iTunes for windows

[BananaHead]

Gentlemen,

iTunes for Windows was released today.

Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
available for you to mess it up.

I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.

-BH

[Om_Audio]

Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
could be wrong-

Om

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> Gentlemen,
>
> iTunes for Windows was released today.
>
> Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> available for you to mess it up.
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>
> -BH

[Om_Audio]

Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
could be wrong-

Om

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> Gentlemen,
>
> iTunes for Windows was released today.
>
> Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> available for you to mess it up.
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>
> -BH

[Tommy B]

"Mp3 swill"
Main Entry: 1swill
Pronunciation: 'swil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English swilen, from Old English swillan
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : WASH, DRENCH
2 : to drink great drafts of : GUZZLE
3 : to feed (as a pig) with swill
intransitive senses
1 : to drink or eat freely, greedily, or to excess
2 : SWASH
- swill·er noun

These guys have never heard an MP3 or you'd see under
Mp3, swill for the ears.
Does Ogg Vorbis have any chance of becoming a standard?
Tom

"Om_Audio" > wrote in message
news:AwRjb.804825$uu5.141723@sccrnsc04...
> Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
> could be wrong-
>
> Om
>
> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > iTunes for Windows was released today.
> >
> > Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> > AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> > better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> > sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> > available for you to mess it up.
> >
> > I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> > butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
> >
> > -BH
>
>

[Tommy B]

"Mp3 swill"
Main Entry: 1swill
Pronunciation: 'swil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English swilen, from Old English swillan
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : WASH, DRENCH
2 : to drink great drafts of : GUZZLE
3 : to feed (as a pig) with swill
intransitive senses
1 : to drink or eat freely, greedily, or to excess
2 : SWASH
- swill·er noun

These guys have never heard an MP3 or you'd see under
Mp3, swill for the ears.
Does Ogg Vorbis have any chance of becoming a standard?
Tom

"Om_Audio" > wrote in message
news:AwRjb.804825$uu5.141723@sccrnsc04...
> Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
> could be wrong-
>
> Om
>
> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > iTunes for Windows was released today.
> >
> > Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> > AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> > better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> > sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> > available for you to mess it up.
> >
> > I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> > butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
> >
> > -BH
>
>

[Om_Audio]

From what I understand OGG requires floating point calculations ( I think I
read about this on OGG web site) which iPod etc do not have- I was way into
OGG for awhile- emailing Apple to support the format in the iPod- but I'm
back to mp3 for sheer compatability reasons- 192kbps is passable for me at
this point-

Om

"Tommy B" > wrote in message
k.net...
> "Mp3 swill"
> Main Entry: 1swill
> Pronunciation: 'swil
> Function: verb
> Etymology: Middle English swilen, from Old English swillan
> Date: before 12th century
> transitive senses
> 1 : WASH, DRENCH
> 2 : to drink great drafts of : GUZZLE
> 3 : to feed (as a pig) with swill
> intransitive senses
> 1 : to drink or eat freely, greedily, or to excess
> 2 : SWASH
> - swill·er noun
>
> These guys have never heard an MP3 or you'd see under
> Mp3, swill for the ears.
> Does Ogg Vorbis have any chance of becoming a standard?
> Tom
>
> "Om_Audio" > wrote in message
> news:AwRjb.804825$uu5.141723@sccrnsc04...
> > Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
> > could be wrong-
> >
> > Om
> >
> > "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Gentlemen,
> > >
> > > iTunes for Windows was released today.
> > >
> > > Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> > > AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> > > better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> > > sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> > > available for you to mess it up.
> > >
> > > I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> > > butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
> > >
> > > -BH
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Om_Audio]

From what I understand OGG requires floating point calculations ( I think I
read about this on OGG web site) which iPod etc do not have- I was way into
OGG for awhile- emailing Apple to support the format in the iPod- but I'm
back to mp3 for sheer compatability reasons- 192kbps is passable for me at
this point-

