iTunes 4 and Rendezvous

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Nov 12, 2002.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    In July, at MacWorld Expo New York 2002, Steve Jobs demonstrated a beta version of iTunes which incorporated Rendezvous technology, allowing dynamic addition and removal of music libraries from computers within Rendezvous' reach.

    At that time, the technology was slated for early 2003. As expected, we've heard that iTunes (version 4?) will contain this expected technology, and is tentatively slated for MacWorld SF 2003.

    Other new features to come with the next revision to iTunes will also be "smart" visualizations, and long-awaited MPEG4 AAC codec support.
     
  2. insidedanshead macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #2
    Fill me in.. why's everyone so excited and so anxious to get AAC support in iTunes? I guess my confusion is partially due to my ignorance of the file type AAC.. but isn't that the compression used for DVD audio along with MPEG for picture? Why would anyone want that support in iTunes?

    :confused:
     
  3. jg3 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    #3
    "smart" visualizations?!

    Visualizations are already pretty smart, if they are coded to be... you can get a fair amount of information from iTunes via the API. It would be cool if you could get beat information, rather than having to detect it yourself, but other than that, I don't know what they could supply.

    What I would like is sample code of a simple OpenGL visualization, so I don't have to learn Carbon programming just to make one of my own.
     
  4. arn macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #4
    It's simply more compression with the same quality. So theoretically, you can save space... hold more songs. More important if/when the iPod supports it so you can store more songs on it.

    One suggestion to apple though - you should NOT allow people to convert their MP3's to MP4/AAC. It just shouldn't be an option. Cause you know people will do it... and it's just wrong.

    arn
     
  5. Telomar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    #5
    MP4/AAC has much nicer sound qulity than MP3s. MP3s have a habit of coming out a little dull while MP4s don't.

    Of course this is assuming you rip it direct from the CD and aren't recompressing MP3s, in which case you'd just get MP3 quality made worse.
     
  6. redAPPLE macrumors 68030

    redAPPLE

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    #6
    isn't it a fact, if one converts .cda (normal cd files) to .mp3, it removes data that is not audible to a normal person.

    i mean with audible, data that the human ear rarely hears.

    that is the reason why .mp3 files are a lot smaller (well compression helps too).

    but if .mp3 files have already been "compressed" and data removed which is not necessary, which part would still be removed to make .aac files a lot smaller.

    maybe it is the compression, right?

    oh god. i wanted to say something else. but i forgot.

    well, i ain't an expert, but i could not imagine that converting .mp3 to .mp4 (or .aac) would be a good idea. would the quality not suffer?

    in as, converting .cda files to .aac would surely be a great idea.

    i hope there would be a plug in device (one for the mac and another for the stereo (hope we do not have to buy a separate one)) to use this tech ASAP.

    i would love that for christmas.

    my ramblings... my ramblings...
     
  7. arn macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #7
    1) Converting MP3 -> MP4 would be stupid.

    2) removing the inaudible stuff is the compression.
     
  8. Booga macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #8
    Where does compression come from?

    This is largely incorrect. While removing the "inaudible" stuff (some people hear better than others) does help, any patterned signal can be compressed. A lot of the quality loss in compression comes from picking a different signal, close to the original, that matches a compressible pattern and substituting it for the original signal. Thus, you get something close to the original, but can still massage it into something that can be described with much fewer bits. This often means "strange" parts of the original signal (something that isn't close to any of the compressible patterns) can sound very different in compressed form, and why some instruments and particular sounds are expressed very badly in MP3 format.

    For example, to oversimplify a bit, if you had the signal 2,4,6,8,9,12,14,16,18,... you could replace it with 2n. You'd only be wrong once, and you've now got a representation that takes only 2 characters to express in ASCII instead of 22 :). That is, until the source comes along that is all odd digits. Anyway, you get the idea.
     
  9. woodsey macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    #9
    Apple Store iPod price drop

    Has anyone else noticed that the price for engraving an iPod has dropped from $49 to $20.

    Much more reasonable, if you ask me! I guess Apple is just trying to squeze every little bit of revenue out of the iPod as they can, leading up to the holliday buying season.

    I cant wait for the new version of iTunes. Ill be able to put all my songs on my G4 and play them anywhere around my house on my clamshell iBook.

    Sounds pretty good to me!
     
  10. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    mp3 compression IS audible if you have decent equipment. definitely. 128kbps makes a fairly big impact. and converting mp3 to aac is stupid, yes.
     
  11. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    There's a lot more to it than that. If it only removed stuff we couldn't hear, then we'd be using it on everything. Bottom line is, mp3 encoding has a significant impact on audio.
     
  12. arn macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #12
    yes... apologies for my error...

    arn
     
  13. McFreggle macrumors 6502a

    McFreggle

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Location:
    Dendermonde/Leuven, Belgium
    #13
    Re: iTunes 4 and Rendezvous

    It was in Paris, not in New York.

    k.
     
