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.
iTunes 2.0 available...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: DO NOT INSTALL THIS ON OS X
I'm not sure where you get this.. from hundreds of posts on half a dozen sites, I have seen about 5 people reporting problems. Out of the thousands of people who have doubtless installed this, I don't think that qualifies as "MANY". I suppose the point is moot, though, since Apple has indeed yanked the installer.
It's important people know that there have been problems, but I think the odds of any one person having problems is not much greater than "random"
I'm not sure where you get this.. from hundreds of posts on half a dozen sites, I have seen about 5 people reporting problems. Out of the thousands of people who have doubtless installed this, I don't think that qualifies as "MANY". I suppose the point is moot, though, since Apple has indeed yanked the installer.
It's important people know that there have been problems, but I think the odds of any one person having problems is not much greater than "random"
lost partition.
Wow.. i thought I totally screwed somethign up... I have 3 partitions on my iMac.. one with 8Gig, OS X.I, and OS 9.21.. second one with all my MP3's and video files.. 15Gig. and the last 4Gig with another copy of OS 9.2.1..
I lost the third partition.. I was in OS X when I did the install, then tried to load Classic.. it did not come up and I looked at my Partitiion and it showed completely empty.. 0 files, and no space taken. up.. I tried to recover the files and was unsuccessful...
I dont' know if Apple will be able to do anything to fix my partition, but I sure hope the can prevent this on other computers..
I installed it on my laptop and had no problems.. good thing because I would have been pissed..
I'm not upset really about my iMac,.. there was nothing important that I lost.. .it was just a backup system..
Wow.. i thought I totally screwed somethign up... I have 3 partitions on my iMac.. one with 8Gig, OS X.I, and OS 9.21.. second one with all my MP3's and video files.. 15Gig. and the last 4Gig with another copy of OS 9.2.1..
I lost the third partition.. I was in OS X when I did the install, then tried to load Classic.. it did not come up and I looked at my Partitiion and it showed completely empty.. 0 files, and no space taken. up.. I tried to recover the files and was unsuccessful...
I dont' know if Apple will be able to do anything to fix my partition, but I sure hope the can prevent this on other computers..
I installed it on my laptop and had no problems.. good thing because I would have been pissed..
I'm not upset really about my iMac,.. there was nothing important that I lost.. .it was just a backup system..
Here is the word...
From apple's site...
iTunes Add Topic | Subscribe | Bookmark
Apple has identified an installer issue with iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X that affects a limited number of systems running Mac OS X with multiple volumes(drives or partitions) mounted. For those systems, running the iTunes 2.0 installer can result in loss of user data. While this error is highly unlikely to affect most users, Apple strongly advises that anyone who has downloaded the 2.0 version of iTunes for Mac OS X, as well as anyone who has a beta version of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X, immediately remove the iTunes.pkg installer file from their system. A new version that corrects this issue, iTunes 2.0.1 for Mac OS X, will be available for downloading at http://www.apple.com/itunes/download. Users who have already installed iTunes 2.0 without incident do not need to reinstall iTunes 2.0.1, but they should still immediately remove the 2.0 installer file from their system. This issue does not affect users of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS 9.
http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@111.BxbFao1fkRh^0@.eeac121
From apple's site...
iTunes Add Topic | Subscribe | Bookmark
Apple has identified an installer issue with iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X that affects a limited number of systems running Mac OS X with multiple volumes(drives or partitions) mounted. For those systems, running the iTunes 2.0 installer can result in loss of user data. While this error is highly unlikely to affect most users, Apple strongly advises that anyone who has downloaded the 2.0 version of iTunes for Mac OS X, as well as anyone who has a beta version of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X, immediately remove the iTunes.pkg installer file from their system. A new version that corrects this issue, iTunes 2.0.1 for Mac OS X, will be available for downloading at http://www.apple.com/itunes/download. Users who have already installed iTunes 2.0 without incident do not need to reinstall iTunes 2.0.1, but they should still immediately remove the 2.0 installer file from their system. This issue does not affect users of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS 9.
http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@111.BxbFao1fkRh^0@.eeac121
From Apple itunes site:
An important note for those who have downloaded
iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X:
Apple has identified an installer issue with iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X that affects a limited number of systems running Mac OS X with multiple volumes (drives or partitions) mounted. For those systems, running the iTunes 2.0 installer can result in loss of user data. While this error is highly unlikely to affect most users, Apple strongly advises that anyone who has downloaded the 2.0 version of iTunes for Mac OS X, as well as anyone who has a beta version of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X, immediately remove the iTunes.pkg installer file from their system. A new version that corrects this issue, iTunes 2.0.1 for Mac OS X, is now available from this page. Users who have already installed iTunes 2.0 without incident do not need to reinstall iTunes 2.0.1, but they should still immediately remove the 2.0 installer file from their system. This issue does not affect users of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS 9.
