Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
chabig said:
He's not encoding. He's importing as AIFF, which is the native CD format. Or...he could simply be dragging and dropping the audio files from the CD to his hard drive, which is the same thing, except iTunes isn't managing it.

Ok, then the question still stands. What software is he using to import? (I still believe one can use the term "encoding" even if it is at a very high bit rate as he said). Taking something from one form and putting it in another, even losslessly is still encoding.
 
Doh!! New iTunes, and no iPod Mini for me to try it out with!!!

Hope mini comes back from Service soon.
 
I Have blind tested...

craigiest said:
Have you had someone set up a blind test?

If you know beforehand which is which, that knowledge is bound to affect your perception. Think how much different orange juice tastes normally versus when you are barely awake and think you are about to take a glug from a glass of milk. Expectation alters perception.

When you say that you import cds at 1411kbps, is that as an aac? or are you using aiff? I'm no expert on compression, but I wouldn't trust that an encoder doesn't change anything just because you set it to the same bit-rate as a cd.

The 1411kbps is a direct copy no compression to an aiff file format.

On an encoded file you can hear a 'flatness' or 'no depth to the tone' and also listen to the lower frequencies as they are not well defined.

-mike
 
centauratlas said:
Ok, then the question still stands. What software is he using to import?

There are lots of programs that can copy data files from one medium to another. But on the Mac, I'd either use iTunes (choose AIFF as the encoder in Preferences) or the Finder (double-click the CD icon on your desktop, then drag the songs to the hard drive).

iTunes has the advantage of organizing your collection and being able to append ID3 tags to the songs.
 
Don't know if it's been said, but I'm not going to read 250 comments to see, particularly when this is the first time it's actually let me see comments at all, b/c there are too many mac fans for the server :)

Of course, it's an update, and the new features look so cool, I'm very happy. But there are three things I'm dissapointed with.

1. Network sharing. itunes 4.2 (is that right?) users can't see itunes 4.5 users libraries (they appear grey, so they're there, but can't be accessed), and itunes 4.5 users can't see 4.2 users libraries. All this is is a little ploy to make people get the updated version. But it's not the right way to do it. People should go, ohhh, look at all the cool features! I want! Instead, they go-oh, man, now my itunes is broken. I guess I have to download the next version to fix it. (and, nowhere is there any indication that that's how to fix it, the stuff just goes grey) And then, when they do that, they find that it's still broken, until OTHER people download 4.5, too.

2. Needs the new version of quicktime for full functionality, but it doesn't update that automatically, or give you a button to do it, or make any other effort to make it easy. So, you, what? go to apple's home page, and find that they are advertizing ibooks and stuff where they might have put a link to the new QT version, and you eventually find the link to quicktime. Then, you run into the same thing they've had there forever- everything is designed to make you think you need to pay 30 bucks for quicktime pro.

3. they insert links after every song, artist, album, etc. to the music store, in another shameless promo, and you have to turn it off in prefrences. Who is going to use it to buy music they already have? All it does is adds clutter. Maybe you would want the link to other stuff by the same artist, but I would imagine you would want that rarely enough compared to how often you use itunes for just listening to music, and itms is easy enough to use, there is no practical purpose that I can see, at all, except boosting itms sales, at the expense of the quality of itunes.

Fortunately, I'm sure that once I get to using it enough, I'll fall in love with the new version of itunes, and forget about all of this. It's just that I always wish apple was above clever little ways of pushing it's products.
 
Since the iPod Updater contains the following:

"iPod Update 2004-04-28 supports all models of iPod and iPod mini introduced before April 28, 2004."

Rather strange to state such a concrete date unless there is definately a new iPod hardware refresh coming later today or tommorow.
 
Sorry..

centauratlas said:
Ok, then the question still stands. What software is he using to import? (I still believe one can use the term "encoding" even if it is at a very high bit rate as he said). Taking something from one form and putting it in another, even losslessly is still encoding.

Itunes.

Go to the preferences - importing - choose AIFF Encoder

-mike
 
mainstreetmark said:
I have!

A decent stereo and a reasonably encoded MP3 vs the CD. The "subject" could tell there was a difference in sound, but could not identify which was better.

Perfect! So there's a difference, but it's difficult to label the change as a loss in quality if you can't tell which is which.

Very similar to when I've done "The Pepsi Challenge" with students. Most people can taste a difference. They seem to pick the one they like better, then label it as their favorite brand. When they find out it's the other brand, they often refuse to admit that the brand they are loyal to doesn't really taste the best to them. "I like Brand A best. Brand A = Pepsi. But I still like Coke better."

Preconceptions not only interfere with perceptions, but with logic too, it seems.
 
