MPEG-4 in iTunes and iPod?
I was reading on mosr.com that they think iTunes will come out with mpeg4 audio support in Jaguar. This makes sense. However, I assume that would also mean an iPod updater would be necessary so I could play mp4 files on my iPod! If this happens, it will definitely validate the expense of the iPod. With a firmware you can update from your Mac, it will continue to support new file formats as they become available, I assume! Well, here's hoping that my iPod will become cooler once Jaguar gets here!
Comments
<strong>I was reading on mosr.com that they think iTunes will come out with mpeg4 audio support in Jaguar. This makes sense. However, I assume that would also mean an iPod updater would be necessary so I could play mp4 files on my iPod! If this happens, it will definitely validate the expense of the iPod. With a firmware you can update from your Mac, it will continue to support new file formats as they become available, I assume! Well, here's hoping that my iPod will become cooler once Jaguar gets here!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not only does it validate the expense due to file flexibility... it now becomes MORE valuable because the MPEG4 format should yield either one of the following:
a) MORE songs fitting on the iPod at a similar quality due to better compression sceme yielding a smaller file size per song... or
b) BETTER quality of the SAME number of songs if you are able to recompress to MPEG4 from the original source files... due to the same file size yielding a higher bit rate or quality.
Sounds good to me.
<strong>I sure don't see Apple NOT doing this... If and hopefully when they do, count me in to convert everything. I have all of my songs in 320kb mp3, so I gotta figure out what that will equal in mp4. Hopefully Apple will make a script or something that converts all of the songs in iTunes... Then, I will go and get a 10Gb iPod, and hopefully 20 if those ever make it lol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Couple of things:
Apple is doing it according to something I read... apparently it is going to be released around the time of Jaguar... so don't worry about THAT.
Re: Converting via a script...? Well... I'm sure people will do it ANYWAY... but unless you do NOT have original source music (.AIFF, .WAV, CDs, etc.), it is a BAD idea to recompress a compressed file. It's like making a .jpeg from a .gif file. The original audio file has data "removed" in the process of creating the .mp3 file... if you just take THAT file and make an .mp4 from it... you are throwing away even MORE precious audio data.
I may be stating the obvious, but to get the BEST results... try to convert to .mp4 from the HIGHEST QUALITY source that you can. That will yield the highest quality in that file size by more intelligently throwing away what is not needed based on the NEW algorythm.
I cannot speak into the actual technical aspects too deeply, because I am not well-versed in how *exactly* the algorythms decide on what data to save, what to throw away, and how it will be compressed.
Please... can anyone explain it better than I can..?
Scott F are you sure MP3 -> MP4 will degrade the quality? My iPod's almost full
Are there any filesharing networks that are designed for MP4?
<strong>Scott F are you sure MP3 -> MP4 will degrade the quality? My iPod's almost full
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... as sure as I can be based on my limited knowledge. Technically, I'm sure that you can convert an .mp3 to an .mp4 and have the file size shrink and the "perceived" quality remain intact... but no matter how you slice it, lossy compression means you "throw away" data. It's a matter of how discerning your ears are.
I do a lot of audio editing and I co-own a 24-Track project studio that utilizes 20-Bit recorders (ADAT XT-20's).
What I've learned in a short time is to hear the subtle differences that take place with each "step-down" in audio bits.
Youngsters nowadays don't know what they're missing in audio quality with .mp3's compared to the "old days". (Man, I feel old)
Obviously... the BEST form of audio is hearing the actual performance... the actual air movement displaced by the instruments themselves transferred through the air to your eardrums... that is the purest form.
When recording in the analog world, you actually capture the pure (for the most part) waveform of the audio.
When you record into ProTools or to ADATS or anything that needs to "convert" the signal to bits... it's like the difference between a vector-based circle... which is infinitely scalable... and a raster-based (pixel-based) image which has a "finite" resolution. The higher the resoultion, the more pixels, the more detail... same with audio... the more bits per sample, the wider the dynamic range and ability to produce something closer to a pure waveform.
Now... no matter HOW you record the music... when it gets distributed as a CD... ALL CDs are 16-Bit. That means that regardless of the input, the output will be 16-Bit, 44KHz on all CDs.
That right there is throwing away a TON of bits to allow enough room on a CD for 60-70 minutes of audio.
That 16-Bit audio is uncompressed. When you "Rip" a CD or a song from a CD, you are now (again) downsampling and now even COMPRESSING the data to a smaller size.
By now... the quality of that file is pretty darned degraded. There are some of you out there that have never even HEARD a BRAND SPANKIN' NEW album (vinyl) on a quality turntable (record player) through a good stereo.
You'd be FLOORED by how much better a NEW (undamaged) record sounds over a CD. CD's are just more compact, the quality does not degrade with each use (unlike records) and they (CDs) are not representing pure analog waveforms.
ANYHOW!!!... I digress...
Downsampling from mp3 to mp4 MAY get you a smaller file size while retaining a quality that you find acceptable, but I'm willing to bet that you will get a BETTER sounding file at the SAME file size if you sample from a higher resolution source (original audio file).
Anyhow... I think I drifted in and out of topic here... but yes, you CAN do it... but let your ears be the judge. Do some test files first. If they work for you...? go for it...!!!
