after a much discipline life i succumbed to credit card excess i blame the ambitiously hedonistic Sydney lifestyle
I know what you mean. My card has a BIG hole in it; I got my PowerBook today. So I decided not to get the iPod until I get my finances under control (again).
No such thing. CD quality is simply 16-bit 44.1 kill o'hurts. I've had plenty a CD that sounds like total shiza. I've also had CD that sound grrrrrrrrrrrrreat. It's all in the tracking, engineering and mastering. While I don't have my AAC playing through tower Dunleavy I think they sound fine for the masses. Audiophiles are accustomed to paying more for their music and thus would be getting the CD or the DVD-Audio/SACD or, if you're lucky, the Vinyl.
I would like to see maybe variable bit recording and HE-AAC.
I understand all of that but, assumeing the cd version sounds great, that same thing in 128k mp3 or is good, but not worth as much as something that is the best quality availible to the general public.
No such thing. CD quality is simply 16-bit 44.1 kill o'hurts. I've had plenty a CD that sounds like total shiza. I've also had CD that sound grrrrrrrrrrrrreat. It's all in the tracking, engineering and mastering.
I'd say there is such a thing as "CD quality" in the sense that 16-bit 44.1 kHz PCM provides a certain (quite high) upper limit on sound quality. The upper limit isn't nearly so high for a 128 kbps AAC file. "CD quality" encoding won't, of course, make badly recorded music sound better, but AAC 128 kbps encoding certainly can make high-quality recordings sound worse.
I'd like to see iTMS at least offering 192 kbps AAC. Real is managing to do so now.
This said, I personally am not all that particularly sensitive to lossy compression artifacts. Oh, I can hear them sometimes, especially in A/B comparisons, but not easily except for a few hey-listen-to-this demonstrations of particular encoding flaws. I certainly don't get that "Aaaccckkk! This sounds like crap!" (over?)reaction that I've come across many times on these forums.
I would like to see them offer an option. I would pay a little extra for higher quality files, but I would probably select 160 Kbps AAC.
Considering that there's a lower distribution cost for online digital music compared to physical CDs, and that either 160 or 192 kbps are still inferior to the sound quality of CDs, I should think that rates as high as 192 kbps should be available at no extra cost -- with the user not having to chose based on price, but rather based on his own priorities regarding quality vs. storage requirements and download time.
I would, however, be willing to pay a small premium, say $0.25 per track, to re-download, at a higher bit rate, music which I've already purchased at a lower bit rate, when and if higher bit rates become available.
I suppose it makes sense to put the syncing into iTunes. Leaves them with code cross-compatibility on both supported platforms. However being a Mac user, it does seem odd to move them from iSync into iTunes. Provides a way to tie iTunes closer to the iPod.
As far as the 128kbps AAC files. What it comes down to is not only the quality of the music at that compression rate, but also the amount of time it takes to download the file. Apple obviously determined 128k was the best rate for the most people. It would be nice if Apple offered two rates; 128k and possibly 192k and added a "preferred rate" option in the user's account profile. Would make everyone happy (well almost) and still keep the one-click purchase simplicity of the store.
I love iTunes as it is at the moment, what on earth could they include to make iTunes 5 even better?
This is an area of concern - look at what happened to MS Office, with feachure creap, and bloat, each version gets fatter \\and more convoluted to use, I Hope apple doesnt let this happen to itunes
Come on, you're missing the big point here...to disable Real's hack job once again, Didn't I just read something the other day that Harmony was "fixed" by Real and it works again? So obviously iTunes 4.8 is coming to lock Real out of our iPods again. Thank Goodness, people who use Real products are destined to a life of misery.
I understand all of that but, assumeing the cd version sounds great, that same thing in 128k mp3 or is good, but not worth as much as something that is the best quality availible to the general public.
then buy the CD and rip it. iTunes is not aimed at you, it's aimed at the average person who really can't hear the difference between 128k AAC and a CD. seriously, albums are the same price on iTunes as they are in stores.
then if you buy the CD you have a hard copy without DRM
I'm sitting here waiting for QT7 for my PCs. I know that once it's ready for PC the launch of iTunes 5.0 can commence based on QT7. I just have a feeling actually. It makes sense to have a more robust QT in which to build the functionality of iTunes on.