What would be sweet if it would print for DVD amray cases. Mosaic of library for dvd amray case would be sweet for when u back up onto dvd.
 
encro said:
Since the iPod Updater contains the following:

"iPod Update 2004-04-28 supports all models of iPod and iPod mini introduced before April 28, 2004."

Rather strange to state such a concrete date unless there is definately a new iPod hardware refresh coming later today or tommorow.

Yes DEFINATELY HAS TO BE ONE COMING. BECAUSE DATING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT EASIER FOR ANYONE AT ALL. OH YEAH AND LETS NOT ANNOUNCE THIS NEW IPOD REFRESH WHEN I HAVE THE MEDIA IN ON A CONFERENCE CALL. NO LETS THROW THIS OPPURTUNITY AWAY.

:D
 
DrGruv1 said:
I have a pair of Mackie HR624's and can DEFINITELY hear the difference, the aac songs are flat or have no depth (I will continue to purchase and have purchased over 100 tunes from the online store...) I import my cds at 1411kbps (exact cd copy) to a sep. 250gb western digital drive.

There is a difference and it does matter...

With hard drives SO cheap (250gb western for $150 on Ebay) it doesn't take much to get it going. As the storage medium becomes greater and cheaper I'll move my files to the next medium.

-mike

I agree. I'll admit I probably would not have noticed a difference in my previous stereo system but I can tell a difference between compressed (MP3/AAC,etc.) and original CD in my current Klipsch RF-7 setup. Like you, I do purchase music on-line from time to time but I also still buy CDs for some things. Also, when I ripped my CD collection a while back for use in my iPod, I ripped at 192kbs and wht seems to be good enough for "on the road" iPod use with portable headphones. When at home, I play "the real McCoy" on my stereo anyway :)
 
0 and A ai said:
Yes DEFINATELY HAS TO BE ONE COMING. BECAUSE DATING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT EASIER FOR ANYONE AT ALL. OH YEAH AND LETS NOT ANNOUNCE THIS NEW IPOD REFRESH WHEN I HAVE THE MEDIA IN ON A CONFERENCE CALL. NO LETS THROW THIS OPPURTUNITY AWAY.

:D


hmmm, i can't tell if you really do agree or are being sarcastic :)
 
jmerk said:
Porchland:
To my knowledge, Radiohead does not have their music for sale on the web ANYWHERE! Where on iTMS did you find this? I just did a search for Radiohead and came up with Christopher O'Riley's very cool piano renditions of Radiohead's music and a few other covers but, alas, no Radiohead themselves...

What are you talking about?

j

Totally random. I picked a band and a song off the top of my head. Didn't even notice Radiohead wasn't on iTMS, since I ripped all my Radiohead long, ling ago. Just a hypothetical CD and track.
 
Borg3of5 said:
From June through the end of the year, BETTER be a "knock-my-socks-off" year, because these infintessimal updates have become annoying. Although Apple and SJ really don't have a track record of announcing what's up and coming, I've come to expect the following this year:


Argh. Update already!

... and then you'll probably bitch and moan that your "top of the line" dual 3Ghz G5 is obsolete because apple released a 3.2Ghz G5 5 months after...

apple - damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
encro said:
rewind and go back a step :)

It's not because I'm 'obsessive-compulsive', it's because of knowledge in the recording industry (I am a musician/hobbyist-audioengineer). It has more to do with the fact that reference monitors present music purely as it is; not with the colorization that standard hi-fi speakers will present to you.

If you can't acknowledge that then me thinks you have been to too many loud concerts ;)

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. Sure, you can have great, engineer-level equipment, but some people also have better/worse ears/perception. You just seemed awfully certain that no one's ears would be so bad (or "normal") that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I guess I shouldn't have said "obsessive-compulsive" since it's actually pretty normal human behavior to assume that everyone else perceives the universe the same way you do. It's just annoying when audiophiles do it because they continue to evangelize that everyone would hear the difference and be willing to pay huge amounts of money for it when it's really not the case. I'm not denying that there may *be* an objective difference, I'm denying that everyone should care :D

But I suppose you weren't saying everyone should care, only that there is a difference and that people who claim there is no objective difference, as opposed to simply claiming that they don't hear it or don't care, are wrong.
 
WOW! I just used "party shuffle" (awful name) for the first time... Exactly what I've always wanted. kind of a temporary, laid back playlist, computer does all to little of the work for you, depending on ho much customization you want, you can choose your next song listening on random and not mess stuff up, and most of all, you can make this from your playlists, particularly smart playlists. I'm happy about this one. Also, apple lossless, although I wish they instead allowed plugins for other lossless formats. good stuff today, all around. Great day for apple, I'd say.

Will we hear next week how many copies have been downloaded? Hope so.
 
