, but this is really an important point and should be emphasized. NEVER re-encode from lossy to lossy even if you're going to a better codec or better bitrate. Always go back to the lossless source.

The only reason to go from lossy to lossy is when there is no lossless source available and you absolutely need it in another format. Coverting a WMA to AAC would make sense if there was no other source available and you wanted it to play on an iPod.

Converting from MP3 to AAC would not make sense.
Converting from AAC to AAC+ would not make sense.

Well, it depends. I've gone from MP3 to AAC a lot of times. However, it was from MP3 160-320 to AAC 128 (mostly MP3 192-256). If it's MP3 128, then I don't convert it and use the MP3. Going from AAC to AAC+ would also make sense, if you go from say AAC 128 to AAC+ 48.

Also, going from lossy to lossy makes sense if you're too lazy to re-rip all your CDs. My recommendation (as someone who's gone through MP3->VQF->MP3 VBR->AAC) is to rip all your collection to Apple lossless, correct all the info from CDDB, add your artwork, grouping parameters, then burn to DVD-Rs. Next time you want to switch to another format (that iTunes/iTunes-compatible program supports) you only need to take a few DVD-Rs out instead of dozens of CDs.

Actually, if your goal is simply to lower the filesize, go ahead but be prepared to take a quality loss. I did personnal tests, and I can barely hear the difference between 32KHz and 44KHz (and I got rather nice beyerdynamic headpones on my PC, mind you), so imagine how low I can go on bitrates.

I know I can't hear the difference between AAC 32KHz/48kbits and AAC 44KHz/128kbits in my car (stock car sound system, Nissan Altima 1997. No idea how good it is to an audiophile).

I'm always tempted to laugh at people who say 256kbps MP3 sounds like ****, then again I don't have their audio equipment nor their ears.

As you said, however, people should always compress from the original/lossless to the target format. But since it's about audio and personnal hearing, your mileage may vary.

 

[Badger]

I've seen that website. However, the people who send the scans are so random, the quality is random too.

I'd rather still scan the covers myself just as I like to rip the CD myself rather than rely on "free sources".

I scanned most of mine but when I couldn't be bothered I used Walmart and Buy.com, their scans are 500x500 and usually decent quality. Here's a comparison:

Achtung Baby @ Buy.com
Achtung Baby @ coverkingdom

 

[1rottenapple]

So when the plus version comes out (which would be soo cool) ,do we just download updates on itunes, ipod, and quicktime (like we always do every month or two) or do we actually have to buy a new software version?