I agree that QT7 and iTunes are tied at the hilt, and thus with no QT7 for Windows there's no updated iTunes yet.
i hope we will get a little bit more than just the option to add calenders and contacts to the iPod.
OK, i know, the iPod is pretty important for apple. but iTunes needs some serious enhancements on the audio part. there are so many features missing... and even more critical is the cpu consumption. i love iTunes, and all the guys i recommended iTunes too, but if you look at the amount of system resources it uses... i could cry. this has to change soon.
and... for iTunes 5 i hope we will get more advanced playlists and more support for other codecs (although i don't believe in this one).
I'm afraid to upgrade to iTunes 4.8, it seems we loose more features with Apples music policing policies then gain.
Policing policies can polish my Polish poker.
Hey Relic,
Those words at the bottom of your post, they are very familiar to me but I'm not sure where from. Are they from 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?'. Please remind me who said them.
Now that we have DVD-A and SACD, when will our beloved iTunes rip from these higher resolution formats? I don't need surround-sound tunes (although the 5.1 support built in to AirPort Extreme is certainly telling) but I always want to rip from the highest quality source, and since I already have a CD/DVD drive, it should be able to read these formats.
I'm just not that familiar with SACD and DVD-A formats. I thought SACD was backwards compatible, and if that's the case for all I know the OS only reveals the basic audio tracks.
Those words at the bottom of your post, they are very familiar to me but I'm not sure where from. Are they from 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?'. Please remind me who said them.
Roy Batty, Blade Runner. Sheesh.
My guess is that we'll see lyrics support sometime in the next couple of iterations. May be 4.8, may be 5.0, dunno.
Those words at the bottom of your post, they are very familiar to me but I'm not sure where from. Are they from 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?'. Please remind me who said them.
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
after a much discipline life i succumbed to credit card excess
I know what you mean. My card has a BIG hole in it; I got my PowerBook today. So I decided not to get the iPod until I get my finances under control (again).
Originally posted by hmurchison
No such thing. CD quality is simply 16-bit 44.1 kill o'hurts. I've had plenty a CD that sounds like total shiza. I've also had CD that sound grrrrrrrrrrrrreat. It's all in the tracking, engineering and mastering. While I don't have my AAC playing through tower Dunleavy I think they sound fine for the masses. Audiophiles are accustomed to paying more for their music and thus would be getting the CD or the DVD-Audio/SACD or, if you're lucky, the Vinyl.
I would like to see maybe variable bit recording and HE-AAC.
I understand all of that but, assumeing the cd version sounds great, that same thing in 128k mp3 or is good, but not worth as much as something that is the best quality availible to the general public.
Originally posted by hmurchison
No such thing. CD quality is simply 16-bit 44.1 kill o'hurts. I've had plenty a CD that sounds like total shiza. I've also had CD that sound grrrrrrrrrrrrreat. It's all in the tracking, engineering and mastering.
I'd say there is such a thing as "CD quality" in the sense that 16-bit 44.1 kHz PCM provides a certain (quite high) upper limit on sound quality. The upper limit isn't nearly so high for a 128 kbps AAC file. "CD quality" encoding won't, of course, make badly recorded music sound better, but AAC 128 kbps encoding certainly can make high-quality recordings sound worse.
I'd like to see iTMS at least offering 192 kbps AAC. Real is managing to do so now.
This said, I personally am not all that particularly sensitive to lossy compression artifacts. Oh, I can hear them sometimes, especially in A/B comparisons, but not easily except for a few hey-listen-to-this demonstrations of particular encoding flaws. I certainly don't get that "Aaaccckkk! This sounds like crap!" (over?)reaction that I've come across many times on these forums.
I'd like to see iTMS at least offering 192 kbps AAC. Real is managing to do so now.[/B]
I would like to see them offer an option. I would pay a little extra for higher quality files, but I would probably select 160 Kbps AAC.