Om

"Tommy B" > wrote in message
k.net...
> "Mp3 swill"
> Main Entry: 1swill
> Pronunciation: 'swil
> Function: verb
> Etymology: Middle English swilen, from Old English swillan
> Date: before 12th century
> transitive senses
> 1 : WASH, DRENCH
> 2 : to drink great drafts of : GUZZLE
> 3 : to feed (as a pig) with swill
> intransitive senses
> 1 : to drink or eat freely, greedily, or to excess
> 2 : SWASH
> - swill·er noun
>
> These guys have never heard an MP3 or you'd see under
> Mp3, swill for the ears.
> Does Ogg Vorbis have any chance of becoming a standard?
> Tom
>
> "Om_Audio" > wrote in message
> news:AwRjb.804825$uu5.141723@sccrnsc04...
> > Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
> > could be wrong-
> >
> > Om
> >
> > "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Gentlemen,
> > >
> > > iTunes for Windows was released today.
> > >
> > > Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> > > AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> > > better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> > > sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> > > available for you to mess it up.
> > >
> > > I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> > > butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
> > >
> > > -BH
> >
> >
>
>
>

[MikeK]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> Gentlemen,
>
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>

Hahahaha, I started the install and it said "If you proceed your Quicktime
Pro will no longer work and you'll have to buy a new key."

Assholes, what does an audio player have to do with video? And why should a
free download break or require the upgrade of my paid-for s/w?

[MikeK]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> Gentlemen,
>
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>

Hahahaha, I started the install and it said "If you proceed your Quicktime
Pro will no longer work and you'll have to buy a new key."

Assholes, what does an audio player have to do with video? And why should a
free download break or require the upgrade of my paid-for s/w?

[S O'Neill]

iTunes relies on QT for AAC decoding. You have a non-AAC version of QT. You
need QT 6.4. I was lucky enough to have 6.2 when I got QT Pro.

Why they charge for the update, only they know; perhaps there are other QTP
features you didn't buy, it's not like they're the only ones that do this.


MikeK wrote:

> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>
>>I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
>>butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>>
>
>
> Hahahaha, I started the install and it said "If you proceed your Quicktime
> Pro will no longer work and you'll have to buy a new key."
>
> Assholes, what does an audio player have to do with video? And why should a
> free download break or require the upgrade of my paid-for s/w?
>
>

[S O'Neill]

iTunes relies on QT for AAC decoding. You have a non-AAC version of QT. You
need QT 6.4. I was lucky enough to have 6.2 when I got QT Pro.

Why they charge for the update, only they know; perhaps there are other QTP
features you didn't buy, it's not like they're the only ones that do this.


MikeK wrote:

> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>
>>I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
>>butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>>
>
>
> Hahahaha, I started the install and it said "If you proceed your Quicktime
> Pro will no longer work and you'll have to buy a new key."
>
> Assholes, what does an audio player have to do with video? And why should a
> free download break or require the upgrade of my paid-for s/w?
>
>

[BananaHead]

"Om_Audio" > wrote in message news:<AwRjb.804825$uu5.141723@sccrnsc04>...
> Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
> could be wrong-
>

Yep, iPod. Nobody on osx that i know uses anything but AAC unless you
need MP3 for compatibility. The files are the same size but one
sounds drastically better so it's a no brainer. I don't know about
other portable devices but with AAC in itunes for windows I would
guess if they don't already they will soon.

-bh

[BananaHead]

"Om_Audio" > wrote in message news:<AwRjb.804825$uu5.141723@sccrnsc04>...
> Do any portable audio devices support AAC? I assume the iPod does but I
> could be wrong-
>

Yep, iPod. Nobody on osx that i know uses anything but AAC unless you
need MP3 for compatibility. The files are the same size but one
sounds drastically better so it's a no brainer. I don't know about
other portable devices but with AAC in itunes for windows I would
guess if they don't already they will soon.

-bh

[JL]

Is there software available for windows xp that encodes AAC? Which one?

JL

[JL]

Is there software available for windows xp that encodes AAC? Which one?

JL

[Andrew M.]

I believe Quicktime Pro encodes AAC.

JL wrote:
> Is there software available for windows xp that encodes AAC? Which one?
>
> JL
>
>

[Andrew M.]

I believe Quicktime Pro encodes AAC.

JL wrote:
> Is there software available for windows xp that encodes AAC? Which one?
>
> JL
>
>

[Charles Tomaras]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> Gentlemen,
>
> iTunes for Windows was released today.
>
> Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> available for you to mess it up.
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.


