Calebj14 said:
Probably due to issues caused by the Apple Lossless Audio for one. I know that you have to update QuickTime to 6.5.1 or it thinks that those files are corrupt.
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 4.5 Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably due to issues caused by the Apple Lossless Audio for one. I know that you have to update QuickTime to 6.5.1 or it thinks that those files are corrupt.
ummmmmm
It seems to me that this cuts into your little operation...
slughead said:This is exactly what the anti-DRM nazis were talking about.. they CHANGED the licensing agreement and nobody cares.
Do you realize what this means? They could simply one day revoke all but 1 of your machine licenses, put all your m4p's into one big encrypted image, and turn your genitals into scrambled eggs and there's nothing you can do about it because YOU agreed to it by buying DRM.
Sure, THIS time it's not a big deal, in fact most people will be happy with this new way of doing things.. but doesn't it bother you that they can take as well as give?
Seven burns down from Ten on tracks you already own.
Think about that; Think Different
It seems to me that this cuts into your little operation...
Lossless format
The lossless format is like zip or stuffit for music. It compresses the bits in the music file, but when the file is played as music, the bits are decompressed (on the fly I suppose) to the EXACT same bits as the original.
Since someone wonders how this is possible ... here's an example of compression of a text string ... the same would go for bits and bytes:
Original: ABCAEABCFCABCFCDABCBFCABCBABCFC
To compress this string I can look for the most common sequence of characters and replace them with one character, so I can say:
A = ABC
B = FC
C = C
D = D
E = E
FA = A
FB = B
FF = F
Compressed: AFAEABABDAFBBAFBAB
Applying the rule again, gives me back the original string. As you can see, the compressed string is almost half the size of the original.
Of course the decompression rule also has to stored in a compressed file, which in this example would make the compressed file larger than the original, but for larger strings/files this wouldn't be a problem, of course.
The lossless format is like zip or stuffit for music. It compresses the bits in the music file, but when the file is played as music, the bits are decompressed (on the fly I suppose) to the EXACT same bits as the original.
Since someone wonders how this is possible ... here's an example of compression of a text string ... the same would go for bits and bytes:
Original: ABCAEABCFCABCFCDABCBFCABCBABCFC
To compress this string I can look for the most common sequence of characters and replace them with one character, so I can say:
A = ABC
B = FC
C = C
D = D
E = E
FA = A
FB = B
FF = F
Compressed: AFAEABABDAFBBAFBAB
Applying the rule again, gives me back the original string. As you can see, the compressed string is almost half the size of the original.
Of course the decompression rule also has to stored in a compressed file, which in this example would make the compressed file larger than the original, but for larger strings/files this wouldn't be a problem, of course.
DrGruv1 said:
...to you. As long as people like you keep your audiophile concerns to yourselves and don't make out like it's a big problem when it doesn't matter to other people, fine. Sure, people should try out the Lossless codecs and hear if they notice a difference, and if it matters to them enough to spend the extra money for greater storage, then fine. But I can't hear the difference, so it doesn't matter to me. I know there is an objective difference in the data files themselves, but it doesn't matter to me.
As for the new iTunes, yay - I like the party shuffle function the best, and grouping by compilations next. Being able to do wishlist(s) for iTMS is a nice feature, though I still don't think I'll be buying much, since the store doesn't have too much that I'd want or don't already have.
Hey, check out Bleep.com - online music store run by Warp Records, with artists like Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada, Autechre... MP3s encoded at LAME --alt-preset standard, no DRM. I have most of what they have, too, so I haven't bought much except for a few rare, previously vinyl-only tracks. But they're growing and will include other indy electronic labels in the future that I'll want to check out...
Ok I suppose I'll help out since my first post was kind of trolly
Well with a lossless CD -> file conversion, you can go CD -> file -> CD -> file -> CD a million times and the final CD you end up with will be identical to the first.
If you went from CD -> mp3 -> CD ->mp3 ->CD, eventually it'd be so garbled and terrible you'd vomit all over your keyboard and become incontinent.
A loss-less conversion from one lossy file to another means you're not trimming the data with each new conversion. That's why Playfair was so awesome, you could go from m4p -> m4a with ZERO loss, as opposed to m4p -> CD -> m4a which IS lossy.
So with this new WMA -> AAC capability, one wonders if indeed anyone should actually use this, as it might be lossy.
