Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Finally, iTunes 9.1 is claimed to offer several changes to device support, including tweaked summary panes (including a move of the "Check for Update" and "Restore" buttons to the left side of the pane) and the ability to automatically convert songs to 128 kbps AAC format when syncing to devices. This feature, currently available only for the iPod shuffle, will reportedly be extended to all devices and will allow users to fit more audio files on their devices while the original higher-quality files remain untouched in iTunes.

Weeeeeee, finally :)
 
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between some bitrates, even on a portable device. I wouldn't want to drop to 128 bit, I don't go below 256aac right now. We'll see what this really brings.

It depends on what you hook up to it. If you are using the Apple headphones I doubt you will any difference between 128 kbit/s and higher bitrates.
 
It depends on what you hook up to it. If you are using the Apple headphones I doubt you will any difference between 128 kbit/s and higher bitrates.

That's true. I have the Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 which retail at 400 dollars. I can hear the difference between 320 KBPS AAC and Apple Lossless. Although, very slightly.
 
That's true. I have the Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 which retail at 400 dollars. I can hear the difference between 320 KBPS AAC and Apple Lossless. Although, very slightly.

Very nice... I have been trying to hear that for a while and was never able to actually hear a sound difference. However I can pick the lossless version in a blind test quite reliably after listening to both for a while. It really takes a while though - somehow it's more of a feeling thing than an actual sound thing for me...
 
Wowow wowow owwwow owowow

They should change the name to iMedia.... iTunes does really fit with applications & books

also movies / video should open up in QuickTime X, and apple should remove the video playback in iTunes because its ****! and Itunes is getting to fat! needs to lose some weight :p
 
Really? It was my understanding that any of the iPod or iPhone OS devices really weren't capable of decoding and outputting the audio to a high enough quality to warrant storing at high bit-rate/quality. Therefore, aren't you just wasting space on your device by insisting on using high quality on these devices?

As I understand it, the iPods can output the audio just fine. In fact if you use the line-level output through the dock connector and attach an external headphone amp you can get a pretty impressive sound from a portable package.

My iPT is able to play back some 24-bit 48kHz files I have. I was actually a little surprised that it did this. I heard that the hardware within was actually capable of 24/96 but some limitation in the software holds it back. If you try to sync a 24/96 file to the iPod via iTunes it will not, saying that 96kHz is not a supported sample rate.

Ruahrc
 
So you guys think we will be able to flip through books and the pages and all that in iTunes or would it be more like Apps where they are represented with icons but only functional on the device? my guess is the books will only be functional on the iPad, but we will find out! :D

Will the book shelf come to iTunes? :confused: The corkboard didn't come to the photos app on faces on the iPad, so who knows lol.
 
Very happy to see the bit-rate conversion. Maybe that will push Apple to eventually put Apple Lossless on iTunes.
 
People are saying that iTunes eats up their RAM and CPU. Mine only uses 48 MB of RAM for me... Which is like 1 or 2% of my 4 GB of RAM. It's using like 4-6% of my CPU (2.66 core2duo). Is my computer just special or are people are just being crazy?
 
People are saying that iTunes eats up their RAM and CPU. Mine only uses 48 MB of RAM for me... Which is like 1 or 2% of my 4 GB of RAM. It's using like 4-6% of my CPU (2.66 core2duo). Is my computer just special or are people are just being crazy?

Depends on what you are doing. iTunes uses some memory for every item in a playlist - so if you have 100 songs in one playlist it is very little, 100 playlists with 10000 different songs in each will take more RAM. If you display all the album artwork and scroll through that, that takes RAM. And if you didn't watch out and have 1 MB images for album art, that will take a lot of RAM.
 
Great - didn't think iTunes could get anymore bloated.

My fanboy friends - u have issue with flash but none with iTunes being such a resource hog?

Hmm

My guess is that to you anybody who doesn't hate Steve Jobs like you do is automatically a "fanboy"?
 
My guess is that to you anybody who doesn't hate Steve Jobs like you do is automatically a "fanboy"?

Of course not - guy does business right

I do have a problem with his egomaniacal behavior and his smugness

not to mention he avoided his bastard child

So what are ur thoughts my friend?