As soon as you've recorded something, it might as well be a pop song, because the sound's going to be coming off a few paper cones. Some of you haven't even once heard a Steinway Grand in a decent hall. No recording will ever come close to reproducing that. It's all about what you can convince yourself is close enough, what's enough to engage your emotions. If you're an auidophile, it may be that master vinyl played on a laser turntable (yes, they have them) is all that will ever satisfy you, but if you're listening to the Britney Spears all you can care about is the beat and the notes.
The full recording of "Hit me, Baby" never exaisted outside a computer. The speakers, the average sound system, IS IN FACT the instrument Britney's producers mix for, the instrument they play, and a CD of her in a $300 Sony boombox is more faithful to the recording and to the song than any vinyl jazz will ever be to its source. It's perverse the way audiophiles sneer into their shirtsleeves about people who prefer CDs, when the content actually determines which is a higher-fidelity recording.
The strangest part of this perversity is that it's implied that the better one requires the recording be, the better the music is, and vice versa. I tell you this: Chopin does it for me on AM radio.
Analog is one of those things where the owner works for the possession because the cost is higher than the enjoyment can ever be. Those huge collections of LPs.... The owner can't listen to them all. He or she couldn't if listening to them all was his or her job, and they do get damaged every time you listen, so there's a last payment every time the record is played. Unless one has a laser turntable.
I listen to my music on CDs because it's easy, and when there's a performance nearby, I listen to that, and it beats the pants off vinyl.
No finger pointing. Just a general ramble on setting musical priorities.
I truly CAN tell the difference between a CD track and an .mp3 at 128-BitRate... I still LISTEN to mp3s because they are smaller and I fit more on my 'puter than the original .AIFF files, but I sample my mp3s at 160... so their slightly larger. I find it tougher to discern between CD & 160 than CD & 128... and any lower bit rate is a no-brainer.
Everyone's different... I like to hear higher quality... my girlfriend could care less if they're at 64 Bit per second... she stuffs all her songs on the iPod and enjoys them for what they are.
To each their own. Me? When iTunes supports .mp4... I will do some test files from original source .AIFF files to see what works best for me... once I find a setting I like... I will re-capture my CDs at the new setting. Hopefully, I can find a setting that gives me quality similar to the mp3 @ 160... but at a file size that's much smaller in .MP4 format.
(Yes, I'm one of those nerds whose majority of .mpeg audio files are legitimately owned by me.) Most of the junk I grabbed from share/clients have been odd things like lines from "The Family Guy", Brak from Cartoon Planet, odd little snippets of things you can't just "buy" at a store... along with maybe a couple dozen of songs that I nabbed... but the other thousand or more songs are legit.
I wish iTunes supported OggVorbis.
<strong>And I'll say it will be a looooooong time before an Apple mp4 encoder matches the LAME mp3 encoder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
is the aac codec in quicktime not that optimized/good yet?
shouldn't same bit rate songs sound better with [mp4] than mp3 [even with lame]?
*curious*
Still, nothing beats iTunes for a crappy MP3!
I'll test converting MP3 -> MP4 later to see whether I can get it to sound the same at smaller file sizes.
Yes, new records sure do sound better (no digitizing), but my iPod sure is smaller than a room full of records! Didn't anyone see <a href="http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/293.html"; target="_blank">this?</a>
64 kbit Mp4 audio is almost exactly the same as 256 kbit Mp3 audio which is almost exactly the same as a CD.
(if this is true, that means a 10 gig iPod could hold 8k-10k songs. wow, that's like a month of non-stop music.)
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: Eupfhoria ]</p>
<strong>Take this with a grain of salt, I can't remember where I heard it but:
64 kbit Mp4 audio is almost exactly the same as 256 kbit Mp3 audio which is almost exactly the same as a CD.
(if this is true, that means a 10 gig iPod could hold 8k-10k songs. wow, that's like a month of non-stop music.)
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: Eupfhoria ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
sorry but as much as I wish that was true it is no where near true. maybe 160K MP4 is equal to 256K MP3 but some have said it takes 192 MP4 for it to match or exceed 256MP3.
Regarding LPs, anyone know of a listing of current releases? Occasionally I see an album listed on CDNOW as available on LP but there is no way to search by LP format alone. Yeah, CDs are crap but they are convinient. Same goes for mp3s on both counts.
<strong>Well, I made an mp3 (with iTunes) and mp4 (with QT) both at 128kbit and the mp4 sounded much better to me. Maybe not night and day but significant enough. File size was actually .1MB larger though. The 128kbit mp4 also sounded better than the mp3 at 160kbit so I guess thats where the smaller files kick in. That is, you can get away with a lower bitrate with mp4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iTunes/SoundJam encoder is really awful. I remember noticing a huge difference between iTunes/SoundJam and N2MP3, the best classic encoder out at the time.
Anyway, yeah, for 128 kbit, mp4 will probably be better if your music is something without a lot of complexity...something like spoken words or some classical music...piano solos and stuff like that...definitely no rock or metal.
But then again, why would anybody listen to such low bitrate music if they were that anal? Since I'm anal, I encode with LAME. I used "--alt-preset extreme" which results in VBR files around 230-260 kbps.
Lime Wire et al should distinguish between whether you search for MP3 or MP4. Wouldn't that be cool?