--Just installed with no problems...
An important note for those who have downloaded
iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X:
Apple has identified an installer issue with iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X that affects a limited number of systems running Mac OS X with multiple volumes (drives or partitions) mounted. For those systems, running the iTunes 2.0 installer can result in loss of user data. While this error is highly unlikely to affect most users, Apple strongly advises that anyone who has downloaded the 2.0 version of iTunes for Mac OS X, as well as anyone who has a beta version of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X, immediately remove the iTunes.pkg installer file from their system. A new version that corrects this issue, iTunes 2.0.1 for Mac OS X, is now available from this page. Users who have already installed iTunes 2.0 without incident do not need to reinstall iTunes 2.0.1, but they should still immediately remove the 2.0 installer file from their system. This issue does not affect users of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS 9.
--Just installed with no problems...
Re: what the hell
That is what I was meaning about the EQ, the algorithms are too cheap, they are going to distort the sound. They should be used just a bit, no more than the 10% of the total amplitude.
It is not that I'm looking for a ProTools EQ, but this EQ is worst than the one used in Sound Edit 16. This EQ would do the job using the Mac internal speaker. But the point is that any other sound system in any bodys house has better quality than the one used by iTunes 2. And that is the reference people have, and people with experience or not will tell the difference.
Now, it is not only the EQ, now you have to add 2 elements more:
1. The low end audio out put of the computer.
2. The compressed MP3 files.
The Mac D/A audio outputs where design to do the job, ok, they gives you some distortion, only apreciable if you plug a real audio card to your computer and listen to the same music. Now, if you add a cheap EQ, you will finally tell there is something wrong because both cheap technologies are gonna add each other. An then you are using MP3 files, that sounds good (depend of the compression) but they are compressed, and at the end it means less harmonics that are not longer there. If you add thouse 3 factors the result is a crapy one. May be my sister won't tell at the beganing but later on she will. If you used the EQ, the Mac A/D, and a 128k MP3 file yopu will probably are gonna end having a tv sound coming out your Mac.
On the other hand, why is the sense of the piano EQ? I felt like I was 80 years old and not able to listen to a piano and that is why I had that EQ option (full mid range all the way up). The presets are so unrealistic. The presets should be made depending of the quality of your room: large room full of carpet, living room mostly wood, small teenage room (full of books, clothes every where), office ambient (back ground noise, papers, reflective materials), DJ space (big room with lots of acustics), etc.
The other features are just fine, the best thing to do is let the songs as they are, that is what the musicians wanted to express.
That is what I was meaning about the EQ, the algorithms are too cheap, they are going to distort the sound. They should be used just a bit, no more than the 10% of the total amplitude.
It is not that I'm looking for a ProTools EQ, but this EQ is worst than the one used in Sound Edit 16. This EQ would do the job using the Mac internal speaker. But the point is that any other sound system in any bodys house has better quality than the one used by iTunes 2. And that is the reference people have, and people with experience or not will tell the difference.
Now, it is not only the EQ, now you have to add 2 elements more:
1. The low end audio out put of the computer.
2. The compressed MP3 files.
The Mac D/A audio outputs where design to do the job, ok, they gives you some distortion, only apreciable if you plug a real audio card to your computer and listen to the same music. Now, if you add a cheap EQ, you will finally tell there is something wrong because both cheap technologies are gonna add each other. An then you are using MP3 files, that sounds good (depend of the compression) but they are compressed, and at the end it means less harmonics that are not longer there. If you add thouse 3 factors the result is a crapy one. May be my sister won't tell at the beganing but later on she will. If you used the EQ, the Mac A/D, and a 128k MP3 file yopu will probably are gonna end having a tv sound coming out your Mac.