Btw love my iPhone
 
I have been ripping all CD purchases in Apple Lossless since 2003 as well as my entire collection before that. I now have over 50,000 Apple Lossless tracks. But for the iPhone, iPods, and AppleTV, I need smaller versions, so I also create AAC 256k versions of every Apple Lossless song in my library, using Smart Playlists and notations in the Notes ID3 tag of each song to keep things in order. The downside is that my library is twice as large as it needs to be and every time I edit track tags I am doing double-entry.

My library is so large that Genius won't work... it stalls before all the info gets transferred back from Apple at initialization. Also, I get severe beachball delays during iTunes editing and navigation, since iTunes writes the ENTIRE database file to disk for every change.

I welcome switching to on-the-fly encoding while syncing, even if it slows down the syncs.

Now if iTunes could jump to 64-bit multiple-core processing, I'd be even happier.

Well I guess you win. :) I have a similar setup with about 17,000+ tracks of Apple Lossless. Like you, I have also ripped everything twice (again in 256K AAC). Unlike you, it's still manageable enough so that Genius works and performance is tolerable. I use Smart Playlists to keep track of it all but I haven't needed to resort to using the Notes ID3 tags of the songs. It took a while but I finally got a Smart Playlist that includes Lossless files, 128K AACs that don't have a corresponding Lossless file, older MP3 files, and any marked "Protected" or "Purchased".

I welcome the ability to transcode any portable device (iPad/iPhone/iPod) on the fly but it would have to slow down the initial sync process quite a bit, much like doing it for photos. The other problem I could see is that it would be impossible to gauge how many songs would truly fit on your device since you'd be transcoding everything.

But one thing about the current "rip twice" system that I wouldn't mind seeing end is the problem with the Genius feature. Well, not your problem of you having too many songs that it breaks it entirely. But right now when Genius makes a playlist, it doesn't care if the song comes from the Lossless list or the AAC list...it just picks whatever it finds first. When you sync a Genius list to your iPod, you end up with a mix of the AAC files you want combined with huge Lossless files you don't. And vice-versa for playing the files at home on your expensive stereo system.

As far as 64-bit multi-cored goodness, I'm sure a rewrite has been underway for awhile. But iTunes is probably one of the more complex rewrites to do primarily because of it's interface to the massive ERP system that is the iTunes store, not to mention whatever method they choose to replace the current iTunes database system. We'll see it when it's ready.
 
Lossy conversion to lossy conversion..that sounds hideous.
That's what I was thinking.... Unless you want to store all your music in lossless format, but that takes up a lot of space. I suppose this would be a useful feature for many, though....
 
Because someone with 256kbs tracks must take their audio fidelity very seriously, and won't accept compromises...:rolleyes:

I'm no audiophile by any means. It's just 2010 now and we shouldn't even think about using anything lesser. I don't know how many of you other people use your iPhone on other sources besides those crappy :apple: ear buds but I do.
 
I would buy most if not all of my music from iTunes if they would offer it in Apple Lossless.

Same here ;)

I'm no audiophile by any means. It's just 2010 now and we shouldn't even think about using anything lesser. I don't know how many of you other people use your iPhone on other sources besides those crappy :apple: ear buds but I do.

I use it on my car mainly, and my car doesn't have anything remotely close to what you need to able to hear a difference... So this feature is a welcome addition to save space, since I have everything in lossless :)
 
This isn't really practical, because...I am constantly editing ID tags in tracks, indicating extensive information about the music traits, dates, release history, and which of my friends and family likes each track using their initials... all in the Notes field.
Almost no one else in the world does this.

You end up with the old Kung Fu movie thing. Video and audio out of sync by the delay of getting the data out to the remote speakers.
That makes no sense. iTunes already processes and syncs the sound coming from your computer speakers and your external Airtunes speakers. They could do the same thing with movies.
 
Lossy to lossy... 128kbps audio. I thought Apple wanted people to have access to quality audio, seems I was wrong.

All I want from iTunes is 64-bit. My library is huge and the 64-bit advantage would help a lot.

Oh and I see a lot of "I can hear the difference in lossless audio". You're full of it, there has never been any evidence to indicate that people can hear the difference beyond V0.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.