Too bad iTunes doesn't support WM9 which to my ears is the best sounding codec
out there for any given bit rate.

[Charles Tomaras]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> Gentlemen,
>
> iTunes for Windows was released today.
>
> Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> available for you to mess it up.
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.


Too bad iTunes doesn't support WM9 which to my ears is the best sounding codec
out there for any given bit rate.

[Charles Tomaras]

"JL" > wrote in message ...
> Is there software available for windows xp that encodes AAC? Which one?
>
> JL

Nero 6 will encode AAC.

[Charles Tomaras]

"JL" > wrote in message ...
> Is there software available for windows xp that encodes AAC? Which one?
>
> JL

Nero 6 will encode AAC.

[BlacklineMusic]

I just got the itunes which has a "convert to AAC" feature. Is there only one
algo for converting to AAC? I've bought some music from itunes and the AAC has
very little artifacts at all. Very cool stuff.
Steve

[BlacklineMusic]

I just got the itunes which has a "convert to AAC" feature. Is there only one
algo for converting to AAC? I've bought some music from itunes and the AAC has
very little artifacts at all. Very cool stuff.
Steve

[Arny Krueger]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om
> Gentlemen,
>
> iTunes for Windows was released today.
>
> Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> available for you to mess it up.
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.

My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
system.

I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.

However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features

[Arny Krueger]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om
> Gentlemen,
>
> iTunes for Windows was released today.
>
> Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
> AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
> better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
> sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
> available for you to mess it up.
>
> I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
> butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.

My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
system.

I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.

However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features

[Andrew M.]

Isn't AAC just MP4 with a different name? I believe that there are the
exact same ways to screw things up encoding AAC as mp3. When I encode
AAC in quicktime I have the same options as mp3 encoding.

I don't know that AAC sounds better, but it does sound different than
mp3. I do however still hear the same chopped reverb tails as mp3. The
sound stage sounds a bit wider. It sounds a bit clearer, kind of.

I don't know that consumers are going to perceive a benefit over mp3. I
played some stuff I encoded as mp3 and AAC and my friends didn't really
notice a difference in my studio until I pointed it out. They did think
the low end was a more extended on the mp3 versions.

Bottom line...it's still not as good as CD audio at 16 bit 44.1!

Now that Apple opened this thing up to the whole market place(the other
95+% of us) maybe they will have the cash to really improve audio data
compression.

I saw an interview with Steve Jobs and he was talking about how little
money Apple can expect to make from iTunes and I was a bit horrified. He
said the vast majority of moneys went to the labels. Shouldn't Apple get
"retail". It didn't sound like the labels are really getting the idea. I
think they are WAY overcharging for these files at $.99, and that over
$.90 was going to the labels. How about A 50/50 split at $.50 a song.
The files don't sound nearly good enough for me to pay the same price as
CD's. Steve Jobs is trying, but are they making enough money to sustain
iTunes?

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om
>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>iTunes for Windows was released today.
>>
>>Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
>>AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
>>better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
>>sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
>>available for you to mess it up.
>>
>>I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
>>butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>
>
> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
> system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.
>
> However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features
>
>

[Andrew M.]

Isn't AAC just MP4 with a different name? I believe that there are the
exact same ways to screw things up encoding AAC as mp3. When I encode
AAC in quicktime I have the same options as mp3 encoding.

I don't know that AAC sounds better, but it does sound different than
mp3. I do however still hear the same chopped reverb tails as mp3. The
sound stage sounds a bit wider. It sounds a bit clearer, kind of.

I don't know that consumers are going to perceive a benefit over mp3. I
played some stuff I encoded as mp3 and AAC and my friends didn't really
notice a difference in my studio until I pointed it out. They did think
the low end was a more extended on the mp3 versions.

Bottom line...it's still not as good as CD audio at 16 bit 44.1!

Now that Apple opened this thing up to the whole market place(the other
95+% of us) maybe they will have the cash to really improve audio data
compression.