On the other hand, why is the sense of the piano EQ? I felt like I was 80 years old and not able to listen to a piano and that is why I had that EQ option (full mid range all the way up). The presets are so unrealistic. The presets should be made depending of the quality of your room: large room full of carpet, living room mostly wood, small teenage room (full of books, clothes every where), office ambient (back ground noise, papers, reflective materials), DJ space (big room with lots of acustics), etc.
The other features are just fine, the best thing to do is let the songs as they are, that is what the musicians wanted to express.
IndyGopher - More than a "few" users...
This is a SERIOUS issue and has happened to many people with partitioned hard drives. Probably hundreds.
The problem was caused by a bug in the installer code that attempts to delete the existing iTunes installation.
Unfortunately, there was a mistake in the code that can potentially become confused about the location of the files it is supposed to remove and, instead, erase an entire hard drive partition.
This is a SERIOUS issue and has happened to many people with partitioned hard drives. Probably hundreds.
The problem was caused by a bug in the installer code that attempts to delete the existing iTunes installation.
Unfortunately, there was a mistake in the code that can potentially become confused about the location of the files it is supposed to remove and, instead, erase an entire hard drive partition.
Importing setings
Hey folks - a comple of question.
I haven't really used iTunes all tha much and am about to transfer my whole CD library to iTunes. I have noticed that there is media pre-installed on my computer by apple and is all MP3 imported at a sample rate of 160 kbps. Also, I know that Apple gets their 1000 songs in your pocket based on this MP3 encoding at a 160 kbps sample rate.
I'm not too worried about storage space - to a degree. I want to eventually use my computer through a component stereo system and I am looking for advice as to what format (MP3, AIFF, WAV) and what sample rate are optimal for very good sound, and realistic sorage space required.
Any insight you guys have into this is greatly appreciated. I don't yet have the whole system in place yet, so I can't run tests yet, but I'd like to get started with the importing, and don't want to be dissatisfied ans have to redo all the importing.
Also, any reccomendations regarding tuners, amps, etc that interface nicely with a G4 are also appreciated.
Thanks.
Hey folks - a comple of question.
I haven't really used iTunes all tha much and am about to transfer my whole CD library to iTunes. I have noticed that there is media pre-installed on my computer by apple and is all MP3 imported at a sample rate of 160 kbps. Also, I know that Apple gets their 1000 songs in your pocket based on this MP3 encoding at a 160 kbps sample rate.
I'm not too worried about storage space - to a degree. I want to eventually use my computer through a component stereo system and I am looking for advice as to what format (MP3, AIFF, WAV) and what sample rate are optimal for very good sound, and realistic sorage space required.
Any insight you guys have into this is greatly appreciated. I don't yet have the whole system in place yet, so I can't run tests yet, but I'd like to get started with the importing, and don't want to be dissatisfied ans have to redo all the importing.
Also, any reccomendations regarding tuners, amps, etc that interface nicely with a G4 are also appreciated.
Thanks.
MP3, AIFF & WAV
You say you're not worried about space, but understand that AIFF is an uncompressed format. Essentially, this means that most albums will take about 600 - 650 MB of disk space.
You're best opting for MP3 at the highest bit rate offered via iTunes, which is 192kbps. That will store most albums in about 60MB of space.
You say you're not worried about space, but understand that AIFF is an uncompressed format. Essentially, this means that most albums will take about 600 - 650 MB of disk space.
You're best opting for MP3 at the highest bit rate offered via iTunes, which is 192kbps. That will store most albums in about 60MB of space.
How about Wav?
How do WAV files fit into this?
And yes, AIFF files definately take up too much space.
For all of you music affecionados out there - can you here the difference between a CD and the same some as an MP3 at 192 kbps? Also, I just noticed that in the custom setings in iTunes, you can encode all the way up to 320 kbps. At what sample rate can you start to notice the degredation in sound? Given a high quality system rather than crappy computer speakers.
Finally, are MP3 files like jpg in that over time with multiple transfers, open and closes, their quality degrades further? Does opening and closing the files, or simply listening to them eventually degrade the quality, or is it a matter of multiple opens and saves that will eventually degrade the quality?
Thanks.
[Edited by Classic on 11-04-2001 at 01:41 PM]
How do WAV files fit into this?