  14. DaveGee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2001
    #14
    Re: Re: iTunes 4 and Rendezvous

    I work in NYC and I was at the keynote so I know I saw that demo... It was MWNY 1st and then a follow-up demo (maybe with a more specific time frame?) in Paris.

    D
     
  15. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #15
    Seems like we havent even had itunes 3 that long. oh well, bring on 4.

    iJon
     
  16. JtheLemur macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    #16
    Too bad that Rendezvous is only really suited for home networks or small corporate ones - it doesn't work across subnets!! I was planning on using iChat to stay in touch with my tech crew while running around the building, but our wireless network is on a different VLAN than our Mac desktops which are on a different VLAN than our server room...

    Granted, it's early, but come on! That's a really basic requirement of a network protocol... I could always use port forwarding but it may be more trouble than it's worth...
     
  17. medea macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #17
    Re: Apple Store iPod price drop

    Yeah a thread on the price drop is in Current News.
    I'm really looking forward to the possibilites of Rendezvous, soon not only [easily] play your mp3s from one computer to another, you will also be able to play them on your home stero etc. Can't wait.
     
  18. mister880 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    #18
    I wish Apple would put this much effort into iMvoie!

    Updates : iTunes 3 - iMovie 2

    iTunes is pretty much a perfect app for me. It works and does everything I could want. The other iApps could use a little more work. They could fix iPhoto up a little better so it can handle larger photo imports. I have had a digital camera for almost 5 years and have collected over 9000 images. Let's just say iPhoto chokes up around 3000!

    iMovie needs a few more features to help keep it on top! Microsoft's new version of video editing software "relax there is nothing that would make me switch" is starting to gain ground on Apple's iMovie as far as features. iMovie needs in my guess, at least to make me happy.

    1) Support for bigger screen resolutions I hate the fact I have so much extra space on my screen with iMovie running on a 22 inch LCD

    2) Better Titles! iMovie really needs some work with it's built in Titler!

    3) An option to import video from burnt family videos on iDVD! Right now I am backing up all my old 8mm videos to iDVD because I know the tapes aren't going to last forever. But unless I am missing something I don't know an easy way of getting that footage back into my computer when I want to edit.

    4) More built in plug-ins! And while they are at it get faster rendering times! I know they can't make it real time because they can't let their free app compete with FCP 3.0 witch I also use!

    5) Just an overall bug fix.. if I see "Application has quit..." one more time I am going to smack one of their "switch" people when they say "it doesn't crash!"

    Just my two cents'
    Kevin Leidecker
    iCEO of BullShRt
     
  19. Bradcoe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Northeast U.S.
    #19
    Ah yes...

    I can't wait until my home stereo has "Tuner, CD, DVD, Computer, etc, etc..." Away will go the the yucky LED and calculator LCD type displays. Full 5 or 8 inch Color LCD's on the front of one fairly large "Tuner-replacement" box. Browse your DVD player, CD Player, or even ANY audio/video files on your computer. Stream them all wireless to you wonderful home stereo speakers.

    Integration of HomeEntertainment systems and Computers multi-media functions should be Apples immediate future.
     
  20. seven5 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #20
    Who CAREEEESSSSSS about AAC, the real deal here is Rendezvous... WOOOO HOOOO
     
  21. TyleRomeo macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #21
    forget MP4/AAC and just import full AIFF files on your computers. Why bother why lossy compression and audio quality loss. Of course you need to get yourself about 500GB though. Which should be a problem with hard drives getting huge. IBM has a 2.5 inch 80GB drive, maxotr is working with 80GB per platter and early next year we will see drives that are 100 GB per platter. ohh and im sure technology will advance and we will have larger 1.8 inch drives. So im saying we'll have a 30GB or 40 GB iPod by next MWNY.

    tyler
     
  22. Bensch macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #22
    Please note: Converting to mp3 is NOT data compression, but data REDUCTION.
     
  23. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #23
    If iTunes 4 doesn't include the ability to organize Albums by foders then they can take there upgrade and shove it you know where.

    Get with the picture Apple. I have ripped a large portion of my cds and this is in excess of 2500 songs. Yes I know there is the Organize feature but this is hardly a personalized function. I want to be able to organize my music anyway possible. It seems to me that with the OSX and the iApps Apple has taken more and more personalization away from us. What makes a Mac great? The ability to make it yours. What makes a WinPC a WinPC? The fact that yours is just like everyother one out there. Just one of the hord from 1984.
     
  24. macjohnmcc macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX, USA
    #24
    Your collection is still just a baby. I have nearly 8,000 songs in my iTunes library! ;)
     
  25. oldMac macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    #25
    Actually, it's known as "Lossy compression"

    MP3, like JPEG, is compression. While both algorithms do throw away some information, they accomplish what is intended. More specifically, they both compress and reduce the amount of information necessary to communicate a message. This is known as a "lossy compression" algorithm.

    To say that JPEG or MP3 don't qualify as compression is highbrow, silly and suggests that you may best belong in a university job rather than a job in the REAL WORLD where ACTUAL WORK gets done. :)
     

Share This Page

95 November 12, 2002