AAC doesn't support DRM, so Apple won't allow you to download songs in that format.
Wha? I think you mean AIFF doesn't support DRM.
Anyhow, I really think they should be giving us at least 160 AAC... when I encode a CD, it's at 192 AAC, and if I'm paying to download music (vs. buying used) it should be in the state of a CD.
I don't think so. I know that Linux PDA's can run an Ogg Vorbis player.
Palms can too. There are plugins for both aeroplayer and pocket tunes, I believe. I don't use either one because I've got an iPod, but if you need it, it's available.
Apple prob supports AAC because its an industry standard and supports DRM while Ogg, while being great, is maybe a bit too open and, afaik, doesnt support DRM.
Apple seems to think 128kbs AAC is equivalent enough to 160kbs MP3.
Note that a 128kbps AAC from Apple will not be the same as a 128kbps AAC from iTunes or QuickTime. If you're selling an AAC, you might spend a little more CPU time/money/etc. on encoding. From what I've read, Apple's 128kbps AACs are better than AACs generated by iTunes (which seems to tradeoff quality for speed of encoding).
I personally use AAC-128 when ordering fro allofmp3 to a) save space on my computer and b) cost less (allofmp3 charges by file size). I do understand that the quality is not as good but i usually don't hear the difference. When i do hear it, it is worth it for the cost and drive savings.
When, in the rare case that it happens, i am ripping from a CD, i use 160 AAC VBR. This is a good compromise for me.
What you decided to use is really about compromises. Yes, 1500 bits CD raw data will sound better than 128, but its about a compromise between file size and quality, (and cost in my situation). Apple had to make the same compromise with bandwidth considerations and considerations about what types of customers they will have
Kinda fun revisiting this thread over 2 years later.
Since then I've purchased an iPod mini and nano and a ton of iPod accessories. Not sure if I had my G5 at the time.
Anyhow, still rip using 160 AAC. Every once in a while I find an album that needs a bit better of a rip and I use a higher bit rate, Nine Inch Nail's With Teeth for example. While I purchase iTunes tracks, that's more for disposable music. The stuff I really love I buy on CD.
I've generally found VBR support to be inconsistent so I avoid it.
Note that a 128kbps AAC from Apple will not be the same as a 128kbps AAC from iTunes or QuickTime. If you're selling an AAC, you might spend a little more CPU time/money/etc. on encoding. From what I've read, Apple's 128kbps AACs are better than AACs generated by iTunes (which seems to tradeoff quality for speed of encoding).
When 'we' rip our CD's, we are relying on QT to decode an already compressed format. When Apple have it done at 128 they are doing it from the Master, or so I hear. As I can't ever get the same quality ripping at 128 that they achieve.
When 'we' rip our CD's, we are relying on QT to decode an already compressed format. When Apple have it done at 128 they are doing it from the Master, or so I hear. As I can't ever get the same quality ripping at 128 that they achieve.
I heard that the iTunes store uses professional encoding from original 24-bit masters, which should provide way better output than our rips off 16-bit CDs. How Apple's rips compare to consumer-grade rips at higher bitrates is unknown.
I've generally found VBR support to be inconsistent so I avoid it.
What do you mean support is inconsistent? Are you talking within the iTunes/iPod ecosystem or outside it? I have started to rip my music at 160kbps VBR thinking VBR would give the music a "richer" sound.
What do you mean support is inconsistent? Are you talking within the iTunes/iPod ecosystem or outside it? I have started to rip my music at 160kbps VBR thinking VBR would give the music a "richer" sound.
Sometimes fast forwarding through VBR content causes the playhead to get slightly out of sync with the content. Meaning it could be 3 minutes in but it could be reported as 2:56 or 3:05 or something. Non-VBR content has a fixed amount of time for each chunk of data so it is far more accurate when speeding through the content.
If you don't fast forward or rewind it may not be an issue. VBR should sound better but may use a bit more CPU power to decode and playback so iPod battery life may suffer slightly.