A way to test would be to go AAC -> WMA -> AAC like 40 times and then listen, as all the errors would be amplified by quite a bit.
Porchland said:
Well with a lossless CD -> file conversion, you can go CD -> file -> CD -> file -> CD a million times and the final CD you end up with will be identical to the first.
If you went from CD -> mp3 -> CD ->mp3 ->CD, eventually it'd be so garbled and terrible you'd vomit all over your keyboard and become incontinent.
A loss-less conversion from one lossy file to another means you're not trimming the data with each new conversion. That's why Playfair was so awesome, you could go from m4p -> m4a with ZERO loss, as opposed to m4p -> CD -> m4a which IS lossy.
So with this new WMA -> AAC capability, one wonders if indeed anyone should actually use this, as it might be lossy.
A way to test would be to go AAC -> WMA -> AAC like 40 times and then listen, as all the errors would be amplified by quite a bit.
dongmin said:
but that would only give iggy pop songs that are in the soundtrack genre. there isn't anyway to have iggy pop songs, plus soundtracks. I think thats what he was getting at
unless I'm stupid and just haven't figure it out
WHY the bit changes?
Imported Let it Be... Naked
The Long And Winding Road 758 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Get Back 801 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Let It Be 805 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
For You Blue 812 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Across The Universe 825 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
I Me Mine 857 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Dig A Pony 864 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Two Of Us 878 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Don't Let Me Down 882 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
I've Got A Feeling 900 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
One After 909 976 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
-mike
Imported Let it Be... Naked
The Long And Winding Road 758 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Get Back 801 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Let It Be 805 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
For You Blue 812 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Across The Universe 825 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
I Me Mine 857 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Dig A Pony 864 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Two Of Us 878 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
Don't Let Me Down 882 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
I've Got A Feeling 900 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
One After 909 976 kbps Apple Lossless audio file
-mike
I'm actually quite pleased with this update. I'm glad the little arrows are removable, as they're very clutterful, and I'm a little skeptical that maybe something new slipped in under the radar DRM wise (sounds too good to be true getting MORE access ). Then again, I'm a charter member of the RIAA Tinfoil hat club.
Also, one great little thing I noticed in the "Party Mixes" list is that you can specify which playlists you want the mix to come from. This is actually a great feature for those of us who use smart playlists to protect against overplaying songs.
The WMA->AAC thing is great to help the WinAMP/WMP crowd ease over to iTunes. When my roomie made the WMP to iTunes conversion, that was a royal pain to deal with. Kudos to Apple. The iPod update seems to work as advertised as well. I'm just afraid my poor little 30gb Docker is going to be obsolete soon, and knowing my past history, as soon as Apple releases a new iPod, my old generation one dies.
One other quick thing, remember, the Docking pods were released at an event on May 2nd, last year (I camped out), so the anniversary is less than a week away. You know what that means... G5 Powerbooks!!!!
). Then again, I'm a charter member of the RIAA Tinfoil hat club. Also, one great little thing I noticed in the "Party Mixes" list is that you can specify which playlists you want the mix to come from. This is actually a great feature for those of us who use smart playlists to protect against overplaying songs.
The WMA->AAC thing is great to help the WinAMP/WMP crowd ease over to iTunes. When my roomie made the WMP to iTunes conversion, that was a royal pain to deal with. Kudos to Apple. The iPod update seems to work as advertised as well. I'm just afraid my poor little 30gb Docker is going to be obsolete soon, and knowing my past history, as soon as Apple releases a new iPod, my old generation one dies.
One other quick thing, remember, the Docking pods were released at an event on May 2nd, last year (I camped out
), so the anniversary is less than a week away. You know what that means... G5 Powerbooks!!!! 
idkew said:
sorry i was in a hurry to post.....
has anyone verified that the WMA to AAC conversion only works on windows? i have WMP 9 on my PB in case i run into any non iTunes music... i was hoping this would work
i guess theres always iTunes 5.... btw... is the store up for non US ppl now?!?!
Wash!! said:It seems to me that this cuts into your little operation...
Actually this new change to the licensing agreement IS a good thing for me. I don't burn very many CDs, I have an iPod. Besides, even if I did burn CDs I could just use toast to convert m4p -> AIFF and burn 10 quadrillion copies from there
Someone else pointed out that I could just "not upgrade".. well ..