"What is better?"
A rip from a 16/44.1 CD
a rip from a Master recording?
The endgame is still 128bit but the source varies. Apple does say that many of their files are supposed to be from high quality sources.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple does say that many of their files are supposed to be from high quality sources.
Yeah. At least thirteen is my guess...
Originally posted by kwsanders
I would like to see them offer an option. I would pay a little extra for higher quality files, but I would probably select 160 Kbps AAC.
Considering that there's a lower distribution cost for online digital music compared to physical CDs, and that either 160 or 192 kbps are still inferior to the sound quality of CDs, I should think that rates as high as 192 kbps should be available at no extra cost -- with the user not having to chose based on price, but rather based on his own priorities regarding quality vs. storage requirements and download time.
I would, however, be willing to pay a small premium, say $0.25 per track, to re-download, at a higher bit rate, music which I've already purchased at a lower bit rate, when and if higher bit rates become available.
As far as the 128kbps AAC files. What it comes down to is not only the quality of the music at that compression rate, but also the amount of time it takes to download the file. Apple obviously determined 128k was the best rate for the most people. It would be nice if Apple offered two rates; 128k and possibly 192k and added a "preferred rate" option in the user's account profile. Would make everyone happy (well almost) and still keep the one-click purchase simplicity of the store.
Originally posted by CrunchinJelly
I love iTunes as it is at the moment, what on earth could they include to make iTunes 5 even better?
This is an area of concern - look at what happened to MS Office, with feachure creap, and bloat, each version gets fatter \\and more convoluted to use, I Hope apple doesnt let this happen to itunes
Originally posted by a_greer
I understand all of that but, assumeing the cd version sounds great, that same thing in 128k mp3 or is good, but not worth as much as something that is the best quality availible to the general public.
then buy the CD and rip it. iTunes is not aimed at you, it's aimed at the average person who really can't hear the difference between 128k AAC and a CD. seriously, albums are the same price on iTunes as they are in stores.
then if you buy the CD you have a hard copy without DRM
Originally posted by hmurchison
Great.
Looking forward to iTunes 5.0
I'm sitting here waiting for QT7 for my PCs. I know that once it's ready for PC the launch of iTunes 5.0 can commence based on QT7. I just have a feeling actually. It makes sense to have a more robust QT in which to build the functionality of iTunes on.
I agree that QT7 and iTunes are tied at the hilt, and thus with no QT7 for Windows there's no updated iTunes yet.
OK, i know, the iPod is pretty important for apple. but iTunes needs some serious enhancements on the audio part. there are so many features missing... and even more critical is the cpu consumption. i love iTunes, and all the guys i recommended iTunes too, but if you look at the amount of system resources it uses... i could cry. this has to change soon.
and... for iTunes 5 i hope we will get more advanced playlists and more support for other codecs (although i don't believe in this one).
Originally posted by Relic
I'm afraid to upgrade to iTunes 4.8, it seems we loose more features with Apples music policing policies then gain.
Policing policies can polish my Polish poker.
Hey Relic,
Those words at the bottom of your post, they are very familiar to me but I'm not sure where from. Are they from 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?'. Please remind me who said them.
Cheers,
Berthos.
Originally posted by ZO
13 what?
Songs.
I'm just not that familiar with SACD and DVD-A formats. I thought SACD was backwards compatible, and if that's the case for all I know the OS only reveals the basic audio tracks.
Originally posted by Berthos
Hey Relic,
Those words at the bottom of your post, they are very familiar to me but I'm not sure where from. Are they from 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?'. Please remind me who said them.
Roy Batty, Blade Runner. Sheesh.
My guess is that we'll see lyrics support sometime in the next couple of iterations. May be 4.8, may be 5.0, dunno.
Originally posted by Berthos
Hey Relic,
Those words at the bottom of your post, they are very familiar to me but I'm not sure where from. Are they from 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?'. Please remind me who said them.
Cheers,
Berthos.
Blade Runner.