And yes, AIFF files definately take up too much space.
For all of you music affecionados out there - can you here the difference between a CD and the same some as an MP3 at 192 kbps? Also, I just noticed that in the custom setings in iTunes, you can encode all the way up to 320 kbps. At what sample rate can you start to notice the degredation in sound? Given a high quality system rather than crappy computer speakers.
Finally, are MP3 files like jpg in that over time with multiple transfers, open and closes, their quality degrades further? Does opening and closing the files, or simply listening to them eventually degrade the quality, or is it a matter of multiple opens and saves that will eventually degrade the quality?
Thanks.
[Edited by Classic on 11-04-2001 at 01:41 PM]
A word about WAV, AIFF, and MP3
Classic-
So, it turns out that you can hear the difference between even a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD...kind of. See, if you're listening to a song you've encoded into MP3, by itself, on your Mac either through a very good set of speakers, or through your home stereo, chances are you won't hear a difference. Now, do an A/B test, where you switch between the two formats...CD and MP3, and you will hear a difference. MP3 relies on sound masking, where it "drops" sound information that is masked by other sounds, and creates a sort of digital garble that resembles the original sound, but ISN'T the original sound. This works like pointillism...if you listen really closely, you wouldn't recognize what you hear. But, MP3 does a fairly good job of "tricking" you into thinking that it is indeed the original. Granted, there's a whole lot more that goes into the format, but that's the basic gist.
So, bitrates. You mentioned earlier about 160 kbps -- see, I personally think it all comes down to the encoding engine, and iTunes does a very good job of encoding. Some earlier apps (mostly on the Windows side of the tracks), during the infancy of MP3, did a very BAD job of encoding. However, the encoding algorithm has been refined, and iTunes does a very nice job @ 160 kbps. What I would recommend, though, is using 192 kbps VBR, which is Varible Bit Rate. What this does is basically allocate more data to describe the sound, when it's needed. In this way, the file still takes up about the same amount of space, but areas requiring finer detailing receive more attention.
You could always set iTunes to encode MP3 all the way up to 320 kbps, but this is downright overkill. The files are huge, and at that point, you'd probably be better off just using AIFF. Your best bet is 192 kbps, using VBR. You also have the option of turning "joint stereo" off, but this doesn't necessarily mean better quality files. Joint stereo works in the same way as FM stereo, so that both channels ride piggyback on the same carrier, so to speak. When they are decoded, they are re-separated, and played as two channels, not one. This process always leaves a little bit of both channels in each other, resulting in the inability to get "perfect" stereo separation, but it's at such a magnatude where there's more crosstalk in the amp in your powered speakers, or even your receiver for that matter.
MP3 is a comprimise, but not a horrible one. Like I said, you would without a doubt still hear minute differences between the original source and the MP3, but these differences do not translate into "worse quality." It simply means that the sound has changed.
Classic-
So, it turns out that you can hear the difference between even a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD...kind of. See, if you're listening to a song you've encoded into MP3, by itself, on your Mac either through a very good set of speakers, or through your home stereo, chances are you won't hear a difference. Now, do an A/B test, where you switch between the two formats...CD and MP3, and you will hear a difference. MP3 relies on sound masking, where it "drops" sound information that is masked by other sounds, and creates a sort of digital garble that resembles the original sound, but ISN'T the original sound. This works like pointillism...if you listen really closely, you wouldn't recognize what you hear. But, MP3 does a fairly good job of "tricking" you into thinking that it is indeed the original. Granted, there's a whole lot more that goes into the format, but that's the basic gist.
So, bitrates. You mentioned earlier about 160 kbps -- see, I personally think it all comes down to the encoding engine, and iTunes does a very good job of encoding. Some earlier apps (mostly on the Windows side of the tracks), during the infancy of MP3, did a very BAD job of encoding. However, the encoding algorithm has been refined, and iTunes does a very nice job @ 160 kbps. What I would recommend, though, is using 192 kbps VBR, which is Varible Bit Rate. What this does is basically allocate more data to describe the sound, when it's needed. In this way, the file still takes up about the same amount of space, but areas requiring finer detailing receive more attention.
