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.
Apple Releases iTunes 9.1 to Support iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally, I think the "Convert to 128k" feature is more meaningful on the iPad that is about to the released.
It's the fact that you can actually do and save your work on the iPad with iWork and similar Apps will make storage capacity more important versus a regular iPod/iPhone. Unfortunately, 64GB is as far as it goes on the iPad now and solid storage space is currently still fairly expensive.
For those who purchased the 16GB iPads, it will mean a lot to them as they try to cram their iPad Apps and music on limited amount of storage space. Trust me, that App library will grow unconsciously similar to when the iPhone first came out... Oh...and I did had to go back and delete those garbage Apps I downloaded when I first got my iPhone.
It's the fact that you can actually do and save your work on the iPad with iWork and similar Apps will make storage capacity more important versus a regular iPod/iPhone. Unfortunately, 64GB is as far as it goes on the iPad now and solid storage space is currently still fairly expensive.
For those who purchased the 16GB iPads, it will mean a lot to them as they try to cram their iPad Apps and music on limited amount of storage space. Trust me, that App library will grow unconsciously similar to when the iPhone first came out... Oh...and I did had to go back and delete those garbage Apps I downloaded when I first got my iPhone.
You can always try this... http://dougscripts.com/itunes/scripts/ss.php?sp=losslessaccworkflow
I works well for me (albeit slowly.) I don't know if it will work in 9.1, but it's just a thought.
HTH
Okay so it finally finished.
In my music library with many varying bitrates, I have 1,376 songs totaling 8.13 gigs.
After conversion it's showing I have 2.21gbs of audio on my iPhone, so that's quite a good space saver. I have poor hearing anyways, so I may not even really be able to notice a difference except maybe when I'm listening to stuff in my car. I could literally triple or quadruple the amount of music in my library and it'd all fit on my phone.
If I can't notice a difference then this will be a very good feature for me. This is one reason I've been contemplating for awhile to either purchase a 3Gs with larger storage or just get an iPod Touch 64gb and separate it all from my phone.
In my music library with many varying bitrates, I have 1,376 songs totaling 8.13 gigs.
After conversion it's showing I have 2.21gbs of audio on my iPhone, so that's quite a good space saver. I have poor hearing anyways, so I may not even really be able to notice a difference except maybe when I'm listening to stuff in my car. I could literally triple or quadruple the amount of music in my library and it'd all fit on my phone.
If I can't notice a difference then this will be a very good feature for me. This is one reason I've been contemplating for awhile to either purchase a 3Gs with larger storage or just get an iPod Touch 64gb and separate it all from my phone.
Aperture now syncs with Apple TV, iPhone and iPods in the same way that iPhoto does. Now you can have projects, faces and Albums within a certain date range (before you only got to choose all or selected projects!)
That's awesome. Makes me feel less worried about getting a 32GB instead of a 64GB iPad. I was planning on putting about 10GB worth of music on, so if I could cut it down to at least 5 that would be awesome.
you can't read iBooks on anything other than an iPad? No Mac or iPhone/iPod capability? That's very limiting and actually quite ridiculous, given the Kindle Apps for these devices.
So let me get this straight...
You have 8 GB of music on your entire computer, yet this feature circa 2001 will help you decide between a 32 GB iPhone or a 64 GB iPod Touch?
Right...
It isn't a myth per se, but there is a lot more to it than just "lossy -> lossy = terribad".
There is how the two algorithms compress the information. AAC -> AAC is less likely to introduce artifacts you can hear than going between two formats that use entirely different models for describing the audio. In most cases, going between two copies of the same format to shrink it is usually the better idea, as the 320kbps version already threw away information that the 128kbps version won't be able to store anyways.
The target bitrate of the new file also plays a role. Let's assume MP3 and AAC use a similar model to describe the audio, but AAC can describe a waveform of X% quality in fewer bits. I can save space by going from MP3 to AAC while keeping quality roughly the same. If two formats use drastically different models, then this concept is pretty much thrown out the window.
Going from 128kbps to 320kbps gets you nothing (duh), and pushing it down to too low a bitrate will make any minor artifacts introduced by going from MP3 to AAC a minor problem compared to the over-compression.
It might be interesting to see how much SNR is lost when going from MP3 to AAC vs MP3 to MP3 and AAC to AAC. It probably isn't as much as people think, but a lot of people also tend to have fairly sensitive ears. There are those who can tell the difference up to about 256kbps or so. And a handful who can hear the difference up to 320kbps in blind tests.
you can't read iBooks on anything other than an iPad? No Mac or iPhone/iPod capability? That's very limiting and actually quite ridiculous, given the Kindle Apps for these devices.
Perhaps. However, those Kindle apps didn't show up on day 1 for the Kindle. At first only the Kindle was the reader and then later came the apps. Why would that not be the same on the iPad? Make work it very smoothly and then port it. As oppose to port it and then try to make it work very smoothly.
For epub books without DRM you will be able to read them. Just with another reader besides iBooks (or some port of iBooks). The reason why iTunes getting ability to manage files for these is because folks are already reading ePub books with other devices/programs. The Books+DRM is the only thing required to use iBooks to read them.
File it under things to wonder about. I just did my first sync to my iPod Touch after updating iTunes today and iTunes felt the need to delete and then recopy 281 songs to my iPod Touch. Since I changed no settings nothing should have been added or deleted and FWIW I have 1200 songs on that iPod so why only recopy 281... why not all 1200?
Well im not reading through 9 pages of information but is the convert bitrate optional? because im not doing lossy to lossy, that's ridiculous.
In my experience, iTunes tends to recopy songs as soon as the smallest amount of metadata about them has been changed...
Yes
No...I have around 8gb of music in my iTunes library. I have probably 200gb of music in total on my computer. I never said it was a complete decision maker for me, I said it'd HELP me decide on what I wanted to do.
If I can compress down my library and be able to fit an enormous amount more on my iPhone then yes, that's a good thing. I do not have good hearing and so far I can't hardly tell a different in the 128kb versus 320kb except the fact that one uses more space.
And this is a new feature to me, I've never owned an iPod Shuffle. I knew you could convert a songs bitrate and such down but I don't know enough about it so I leave it alone.
Contrary to popular belief, Amazon was the first big player to push eBooks. And let's be honest, the iPad got a big push to actually being realized because of the eBook success. Apple has had time to see how effective the Kindle Apps have been. Apple is such a piss-poor company when it comes to actually INVENTING things. They are masters at making existing technologies EASIER to use.
I waited until the Kindle Apps to invest in those books, I'm going to do the same with Apple. Why would I want something tied to just one device? Ridiculous this day and age.
That really doesn't answer the "need" aspect though. Rephrased: why does someone need to carry around their entire music collection on a portable device?
Once the collection reaches the double digit GB range, is it really that long between sync that will listen to more than 25% of that music ?
"Because I can/could" will be a response from some I know. However, just wondering, at normal audio sampling recordings, what folks do with huge portfolios other than just carry it around.