I saw an interview with Steve Jobs and he was talking about how little
money Apple can expect to make from iTunes and I was a bit horrified. He
said the vast majority of moneys went to the labels. Shouldn't Apple get
"retail". It didn't sound like the labels are really getting the idea. I
think they are WAY overcharging for these files at $.99, and that over
$.90 was going to the labels. How about A 50/50 split at $.50 a song.
The files don't sound nearly good enough for me to pay the same price as
CD's. Steve Jobs is trying, but are they making enough money to sustain
iTunes?

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om
>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>iTunes for Windows was released today.
>>
>>Now there are no more valid excuses why anyone would not be encoding
>>AAC (as opposed to that filthy MP3 swill). Sounds better, vastly
>>better quality control, no variables. Sure there are a few good
>>sounding MP3s, but *all* ACCs sound good. There are no settings
>>available for you to mess it up.
>>
>>I'm sure we're all as sick as I am of hearing our wonderful mixes
>>butchered on the web. Make it happen troops.
>
>
> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
> system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.
>
> However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features
>
>

[BananaHead]

"MikeK" > wrote in message >...

> Assholes, what does an audio player have to do with video? And why should a
> free download break or require the upgrade of my paid-for s/w?


Truely. I was talking with someone just last night about this. "What
does QT Pro add" I asked, "should I get it?" "No" he says. He bought
QT Pro once, but then shortly after there was a new update and he said
they made him purchase it all over again just to get the ****in
update... or some such. This really is the most retarded thing on the
planet. I didn't have to pay $1300 again for my recent N2.1 update...
if I did PT would starting looking better and better.

-bh

[BananaHead]

"MikeK" > wrote in message >...

> Assholes, what does an audio player have to do with video? And why should a
> free download break or require the upgrade of my paid-for s/w?


Truely. I was talking with someone just last night about this. "What
does QT Pro add" I asked, "should I get it?" "No" he says. He bought
QT Pro once, but then shortly after there was a new update and he said
they made him purchase it all over again just to get the ****in
update... or some such. This really is the most retarded thing on the
planet. I didn't have to pay $1300 again for my recent N2.1 update...
if I did PT would starting looking better and better.

-bh

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my
> normally bullet-proof XP system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.

Its part of the vast "fruit-tree-conspirancy" to try to
convince the 92% of the market to abondon Windows
and go over to the Dark Side. :-))

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my
> normally bullet-proof XP system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.

Its part of the vast "fruit-tree-conspirancy" to try to
convince the 92% of the market to abondon Windows
and go over to the Dark Side. :-))

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message


> Isn't AAC just MP4 with a different name?

My understanding is that MP4 (more properly MPEG-4) is a superset of AAC. A
vast superset.

> I believe that there are the
> exact same ways to screw things up encoding AAC as mp3.

No doubt.

> When I encode
> AAC in quicktime I have the same options as mp3 encoding.

Right, and under the covers the programming can be as good or as bad as the
programmers & analysts who developed it.

> I don't know that AAC sounds better, but it does sound different than
> mp3. I do however still hear the same chopped reverb tails as mp3. The
> sound stage sounds a bit wider. It sounds a bit clearer, kind of.

Here's my attempt to shed some light on the subject:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/coder_decoder/index.htm

> I don't know that consumers are going to perceive a benefit over mp3.

That's grist for the market survey mills, right?

> I played some stuff I encoded as mp3 and AAC and my friends didn't
> really notice a difference in my studio until I pointed it out. They
> did think the low end was a more extended on the mp3 versions.

Level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests or casual listening?

> Bottom line...it's still not as good as CD audio at 16 bit 44.1!

All I can say is that my Nomad Jukebox 3 is loaded with 1644 .wav files. But
in a pinch I've been known to listen to MP3s. It's about the music, right?

> Now that Apple opened this thing up to the whole market place(the
> other 95+% of us) maybe they will have the cash to really improve
> audio data compression.

I don't know if Apple is a gatekeeper for this technology. I wouldn't be
surprised if iTunes includes some technology they licensed from someone
else, under the covers.

My understanding is that AAC was developed by a consortium that includes
both US & European companies. One person I casually know who was intimately
involved with the development of AAC and was well-known on some Usenet audio
groups is now said to be working for Microsoft...