You could always set iTunes to encode MP3 all the way up to 320 kbps, but this is downright overkill. The files are huge, and at that point, you'd probably be better off just using AIFF. Your best bet is 192 kbps, using VBR. You also have the option of turning "joint stereo" off, but this doesn't necessarily mean better quality files. Joint stereo works in the same way as FM stereo, so that both channels ride piggyback on the same carrier, so to speak. When they are decoded, they are re-separated, and played as two channels, not one. This process always leaves a little bit of both channels in each other, resulting in the inability to get "perfect" stereo separation, but it's at such a magnatude where there's more crosstalk in the amp in your powered speakers, or even your receiver for that matter.
MP3 is a comprimise, but not a horrible one. Like I said, you would without a doubt still hear minute differences between the original source and the MP3, but these differences do not translate into "worse quality." It simply means that the sound has changed.
Forgot one, Classic
Oh yeah, your real question - WAV.
It's a Windows standard, along the same lines as SND or AIFF. Quicktime plays it, but it's not much of a standard over here. More like those extra forks you save when you've got company that just isn't worth the good silverware. It's there if you need it, but don't hold your breath. It's basically a raw sound format, and you'd be just as fine using AIFF.
Oh yeah, your real question - WAV.
It's a Windows standard, along the same lines as SND or AIFF. Quicktime plays it, but it's not much of a standard over here. More like those extra forks you save when you've got company that just isn't worth the good silverware. It's there if you need it, but don't hold your breath. It's basically a raw sound format, and you'd be just as fine using AIFF.
Re: Importing setings
The best thing you can do is to use and audio out put other than the one that comes with your mac. I'm using an Audio Media 3 ($500 with Pro Tools Tool Box), may be you can find something cheaper. The quality of the sound is hudge, basicly the difference between a second generation VHS to a DVD. After that, just the speakers.
Use your music in MP3, it is not worth it to have everything in Aiff or Wav, un less you are a DJ and you are going to play live with a big PA system, in that scenario the MP3s use to sound week compared it with the presence of a original recorded CD or vinil.
If you buy an audio card you may be thinking in about $300 or you can use a video/audio combo interface, they usually comes with good audio i/o. The out put of the Miro DC 30 is good. I do not know about USB audio i/o.
Go to: http://www.synthetic-ap.com/tips/firewireconverters.html
and look for the "Dazzle Hollywood DV-Bridge".
The best thing you can do is to use and audio out put other than the one that comes with your mac. I'm using an Audio Media 3 ($500 with Pro Tools Tool Box), may be you can find something cheaper. The quality of the sound is hudge, basicly the difference between a second generation VHS to a DVD. After that, just the speakers.
Use your music in MP3, it is not worth it to have everything in Aiff or Wav, un less you are a DJ and you are going to play live with a big PA system, in that scenario the MP3s use to sound week compared it with the presence of a original recorded CD or vinil.
If you buy an audio card you may be thinking in about $300 or you can use a video/audio combo interface, they usually comes with good audio i/o. The out put of the Miro DC 30 is good. I do not know about USB audio i/o.
Go to: http://www.synthetic-ap.com/tips/firewireconverters.html
and look for the "Dazzle Hollywood DV-Bridge".
Good Point, TSElliot...
Nice point about the VBR availability in the custom settings of iTunes.
For people who are looking for this, go through the following menus in iTunes (OS X):
1) Select iTunes
references menus
2) Select the "Importing" tab
3) Select "Custom" from the "Configuration" drop-down menu
A setting of 192kbps with VBR should give you very good quality.
Interestingly, you'll find that the quality difference is mostly noticable on tracks that contain some kind of distortion filter (dj mixed dance music) or digital instruments with lots of overtones (electronic drums).
Nice point about the VBR availability in the custom settings of iTunes.
For people who are looking for this, go through the following menus in iTunes (OS X):
1) Select iTunes
references menus2) Select the "Importing" tab
3) Select "Custom" from the "Configuration" drop-down menu
A setting of 192kbps with VBR should give you very good quality.
Interestingly, you'll find that the quality difference is mostly noticable on tracks that contain some kind of distortion filter (dj mixed dance music) or digital instruments with lots of overtones (electronic drums).
Thanks, oldmac
In all of my ranting and raving about mechanics, I completely forgot to say HOW to accomplish this stuff! Duh! Thanks for rebounding after I dropped the ball on that one!