Rincewind42 said:
Actually, QT before 6.5.1 did cut off frequencies above 16Khz. This is not the case with 6.5.1, so you may want to check your listening test again.

sounds wonderful. do you have any hard facts about this?
 
Wow, iTunes 4.5 is great. I love the fact that their is now a free song every Tuesday. The music videos and trailers are cool too. iMixes seem like a pretty cool idea, though I haven't published min yet. I haven't tried out the Party Shuffle either, but it sounds cool.

I'm glad to hear Apple is still maintaining a 70% marketshare amid all the new music services. Way to go, Apple! ;) :D
 
I'm glad we've got an Apple Lossless codec now (hey, maybe they've actually read all of my emails requesting lossless audio!)... but what about OGG, FLAC, SHN? These codecs need to be supported (especially the open-source ones).
 
Doesn't take $50,000 to realize MP3s are poop

Nemesis said:
There's NO WAY you can distinguish AAC@192 from the orginal CD, on a hi-fi equipment costing less than $50,000. You're not a music conductor like Herbert von Karajan, and you're not Mozart too, and of course you're not a bat :D
So, please stop worrying about it!

:rolleyes:

$200 canalphones can be revealing enough to show the difference between 192 and a CD. Or 320. :rolleyes:

http://www.customearsets.com/Models___Prices/Etymotic/etymotic.jpg

And the notion that 320 sounds better than 192 is a myth. Higher bitrates can often sound worse than lower ones, within reason. :eek:
 
And it only took 226 posts for someone to nitice this...

...of course, I'm late in posting this cuz I've been at work all day...

DStaal said:
Best new feature (and entirely unmentioned): Multiple users on the same computer can have iTunes open!

That's right, no more "iTunes can't open because it is in use by another user." No more making sure you quit iTunes so the rest of your family can use it. It just works!

Related, but one I'm not so excited about: Switching users while playing iTunes no longer stops iTunes from playing. Good, in that I can hear the song, bad in that I can't stop the music or change the volume, or anything else...

This is probably the BEST feature for me! Though, the others are right up there! Go Apple! And oh yeah, the 5 computer limit is rockin awesome too!
 
Wonder Boy said:
i was really hoping for an ipod software update that resolved the battery issue. ah well.

Are you referring to the amazing random charge icon? I don't think that can be fixed completely, LiPoly batteries really do jump the voltage around a bit as they discharge.
 
1- people seem to be misunderstanding what digital encoding of music really means. a cd actually contains analog sound information that has been digitized. for instance, if you wanted to record a sin wave, a cd would represent the analog sin wave with the data presented every 1/44100 sec, and each piece of data could be represented some fraction of 1/2^16 of the maximum range of sound. this is what it means that you have 44.1khz 16bit audio.

you could have 192khz audio at 32 bits and represent that sin wave very very very very closely, but the digital formula y=sin(t) will be more accurate... thus, a few bytes of information could represent an hour of the sin wave more accurately than several gigabytes of digitized data. a billion to one ratio, and the smaller one is still more accurate.

if you start with a 192khz 32bit master and make a 128kbps aac file, this could likely be a more accurate representation of the music than the 44.1khz/16bit downsampling they put on a cd.

thus, a 128kbps aac file ripped from a commercial cd will clearly be a drop-off in quality, as would any encoding method. however, do not automatically assume that this is the same quality level as the 128kbps aac file you would buy from the itms. i have done some comparisons of power spectral analysis/fft data (looking at the frequency reproductions in the data) and some itms files are closer to the cd than you would think, even closer than 196kbps aac files from a cd master.

2- almost certainly apple's "lossless" encoding is "nearly lossless." i am going to do some studies on a series of files to determine for sure. but, you cannot tell if an "a -> b" conversion is lossless by simply listening to n permutations of "a -> b -> a ..." unless you have a "b -> a" conversion which you know to be absolutely perfectly 100% lossless. for this reason, the previous post wondering about the wma -> aac transcoder cannot be answered by the multple back-and-forth method since i know of no aac -> wma encoder which is 100% lossless.

3- regarding apple's revenue from itms, 70million songs cannot be considered to be anywhere near $70million... remember that you can get "elvis 30 #1 hits" for $9.99... 30 songs for $10... there are other similar examples with as many (or more!) songs for $10... thus, $70 million songs is guaranteed to be < 70million*0.99

afc
 
This is a long thread, so I don't have time to read through it at the moment, but has:

Anyone who was having trouble with the iPod 2.1 firmware with battery charging or screen flickering upgraded yet to see if it fixes it?

Also, anyone else post yet about how the new iPod firmware prevents Playfair and other DRM removers from working? Nice of them... :mad:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.