Anybody use iTunes?
i just found the radio today, it's a nice integration, but nothing you can't find for winamp.
the sharing feature is awesome if you can take advantage of it. my friends down at uc santa cruz love it, but sitting in my house, being the only one with mp3s, it's not a big feature, heh.
winamp has never been reliable on my machine, odyss3y; don't know what it is.
the sharing feature is awesome if you can take advantage of it. my friends down at uc santa cruz love it, but sitting in my house, being the only one with mp3s, it's not a big feature, heh.
winamp has never been reliable on my machine, odyss3y; don't know what it is.
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 47,596
From: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Car Info: 2014 Forester XT
I use iTunes for the radio also, the electronica secion is bomb
also, you guys know that Apple does not make one dime off the sales, they pay the RIAA the full price of the tracks they sell so they can do it
faq the RIAA
also, you guys know that Apple does not make one dime off the sales, they pay the RIAA the full price of the tracks they sell so they can do it
faq the RIAA
Thats not true. While ITMS isnt profitable (marketing, infrastructure, ect) now, it is earning money (like ~30 cents a track). Apple has stated in interviews though that iTunes is merely a trojan horse to sell more iPods, which they make bank off of.
Originally posted by Scott@S-Squared
also, you guys know that Apple does not make one dime off the sales, they pay the RIAA the full price of the tracks they sell so they can do it
faq the RIAA
also, you guys know that Apple does not make one dime off the sales, they pay the RIAA the full price of the tracks they sell so they can do it
faq the RIAA
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,329
From: san francisco
Car Info: always changing...
Originally posted by Twu Perfect
huh. How are the quality of the mp3s? Are they in crappy 128kbps form? I can seriously tell the difference between that and from a CD, even though "tech analysts" claim they can't...
huh. How are the quality of the mp3s? Are they in crappy 128kbps form? I can seriously tell the difference between that and from a CD, even though "tech analysts" claim they can't...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 231
From: Silly Valley, CA
Car Info: 2003 Impreza WRX Sedan Midnight Black Pearl
AAC is better than mp3, and not only that, artists are encouraged to sample from digital masters, so when you buy a song you are ideally getting
digital master -> AAC,
not
digital master -> aiff(cd audio) -> mp3.
So better quality encoding and better quality sample.
All in all it is pretty a cool app and product.
digital master -> AAC,
not
digital master -> aiff(cd audio) -> mp3.
So better quality encoding and better quality sample.
All in all it is pretty a cool app and product.
Since many of you have asked for codec recommendations based on end use I will offer some recommendations here:
Portable use (iPod, discman, car/portable stereo)
AAC Quicktime 128 kbps. Ogg 128 actually sounds a little better but it's an unproven format and since no portables support it, it defeats the purpose of using it. I want to make a special note here that the iTunes AAC encoder can be very bad at this rate if you're tempted to use it. It's simply too variable from song to song. Some pop sounds great, some jazz sounds horrible. If you want to use iTunes at this rate stick with MP3.
Home use (mini system, good computer speakers, living room home theatre)
AAC Quicktime 192 kbps or MP3 with LAME and VBR at 192 kbps. Both of these are very good formats that will archive well. AAC 192 in iTunes is a runner up for convenience sake because it sounds okay and it's more convenient. Most average listeners will think all three of these are entirely acceptable and for home use you'll probably never hear the improvement a higher bitrate can give.
Hi-Fi (good stereo, iPod with good headphones, archiving)
MP3 with LAME and VBR encoding 192 kbps. None of these formats are particularly great for this and if you're concerned about quality this much I assume you can put up with the relative inconvenience of using a slow encoder. 196 vbr in this test was the best, but 320 should be very audiophile friendly. You can pack a lot of songs on an iPod at this rate and you escape the dreaded AIFF/memory trap. It's also a proven format so you won't be tempted to re-rip your important tunes for a while.
Portable use (iPod, discman, car/portable stereo)
AAC Quicktime 128 kbps. Ogg 128 actually sounds a little better but it's an unproven format and since no portables support it, it defeats the purpose of using it. I want to make a special note here that the iTunes AAC encoder can be very bad at this rate if you're tempted to use it. It's simply too variable from song to song. Some pop sounds great, some jazz sounds horrible. If you want to use iTunes at this rate stick with MP3.
Home use (mini system, good computer speakers, living room home theatre)
AAC Quicktime 192 kbps or MP3 with LAME and VBR at 192 kbps. Both of these are very good formats that will archive well. AAC 192 in iTunes is a runner up for convenience sake because it sounds okay and it's more convenient. Most average listeners will think all three of these are entirely acceptable and for home use you'll probably never hear the improvement a higher bitrate can give.
Hi-Fi (good stereo, iPod with good headphones, archiving)
MP3 with LAME and VBR encoding 192 kbps. None of these formats are particularly great for this and if you're concerned about quality this much I assume you can put up with the relative inconvenience of using a slow encoder. 196 vbr in this test was the best, but 320 should be very audiophile friendly. You can pack a lot of songs on an iPod at this rate and you escape the dreaded AIFF/memory trap. It's also a proven format so you won't be tempted to re-rip your important tunes for a while.
If you care about audio quality and listen to a lot of electronic music, avoid MPEG-4 AAC, particularly if you use bit rates below 160kbps. iTunes MP3 at 160kbps is better than AAC at 128kbps if you can afford the extra file size. If you really want CD quality, you'll need to use Ogg Vorbis or LAME MP3 encoding.
If encoding speed or iPod compatibility is important to you, use AAC--but don't go below 160kbps.
I am disappointed that yet again, Apple revved the iPod but didn't bother to implement Vorbis decode. I won't be buying one.
If encoding speed or iPod compatibility is important to you, use AAC--but don't go below 160kbps.
I am disappointed that yet again, Apple revved the iPod but didn't bother to implement Vorbis decode. I won't be buying one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post