In all of my ranting and raving about mechanics, I completely forgot to say HOW to accomplish this stuff! Duh! Thanks for rebounding after I dropped the ball on that one!
Re: A word about WAV, AIFF, and MP3
Thanks, everybody, for the input - keep it coming. I find the knowledge people in forums have to be invaluable. A much better use of them rather than arguing about who's more educated, etc...
Anyway, about the joint stereo setting.
If an MP3 is encoded with joint stereo rather than normal does it ever run the risk of not being able to be decoded properly? For example if I don't use iTunes to playback an MP3 with joint stereo encoding, will it play properly?
Does normal stereo mode signifcantly increase the file size?
Thanks.
Thanks, everybody, for the input - keep it coming. I find the knowledge people in forums have to be invaluable. A much better use of them rather than arguing about who's more educated, etc...
Anyway, about the joint stereo setting.
If an MP3 is encoded with joint stereo rather than normal does it ever run the risk of not being able to be decoded properly? For example if I don't use iTunes to playback an MP3 with joint stereo encoding, will it play properly?
Does normal stereo mode signifcantly increase the file size?
Thanks.
I'm ok with iTunes 2 & 10.1!
Not that this is going to help out any of you who had problems with losing data and partitions after installing iTunes 2 for OS X, but I did as everyone else and ended up fine. I am running a 2 partition system on my TiBook 500, and installed iTunes 2 on both systems yesterday. I came to Macrumors this morning to see numerous posts regarding problems with iTunes and OS X. Everything seemed to be in working order with both of my systems after some investigating. So I went to Apple's site, did exactly what they said with deleting the installer file from OS X, and then runnning the new installer for iTunes 2.0.1. I'm still ok. Hope to see some similar posts up here from people with luck like mine!
Not that this is going to help out any of you who had problems with losing data and partitions after installing iTunes 2 for OS X, but I did as everyone else and ended up fine. I am running a 2 partition system on my TiBook 500, and installed iTunes 2 on both systems yesterday. I came to Macrumors this morning to see numerous posts regarding problems with iTunes and OS X. Everything seemed to be in working order with both of my systems after some investigating. So I went to Apple's site, did exactly what they said with deleting the installer file from OS X, and then runnning the new installer for iTunes 2.0.1. I'm still ok. Hope to see some similar posts up here from people with luck like mine!
Okay, Classic. You've got me stuck on this one...
Classic (and everyone else interested) -
So, I figured I should try a little experiment, just to see if a normal stereo (as opposed to a "joint stereo") MP3 will play in other players. Here's what I've been able to gather:
First and foremost, normal stereo mode DOES NOT seem to add to the file size. A 6-minute song encoded at 160 kbps VBR, highest VBR quality setting, with normal stereo mode enabled is 8 mb. The same song with joint stereo is....8 mb. Odd? I think so, too.
But, nonetheless, I took the normal stereo mode file and played it in a few different Mac players. Of course, it plays in iTunes, and Quicktime player (because iTunes playback is Quicktime-based). I also tried Audion 2, which played it wonderfully. Then, to add to the mix, I tried GrayAMP. Here's where things get interesting: GrayAMP comes with it's own MP3 decoder. This built-in decoder was UNABLE to play the file. This may very well be due to the VBR moreso than the normal stereo mode. I still have to putz around a bit more. However, when I enabled GrayAMP to use Quicktime playback, it played the file just fine. So, some food for thought.
Classic (and everyone else interested) -
So, I figured I should try a little experiment, just to see if a normal stereo (as opposed to a "joint stereo") MP3 will play in other players. Here's what I've been able to gather:
First and foremost, normal stereo mode DOES NOT seem to add to the file size. A 6-minute song encoded at 160 kbps VBR, highest VBR quality setting, with normal stereo mode enabled is 8 mb. The same song with joint stereo is....8 mb. Odd? I think so, too.
But, nonetheless, I took the normal stereo mode file and played it in a few different Mac players. Of course, it plays in iTunes, and Quicktime player (because iTunes playback is Quicktime-based). I also tried Audion 2, which played it wonderfully. Then, to add to the mix, I tried GrayAMP. Here's where things get interesting: GrayAMP comes with it's own MP3 decoder. This built-in decoder was UNABLE to play the file. This may very well be due to the VBR moreso than the normal stereo mode. I still have to putz around a bit more. However, when I enabled GrayAMP to use Quicktime playback, it played the file just fine. So, some food for thought.
iTunes Helper backgroun app?