> I saw an interview with Steve Jobs and he was talking about how little
> money Apple can expect to make from iTunes and I was a bit horrified.
> He said the vast majority of moneys went to the labels.

A recent biz magazine article said that of a 99 cent sales price, 75 cents
goes to the label, and 5 cents goes to the charge card folks.

> Shouldn't
> Apple get "retail". It didn't sound like the labels are really
> getting the idea. I think they are WAY overcharging for these files
> at $.99, and that over $.90 was going to the labels.

I hear its *only* $0.75.

> How about A
> 50/50 split at $.50 a song. The files don't sound nearly good enough
> for me to pay the same price as CD's. Steve Jobs is trying, but are
> they making enough money to sustain iTunes?

Normally hard-headed people like Dell are also jumping on this bandwagon. It
might be THE NEXT BIG THING!

;-)

Getting back on topic, (or maybe not, since iTunes is both a program and a
web site) The windows iTunes program does seem to be a nice program for
indexing media files, if a bit fragile in its import function.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message


> Isn't AAC just MP4 with a different name?

My understanding is that MP4 (more properly MPEG-4) is a superset of AAC. A
vast superset.

> I believe that there are the
> exact same ways to screw things up encoding AAC as mp3.

No doubt.

> When I encode
> AAC in quicktime I have the same options as mp3 encoding.

Right, and under the covers the programming can be as good or as bad as the
programmers & analysts who developed it.

> I don't know that AAC sounds better, but it does sound different than
> mp3. I do however still hear the same chopped reverb tails as mp3. The
> sound stage sounds a bit wider. It sounds a bit clearer, kind of.

Here's my attempt to shed some light on the subject:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/coder_decoder/index.htm

> I don't know that consumers are going to perceive a benefit over mp3.

That's grist for the market survey mills, right?

> I played some stuff I encoded as mp3 and AAC and my friends didn't
> really notice a difference in my studio until I pointed it out. They
> did think the low end was a more extended on the mp3 versions.

Level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests or casual listening?

> Bottom line...it's still not as good as CD audio at 16 bit 44.1!

All I can say is that my Nomad Jukebox 3 is loaded with 1644 .wav files. But
in a pinch I've been known to listen to MP3s. It's about the music, right?

> Now that Apple opened this thing up to the whole market place(the
> other 95+% of us) maybe they will have the cash to really improve
> audio data compression.

I don't know if Apple is a gatekeeper for this technology. I wouldn't be
surprised if iTunes includes some technology they licensed from someone
else, under the covers.

My understanding is that AAC was developed by a consortium that includes
both US & European companies. One person I casually know who was intimately
involved with the development of AAC and was well-known on some Usenet audio
groups is now said to be working for Microsoft...

> I saw an interview with Steve Jobs and he was talking about how little
> money Apple can expect to make from iTunes and I was a bit horrified.
> He said the vast majority of moneys went to the labels.

A recent biz magazine article said that of a 99 cent sales price, 75 cents
goes to the label, and 5 cents goes to the charge card folks.

> Shouldn't
> Apple get "retail". It didn't sound like the labels are really
> getting the idea. I think they are WAY overcharging for these files
> at $.99, and that over $.90 was going to the labels.

I hear its *only* $0.75.

> How about A
> 50/50 split at $.50 a song. The files don't sound nearly good enough
> for me to pay the same price as CD's. Steve Jobs is trying, but are
> they making enough money to sustain iTunes?

Normally hard-headed people like Dell are also jumping on this bandwagon. It
might be THE NEXT BIG THING!

;-)

Getting back on topic, (or maybe not, since iTunes is both a program and a
web site) The windows iTunes program does seem to be a nice program for
indexing media files, if a bit fragile in its import function.

[Ethan Winer]

BH,

> iTunes for Windows was released today. <

I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
"up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
computer?

I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is just
more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad the
masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
like those tapes on Mission Impossible...

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

BH,

> iTunes for Windows was released today. <

I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
"up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
computer?

I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is just
more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad the
masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
like those tapes on Mission Impossible...

--Ethan

[Andrew M.]

3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
bigger cut just like the labels they are on?

It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
nuts on this one.