Comments
Originally posted by shatteringglass
AAC doesn't support DRM, so Apple won't allow you to download songs in that format.
Wha? I think you mean AIFF doesn't support DRM.
Anyhow, I really think they should be giving us at least 160 AAC... when I encode a CD, it's at 192 AAC, and if I'm paying to download music (vs. buying used) it should be in the state of a CD.
Originally posted by CubeDude
I don't think so. I know that Linux PDA's can run an Ogg Vorbis player.
Palms can too. There are plugins for both aeroplayer and pocket tunes, I believe. I don't use either one because I've got an iPod, but if you need it, it's available.
Gotta please the industry too unfortunately.
Originally posted by WJMoore
Apple seems to think 128kbs AAC is equivalent enough to 160kbs MP3.
Note that a 128kbps AAC from Apple will not be the same as a 128kbps AAC from iTunes or QuickTime. If you're selling an AAC, you might spend a little more CPU time/money/etc. on encoding. From what I've read, Apple's 128kbps AACs are better than AACs generated by iTunes (which seems to tradeoff quality for speed of encoding).
For more info about AAC vs. MP3, head on down to wikipedia
edit: Oops, didn't notice how old this thread was!
(followed a link from somewhere else)
If so, I hate both !
When, in the rare case that it happens, i am ripping from a CD, i use 160 AAC VBR. This is a good compromise for me.
What you decided to use is really about compromises. Yes, 1500 bits CD raw data will sound better than 128, but its about a compromise between file size and quality, (and cost in my situation). Apple had to make the same compromise with bandwidth considerations and considerations about what types of customers they will have
Since then I've purchased an iPod mini and nano and a ton of iPod accessories. Not sure if I had my G5 at the time.
Anyhow, still rip using 160 AAC. Every once in a while I find an album that needs a bit better of a rip and I use a higher bit rate, Nine Inch Nail's With Teeth for example. While I purchase iTunes tracks, that's more for disposable music. The stuff I really love I buy on CD.
I've generally found VBR support to be inconsistent so I avoid it.
Originally posted by nguyenhm16
Note that a 128kbps AAC from Apple will not be the same as a 128kbps AAC from iTunes or QuickTime. If you're selling an AAC, you might spend a little more CPU time/money/etc. on encoding. From what I've read, Apple's 128kbps AACs are better than AACs generated by iTunes (which seems to tradeoff quality for speed of encoding).
When 'we' rip our CD's, we are relying on QT to decode an already compressed format. When Apple have it done at 128 they are doing it from the Master, or so I hear. As I can't ever get the same quality ripping at 128 that they achieve.
Originally posted by ZoranS
When 'we' rip our CD's, we are relying on QT to decode an already compressed format. When Apple have it done at 128 they are doing it from the Master, or so I hear. As I can't ever get the same quality ripping at 128 that they achieve.
I heard that the iTunes store uses professional encoding from original 24-bit masters, which should provide way better output than our rips off 16-bit CDs. How Apple's rips compare to consumer-grade rips at higher bitrates is unknown.
Originally posted by Xool
I've generally found VBR support to be inconsistent so I avoid it.
What do you mean support is inconsistent? Are you talking within the iTunes/iPod ecosystem or outside it? I have started to rip my music at 160kbps VBR thinking VBR would give the music a "richer" sound.
Originally posted by troberts
What do you mean support is inconsistent? Are you talking within the iTunes/iPod ecosystem or outside it? I have started to rip my music at 160kbps VBR thinking VBR would give the music a "richer" sound.
Sometimes fast forwarding through VBR content causes the playhead to get slightly out of sync with the content. Meaning it could be 3 minutes in but it could be reported as 2:56 or 3:05 or something. Non-VBR content has a fixed amount of time for each chunk of data so it is far more accurate when speeding through the content.
If you don't fast forward or rewind it may not be an issue. VBR should sound better but may use a bit more CPU power to decode and playback so iPod battery life may suffer slightly.