What is this "iTunes Helper" application that iTunes 2 installs into the Log-in items section in system preferences? Does anyone know? What will happen if I remove it from the log-in list?
I don't recall such a beast under iTunes 1.0.. perhaps it has something to do with iPod syncing??
What is this "iTunes Helper" application that iTunes 2 installs into the Log-in items section in system preferences? Does anyone know? What will happen if I remove it from the log-in list?
I don't recall such a beast under iTunes 1.0.. perhaps it has something to do with iPod syncing??
Problems with the Visuals
I guess some one got a lot of work this week end at Apple.
In iTunes 2 the visuals are a bit faster than the previous version. What I can tell is that is eating my video ram now. It is skeeping frames and there is not way to slow it down. I liked the original speed better, now I can not "understand" the graphics, they are not that "tripy" now.
Looks like they jumped from iPot speed to iAcids speed.
I guess some one got a lot of work this week end at Apple.
In iTunes 2 the visuals are a bit faster than the previous version. What I can tell is that is eating my video ram now. It is skeeping frames and there is not way to slow it down. I liked the original speed better, now I can not "understand" the graphics, they are not that "tripy" now.
Looks like they jumped from iPot speed to iAcids speed.
A note on VBR...
First off, take this with a grain of salt since my experience is encoding MPEG video and this may not translate exactly to audio. VBR generally decreases file sizes by targeting a lower standard throughout and aiming for the lower bit rate except when really neccessary to jump to the limit or max bit rate. In video (and so audio too I imagine) there is a lot of repetition and the repeat info is what's taken out. VBR in DVD's can look almost as good as CBR (constant bit rate) but notice I said almost. I am very curious as to how VBR audio works so if anyone has some real knowledge of it please share (especially if I'm wrong).
While we're talking DVD stuff, how about AC3 Dolby Digital support? My DVD workstation has iTunes on it too, and it sometimes plays the movie soundtracks I'm working on in .aiff but not the AC3's.
I know most people don't have Dolby Digital encoders but that stuff sounds amazing for the tiny amount of space it takes up.
First off, take this with a grain of salt since my experience is encoding MPEG video and this may not translate exactly to audio. VBR generally decreases file sizes by targeting a lower standard throughout and aiming for the lower bit rate except when really neccessary to jump to the limit or max bit rate. In video (and so audio too I imagine) there is a lot of repetition and the repeat info is what's taken out. VBR in DVD's can look almost as good as CBR (constant bit rate) but notice I said almost. I am very curious as to how VBR audio works so if anyone has some real knowledge of it please share (especially if I'm wrong).
While we're talking DVD stuff, how about AC3 Dolby Digital support? My DVD workstation has iTunes on it too, and it sometimes plays the movie soundtracks I'm working on in .aiff but not the AC3's.
I know most people don't have Dolby Digital encoders but that stuff sounds amazing for the tiny amount of space it takes up.
Regard SPG's VBR experience
SPG, what you mentioned is true regarding VBR, in that it attempts to maintain a smaller file size. However, this is kind of double-edged. While it may not beat out a constant-bit rate MP3, it can match the quality (usually) of a MP3 of the same bitrate, except with (hopefully) a smaller filesize. So, it's like getting, say, 192 kbps sound quality for the price of a 160 kbps file. In this way, it DOES work to your advantage in sound quality, because you can have a higher bite rate without the larger file size. Of course, if you have tons of storage space, by all means, encode at a high bit rate without VBR. But, for good quality on a budget, VBR can be a useful feature.
SPG, what you mentioned is true regarding VBR, in that it attempts to maintain a smaller file size. However, this is kind of double-edged. While it may not beat out a constant-bit rate MP3, it can match the quality (usually) of a MP3 of the same bitrate, except with (hopefully) a smaller filesize. So, it's like getting, say, 192 kbps sound quality for the price of a 160 kbps file. In this way, it DOES work to your advantage in sound quality, because you can have a higher bite rate without the larger file size. Of course, if you have tons of storage space, by all means, encode at a high bit rate without VBR. But, for good quality on a budget, VBR can be a useful feature.