Ethan Winer wrote:

> BH,
>
>
>>iTunes for Windows was released today. <
>
>
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?
>
> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is just
> more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad the
> masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
> like those tapes on Mission Impossible...
>
> --Ethan
>
>

[Andrew M.]

3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
bigger cut just like the labels they are on?

It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
nuts on this one.

Ethan Winer wrote:

> BH,
>
>
>>iTunes for Windows was released today. <
>
>
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?
>
> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is just
> more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad the
> masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
> like those tapes on Mission Impossible...
>
> --Ethan
>
>

[MacKerr]

<< >
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?
>
> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. >><BR><BR>

You could still play those original iTunes files if you just had the working
original computer, but you get the idea. :-) More importantly, when you replace
your computer, you de-authorize it so you can add your new one to the possible
3.

[MacKerr]

<< >
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?
>
> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. >><BR><BR>

You could still play those original iTunes files if you just had the working
original computer, but you get the idea. :-) More importantly, when you replace
your computer, you de-authorize it so you can add your new one to the possible
3.

[S O'Neill]

Nono, it's not that bad. You can play on up to 3 computers, and when
you take one out of service you deauthorize it so you can add another.
And you can burn them onto as many CDs as you like. Now, I realize that
"taking a computer out of service" usually means chucking it in the
trash because it didn't wake up one day, but I think if you contact
Apple that can be dealt with; they're pretty good at thinking ahead
(software, not marketing).

It's not very secure at all, really. You can rip the CD you burned from
iTunes, then copy all you want (actually, I find the AAC file and import
it into Peak, then save as AIFF). But this scheme seems to have
satisfied the dinosaurs enough to license the music.


Andrew M. wrote:

> 3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
> isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
> were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
> getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
> than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
> bigger cut just like the labels they are on?
>
> It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
> nuts on this one.
>
> Ethan Winer wrote:
>
>> BH,
>>
>>
>>> iTunes for Windows was released today. <
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
>> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be
>> played on
>> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
>> computer?
>>
>> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
>> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is
>> just
>> more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad
>> the
>> masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
>> like those tapes on Mission Impossible...
>>
>> --Ethan
>>
>>
>

[S O'Neill]

Nono, it's not that bad. You can play on up to 3 computers, and when
you take one out of service you deauthorize it so you can add another.
And you can burn them onto as many CDs as you like. Now, I realize that
"taking a computer out of service" usually means chucking it in the
trash because it didn't wake up one day, but I think if you contact
Apple that can be dealt with; they're pretty good at thinking ahead
(software, not marketing).

It's not very secure at all, really. You can rip the CD you burned from
iTunes, then copy all you want (actually, I find the AAC file and import
it into Peak, then save as AIFF). But this scheme seems to have
satisfied the dinosaurs enough to license the music.


Andrew M. wrote:

> 3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
> isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
> were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
> getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
> than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
> bigger cut just like the labels they are on?
>
> It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
> nuts on this one.
>
> Ethan Winer wrote:
>
>> BH,
>>
>>
>>> iTunes for Windows was released today. <
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
>> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be
>> played on
>> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
>> computer?
>>
>> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
>> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is
>> just
>> more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad
>> the
>> masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
>> like those tapes on Mission Impossible...
>>
>> --Ethan
>>
>>
>

[Ethan Winer]

S,

> I find the AAC file and import it into Peak, then save as AIFF <

I can also play the file, capture it, and save it as a Wave file (I'm on a
PC). But that makes the file 11 times larger! If I knew I could save it back
as an MP3 file without needing a second degrading compression pass I'd be
satisfied. Do you know if that's possible?

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

S,

> I find the AAC file and import it into Peak, then save as AIFF <

I can also play the file, capture it, and save it as a Wave file (I'm on a
PC). But that makes the file 11 times larger! If I knew I could save it back
as an MP3 file without needing a second degrading compression pass I'd be
satisfied. Do you know if that's possible?

--Ethan

[reddred]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
> system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.
>

Within the context of Apple programmers writing for x86, this makes sense.

> However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features
>

Same thing

jb

[reddred]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
> system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.
>

Within the context of Apple programmers writing for x86, this makes sense.

