iTunes for Windows!

N

Natoma

Veteran
http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1065739663.html

Coming next week! Woohoo! Napster is relaunching as well, but unfortunately they only have wmv format, which the ipod doesn't support. Ah wells, stuck with AAC and MP3. hehe.

Per track downloading, no restrictions on copying to portables and burning CDs. Windows iTunes has my money. All I can say is it's about time they brought it to windows. :D
 
IIRC the sound quality of iTunes is complete ass and thus it's not worth the bandwidth it's transmitted with.
 
Saem said:
IIRC the sound quality of iTunes is complete ass and thus it's not worth the bandwidth it's transmitted with.
Click to expand...

Recall as in recall someone else saying it or recall hearing it yourself?
128kbps LAME encoded MP3s are hard to distinguish without quality gear let alone 128kbps AAC which is what iTunes uses.
 
Supposedly 128bit AAC is much better than 128bit MP3.


But, I'm not so sure that ITMS for windows won't be using WMA/windows DRM.
 
JF_Aidan_Pryde said:
128kbps LAME encoded MP3s are hard to distinguish without quality gear let alone 128kbps AAC which is what iTunes uses.
Click to expand...

I disagree. 128kbps mp3 isn't anywhere near CD quality, especially for music heavy on distorted guitars and hi hats (might work for the average pop stuff on radio tho). 160kbps is minimum, imho. More advanced codecs like Ogg Vorbis are OK at 128kbps but mp3 definately isn't.

192kbps is virtually indistinguishable from CD, at least if you encode with joint stereo (and the stereo spread of the recording isn't to big, e.g. some live recordings). "True" stereo needs at least 256kbps (= 128kbps per channel) but I'd go for 320kbps in that case.
 
L233 said:
JF_Aidan_Pryde said:
128kbps LAME encoded MP3s are hard to distinguish without quality gear let alone 128kbps AAC which is what iTunes uses.
Click to expand...

I disagree. 128kbps mp3 isn't anywhere near CD quality, especially for music heavy on distorted guitars and hi hats (might work for the average pop stuff on radio tho). 160kbps is minimum, imho. More advanced codecs like Ogg Vorbis are OK at 128kbps but mp3 definately isn't.

192kbps is virtually indistinguishable from CD, at least if you encode with joint stereo (and the stereo spread of the recording isn't to big, e.g. some live recordings). "True" stereo needs at least 256kbps (= 128kbps per channel) but I'd go for 320kbps in that case.
Click to expand...

It's easy to have an academic debate over the merits of high bitrates. Of course it's better, I like high bit-rates too - I encode all my MP3s with LAME --extreme preset. But for the general listener, the sound quality isn't bottlenecked by the source/encoding, but by their reproduction gear. Unless you plan to listen to the 128kbps AAC files with high end sound gear, there's not a lot of diference to be heard.

In my opinion, it's like having a debate about the merits of FSAA when the monitor is already a blurry mess. Yes, 128 isn't full resolution, but it's unlikely to be the weakest link in the chain, which in my opinion is the headphones.

And as you said, it's okay for pop stuff, which probably gets the vast amount of downloads. AAC is also recognised to be on par if not better than Oggs. So in the end, I think apple's offering is a pretty sensible one.
 
JF_Aidan_Pryde said:
It's easy to have an academic debate over the merits of high bitrates.
Click to expand...

This isn't an academic debate. When ich archived my 450 CD collection on my PC a few months ago I did extensive, subjective tests with various codecs and encoders. I came to the conclusion that 128kbps MP3 simply isn't good enough. Not by a long shot. What's academic about that?


But for the general listener, the sound quality isn't bottlenecked by the source/encoding, but by their reproduction gear. Unless you plan to listen to the 128kbps AAC files with high end sound gear, there's not a lot of diference to be heard.
Click to expand...

What's a general listener?

The guy who listens to Britney Spears twice a week? Or the person who listens to music a lot?

The person who listens to music from his $25 plastic PC speakers oder the person who has his PC hooked to his stereo?

Who is more likely to actually BUY music instead of just warezing a crappy 128kbps MP3 from Kazaa?


And as you said, it's okay for pop stuff, which probably gets the vast amount of downloads. AAC is also recognised to be on par if not better than Oggs. So in the end, I think apple's offering is a pretty sensible one.
Click to expand...

Yes, AAC produces pretty good sound quality at 128kbps and OGG and AAC are pretty close, at least if you encode yourself. I'd still give the nod to OGG but that's subjective. Both are worse than 192kpps LAME encoded MP3 tho but at least they don't make you bleed from the ears like 128kbps MP3 does.

The problem with iTunes seems to be (from what I have read so far) that their ACCs simply sound horrible. Maybe they use a crappy encoder for speed's sake (AAC/OGG encoding is pretty slow if you want to do it right). The problem seems to be iTunes, not AAC.
 
Sxotty said:
What players play ogg files? I mean portable players not ones for the computer :).
Click to expand...

There is a new iRiver player that supports ogg. Plus, they will soon release firmware for some of their older players that will enable ogg support.
 
i was under the impression that iTunes offered quite a few files at only 64kbps AAC....
Click to expand...

None that I've seen...

This isn't an academic debate. When ich archived my 450 CD collection on my PC a few months ago I did extensive, subjective tests with various codecs and encoders.
Click to expand...

Please... We're talking about perceptual audio encoders... Everybody has their tastes... Quite a few audio encoding enthusiasts swear by MPC. I find that it filters out too much natural noise, and it's PNS filtering tends to be a bit too aggressive with noise patterns.

I myself prefer Garf's GT3b1 tuned version of Ogg Vorbis...

The problem with iTunes seems to be (from what I have read so far) that their ACCs simply sound horrible. Maybe they use a crappy encoder for speed's sake (AAC/OGG encoding is pretty slow if you want to do it right). The problem seems to be iTunes, not AAC.
Click to expand...

iTunes uses Quicktime for it's AAC encoding facilities. However it does not run the encoder at it's highest quality setting when ripping CDs. Obviously the lower quality settings are tuned for speed (both for ripping and real-time streaming purposes), but that's nothing new, even LAME exhibits these characteristics with different settings. In any case the AAC files I've downloaded from iTMS have exhibited the traits of the higher quality encoder. I myself use an AppleScript in iTunes to invoke a cmd-line tool I wrote to use QT's encoder at higher quality settings (I've also got one for LAME and Ogg Vorbis as well).

But, I'm not so sure that ITMS for windows won't be using WMA/windows DRM.
Click to expand...

While possible, it'd be highly unlikely. It would instantly require their content system to manage twice the number of assets, license servers, and break feature parity with it's Mac counterpart (not to mention a support headache, and reliance on an external technology that Apple has little control over).
 
L233 said:
Maybe they use a crappy encoder for speed's sake (AAC/OGG encoding is pretty slow if you want to do it right). The problem seems to be iTunes, not AAC.
Click to expand...

Since you haven't heard the iTunes AACs first hand, and neither have I, I don't think it's fruitful to continue this debate. ;)
 
RussSchultz said:
Supposedly 128bit AAC is much better than 128bit MP3.
Click to expand...

Better, but not much better.

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?934:2

RussSchultz said:
But, I'm not so sure that ITMS for windows won't be using WMA/windows DRM.
Click to expand...

Considering that Windows iPods support AAC, MP3, and Variable Bitrate MP3, and that iTMSWin will support iPod, I would venture to guess that iTMSWin will support those formats as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Full transcript of John Carmack's QuakeCon 2005 Keynote
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
34K
nemisis
N
Back
Top