When I install OS 10.4 (or get my G5 whenever that 3GHZ one comes out), I'll be forced to install iTunes X.X that comes with it, and thus will be subject to whatever changes they deemed appropriate, even though I already paid for my music, and only agreed to one licensing plan.
We libertarians generally don't wait until everything goes to crap to point out the bad principles... I'm not saying Apple will turn into M$ LicenseWhores 3.1 but the fact that they have that right does not make me happy.
I cant wait to have carry around movies. Apple needs to hurry though RCA, and this other company that i cant rememer, already have some nice products out.
Penman said:
Well I read through this thread already but haven't found anyone who has addressed thins yet. How come iTunes 4.5 says it requires a Quicktime update that doesn't currently exist yet?
chibianh said:
I got it. Went to the link listed on MacRumors and downloaded the 6.5.1 update.
Went and made sure one of my purchased songs worked.
Everything seems cool. I noticed a new option on the menu called Party Shuffle. Didn't see that before. Sounds very cool.
Porchland said:
Most compression schema actually "remove" data from music, graphics, or video, to shrink the file size. In a nutshell, what they try to do is get rid of stuff that humans probably won't notice too much--so what you've got in an AAC is an "approximate" version of your favourite song. The upside is that this "lossy" compression leaves you with small files (good for iPod), the downside is that fine details can be lost.
JPEG is a lossy image compression scheme. So if you look closely at images coming from your digital camera, you can probably see blocky areas where it was decided that the fine details are too unnoticeable to be worried about; JPEG is analogous to AAC. You get small files (good for digital cameras or for downloading over dialup internet) but you lose some of the fine details.
Some comrpession schema don't "remove" any data from music, graphics, or video. In a nutshell (and this is not "technically accurate", but it will illustrate the point), these "lossless" schema look for areas of duplication in a file and figure out a more efficient way of "writing" it in the file. So, for instance, "this exact sound occurs 15 times in the whole song why write it out 15 times?" and so the compression scheme would rewrite it so that it says "here's a sound, which we'll call X instead of some really long name every time you see an X, play the whole long sound that X represents". It's like shopping for huge furniture: instead of trying to lug the furniture around the store, you can just bring some barcodes to the cashier--but the real furniture is still there in the back room or wherever. The upside is that you don't lose any details, the downside is that the files are bigger (bad for iPod).
TIFF is a lossless compression scheme for graphics. You can look as closely as you want at a TIFF image but you'll find that it is indistinguishable from a source, uncompressed image (there are exceptions, but they're not important for this discussion). They're also much much larger than JPEGs as a rule; however, assuming Apple Lossless is what it claims to be, TIFF would be an analogous compression scheme.
So, to sum up: Lossy compression = tiny files with less detail, good for portability; Lossless compression = big files with all the detail, good for archiving, professionals, or ____philes. HTH!
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
DrGruv1 said:
To you and some others, but not many.
Welcome to a McMusic culture.Certainly not to me when I'm jogging in the city with my iPod and its little headphones!
stoid said:Since Apple makes roughly squat from music, that might not be too hard
It would be quite hard it actuality as apple has made, give or take a few thousand, $69,300,000 in revenue from music at the iTMS.
should apple intend on taking more REVENUE on sales of video than music within two years, and considering that movies would likely cost on average $20 each, Apple would need to sell about 3,465,000 movies to catch up with the revenue Music earned for apple in its first year.
I have also not accounted for the revenue apple makes from the sales of iPods as a result of the popularity of the music store. however, this figure is simply speculative.
now if we were talking about profit, that would be a different story, but revenue was clearly stated in the post you responded to.
thecow said:Does anyone else not have QT 6.5.1 on their sowtware update? iTunes requires it.
Itunes does not require it. That's only if you want/need to use your iTMS music in your iMovie/iDVD and other iLife apps.
one thing i still don't like
Burning a cd of photos in iPhoto gives you a graphical representation of how much cd disk space you have available to burn the pictures. iTunes still only has the amount of time your playlist runs - which makes it a clunky interface for burning cds. The iPhoto cd icon is really cool and should definately be part of the iTunes burning-a-cd interface.
Burning a cd of photos in iPhoto gives you a graphical representation of how much cd disk space you have available to burn the pictures. iTunes still only has the amount of time your playlist runs - which makes it a clunky interface for burning cds. The iPhoto cd icon is really cool and should definately be part of the iTunes burning-a-cd interface.