> However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features
>

Same thing

jb

[Charles Tomaras]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message
...
> 3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
> isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
> were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
> getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
> than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
> bigger cut just like the labels they are on?
>
> It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
> nuts on this one.

I guess one way to look at it from your comments is that at least the artists
are getting a cut! They weren't getting that from Kazaa.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message
...
> 3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
> isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
> were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
> getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
> than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
> bigger cut just like the labels they are on?
>
> It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
> nuts on this one.

I guess one way to look at it from your comments is that at least the artists
are getting a cut! They weren't getting that from Kazaa.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message
...
> I am not paying full price for something that
> isn't half the quality of CD.

You got that right. You just know that 5 years from now Apple won't be selling
tunes with the current codec and bitrate. Things will progress. Until these on
line companies agree to allow free re-downloads of music they have purchased as
the sites up-grade their standards over the years I'm not interested at all. I'd
much rather purchase a CD and know that I can re-encode it at whatever quality
level I wish as time progresses. With my current computer and CD drive it takes
less than two minutes for me to encode an average CD into 192kbps WM9 files. Now
that my entire library is encoded it's very easy to keep up with my new
purchases and I'm not gonna be as obsolete in a few years. Maybe these sites
should give a 5 year guarantee for re-download due to codec improvements or
something like that.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

[Charles Tomaras]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message
...
> I am not paying full price for something that
> isn't half the quality of CD.

You got that right. You just know that 5 years from now Apple won't be selling
tunes with the current codec and bitrate. Things will progress. Until these on
line companies agree to allow free re-downloads of music they have purchased as
the sites up-grade their standards over the years I'm not interested at all. I'd
much rather purchase a CD and know that I can re-encode it at whatever quality
level I wish as time progresses. With my current computer and CD drive it takes
less than two minutes for me to encode an average CD into 192kbps WM9 files. Now
that my entire library is encoded it's very easy to keep up with my new
purchases and I'm not gonna be as obsolete in a few years. Maybe these sites
should give a 5 year guarantee for re-download due to codec improvements or
something like that.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

[Povl H. Pedersen]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> > iTunes for Windows was released today.
> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
> system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.
>
> However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features

Has not yet crashed on me. But it did not recognize my DVD-RAM burner
before I modified a .cfg file, and it will not auto-detect CDs
inserted, and not eject CDs etiher. Apart from that it seems almost
flawless here. Eats too much CPU when ripping though.

[Povl H. Pedersen]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> > iTunes for Windows was released today.
> My daughter egged me on, so I installed it on my normally bullet-proof XP
> system.
>
> I think I crashed it about 5 times in the first 3 minutes.
>
> However it does have a lot of ease-of-use features

Has not yet crashed on me. But it did not recognize my DVD-RAM burner
before I modified a .cfg file, and it will not auto-detect CDs
inserted, and not eject CDs etiher. Apart from that it seems almost
flawless here. Eats too much CPU when ripping though.

[Povl H. Pedersen]

"Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message >...
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?

You can burn it to CD. You can burn any "collection" to CD 10 times.
Add one more song, and you have a new collection to burn 10 more
times. And it is legal. You can also copy it to all the iPods you
want.

[Povl H. Pedersen]

"Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message >...
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?

You can burn it to CD. You can burn any "collection" to CD 10 times.
Add one more song, and you have a new collection to burn 10 more
times. And it is legal. You can also copy it to all the iPods you
want.

[Richard Crowley]

"Ethan Winer" wrote ...
> I can also play the file, capture it, and save it as a Wave file (I'm on a
> PC). But that makes the file 11 times larger! If I knew I could save it
back
> as an MP3 file without needing a second degrading compression pass I'd be
> satisfied. Do you know if that's possible?

You can do it with TotalRecorder (US$12 at www.highcriteria.com)
likely others. I am a satisfied TotalRecorder paying customer.

[Richard Crowley]

"Ethan Winer" wrote ...
> I can also play the file, capture it, and save it as a Wave file (I'm on a
> PC). But that makes the file 11 times larger! If I knew I could save it
back
> as an MP3 file without needing a second degrading compression pass I'd be
> satisfied. Do you know if that's possible?

