AAC+ in Itunes

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Is there a chance that we will see with Leopard new possibilities to encode songs in AAC+ in a future iTunes? Is there already a way to do this with a mac (encode a tune in AAC+ and read it with Quicktime?)... If my memories are correct, it will be able to make better compression of a song with smaller file as result?



Why its take so long to come in iTunes? That would mean more song on my iPod.. that would be NICE!!!



thanks for answers!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Yeah it's kind of like AAC itself. Took Apple FOREVER. What the hell!?
  • Reply 2 of 10
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    AAC+ gained a lot of its improvement in low bit rate recordings (sub 48kbps) and at higher bit rates doesn't distinguish itself so much. So I'm not really surprised Apple hasn't picked it up. I also have a feeling while AAC is licence free for the most part AAC+ is not and there are more fees involved with support.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    adamradamr Posts: 72member
    When this topic was raised frequently a while ago, I recall it being said that AAC+ was worse than standard AAC at higher bitrates. If so, that is the answer.



    In any event, for standard bitrates (128 to say 256) AAC is pretty close to as good as it gets. I have seen nothing that suggests any other format is markedly superior.



    Adam R
  • Reply 4 of 10
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by adamr


    When this topic was raised frequently a while ago, I recall it being said that AAC+ was worse than standard AAC at higher bitrates.



    Certainly not worse, no. But it's only noticeably better for low bitrates, which aren't suitable for iTunes anyway. The main use for AAC+ would be in iTunes's radio feature, which Apple doesn't seem to care to work on any more.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    You guys aren't getting it. It's for iPods. I thought everyone would realize that. It would effectively DOUBLE ALL iPod capacities. Just like AAC did. So...kind of stupid they haven't added it to iTunes/iTMS/iPods yet.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic


    You guys aren't getting it. It's for iPods. I thought everyone would realize that. It would effectively DOUBLE ALL iPod capacities. Just like AAC did. So...kind of stupid they haven't added it to iTunes/iTMS/iPods yet.



    "Double"? Sounds like you are suggesting that AAC+ at 64 kbit/s sounds comparable to AAC at 128 kbit/s. Let me beat me with a clue stick: it doesn't.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    How does Apple's codecs that come with iTunes compare, quality wise, to codecs in other applications?
  • Reply 8 of 10
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    "Double"? Sounds like you are suggesting that AAC+ at 64 kbit/s sounds comparable to AAC at 128 kbit/s. Let me beat me with a clue stick: it doesn't.



    That's what I recall seeing a long time ago. I'll have to double check some time soon.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/aacPlus.htm



    Seems like at 32kbps AAC+ v2 sounds as good as a 64 kbps AAC. Which means it arrives at the gold standard: sounding as good a 128 kbps mp3. Apple should add AAC+ v2 to the iPod and iTunes. Then they could say it stores TWICE the amount of songs they do now in commercials, because don't they usually use a 128 kbps mp3 as a metric? They've probably changed to AAC now but they'd still be the same size (mp3 and AAC). And if you follow, AAC+ v2 is half the size. Thus double the capacity. At the same quality as a 128 mp3. At a quarter the size! I'd probably use it. Lots of people think 128 mp3 sounds fine. And for the stuff I don't like as much, as I said, I'd use it. So...
  • Reply 10 of 10
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic


    http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/aacPlus.htm



    Seems like at 32kbps AAC+ v2 sounds as good as a 64 kbps AAC. Which means it arrives at the gold standard: sounding as good a 128 kbps mp3. Apple should add AAC+ v2 to the iPod and iTunes. Then they could say it stores TWICE the amount of songs they do now in commercials, because don't they usually use a 128 kbps mp3 as a metric? They've probably changed to AAC now but they'd still be the same size (mp3 and AAC). And if you follow, AAC+ v2 is half the size. Thus double the capacity. At the same quality as a 128 mp3. At a quarter the size! I'd probably use it. Lots of people think 128 mp3 sounds fine. And for the stuff I don't like as much, as I said, I'd use it. So...



    Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. AAC+ is only good at low bitrates. 48 kbit/s makes a decent radio stream, and 64 kbit/s can in some cases be roughly analogic to MP3 at 96-112 kbit/s. But as for beating 128 kbit/s AAC? Not possible. The only major format that can currently provide 128 kbit/s AAC-like quality at a lower bitrate is Ogg Vorbis.
Sign In or Register to comment.