You can do it with TotalRecorder (US$12 at www.highcriteria.com)
likely others. I am a satisfied TotalRecorder paying customer.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Povl H. Pedersen" > wrote in message
om...
> "Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
>...
> > I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> > pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> > "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> > computer?
>
> You can burn it to CD. You can burn any "collection" to CD 10 times.
> Add one more song, and you have a new collection to burn 10 more
> times. And it is legal. You can also copy it to all the iPods you
> want.

If you are gonna burn it to CD, why not buy the CD and not deal with the lossy
degradation of the encode/decode cycle. Face it, no-one who is serious about
music quality is going to invest very much in lossy compressed online music
stores.

[Andrew M.]

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Andrew M." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>3! computers. That sucks. I am not paying full price for something that
>>isn't half the quality of CD. I wouldn't mind as much if the artists
>>were getting a fair share but my understanding is that artists are
>>getting paid the same cut as with CD's, so the labels are making MORE
>>than they do from selling actual CD's. Why aren't the artists getting a
>>bigger cut just like the labels they are on?
>>
>>It looks like the consumer AND the artists get kicked in the proverbial
>>nuts on this one.
>
>
> I guess one way to look at it from your comments is that at least the artists
> are getting a cut! They weren't getting that from Kazaa.
>
>
This is true.

[Bill Davis]

In article >, "Charles Tomaras"
> wrote:

> "Povl H. Pedersen" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
> >...
> > > I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> > > pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> > > "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> > > computer?
> >
> > You can burn it to CD. You can burn any "collection" to CD 10 times.
> > Add one more song, and you have a new collection to burn 10 more
> > times. And it is legal. You can also copy it to all the iPods you
> > want.
>
> If you are gonna burn it to CD, why not buy the CD and not deal with the lossy
> degradation of the encode/decode cycle. Face it, no-one who is serious about
> music quality is going to invest very much in lossy compressed online music
> stores.

Excuse me, folks, but you SO do not "get" the whole iTunes thing.

It's not about delivering the ultimate in sonic quality. There are already
super-bit CDs and audio DVDs and other consumer mechanisms for doing that.
And everyone is absolutely free to go out and support that stuff to your
hearts content. If you've invested a zillion dollars in gear and have an
ideal acoustic listening environment you're NUTS to use an iPod to drive
it.

That's not the POINT of the iPod.

This is about a distribution system that is, quite simply far, far
superior to what came before it. Not, perhaps in the relm of absolute
quality , but firmly in the relm of convenience and consumer choice.

The iPod is easy. Downloading songs is easy. Debate the royalty system if
you want, but you can't deny that it's the first VOLUNTARY royalty
collecting system that has succeeded to a massive degree.

Also consider what they did with the rev they released this week.

They established what are essentially "electronic music accounts" that
lets parents give their kids an "allowance" for buying music.

How BRILLIANT is that? What better way to re-acquaint a generation of kids
with the idea that you need to PAY for your music.

Sure, some kids will still do peer to peer ripping, but if grandma can
give little Johnny a birthday gift of $25 bucks credit on the iTunes music
store, and he gets access to 25 cuts from his favorite bands, you can't
tell me that this won't divert some of the stealing back into into artists
pockets where it belongs.

Again, this is about choice and convenience, NOT about pure quality.

And personally, since most of my iPod listening has been on AIRPLANES
lately, trust me, darn good is often good enough when it comes to
listening quality in PLENTY of "real life" music situations.

--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[BananaHead]

> Excuse me, folks, but you SO do not "get" the whole iTunes thing.


Yup. Us engineer sorts just love to debate little points back and
forth. But the bottom line for the consumer = it's just fun. And
it's really easy. And it sounds really good (btw, what converters
does Apple use in their computers and pod... sounds quite good
considering it ain't pro audio).

iTunes and the iPod are easily the the most brilliant digital music
organizing system out there. On mac it just runs so very very
flawless and smart. You can have your library AIFF, WAV, MP3, AAC,
whatever. If you want to keep full size audio on your pod, do it!
You won't get 10,000 songs on it, but you'll have full quality. Smart
playlists are great, the volume normalizer works quite nice, no more
one cd louder than the next, quick searching, iStore if you're into
that, crossfades between songs, quick burner of compilation cds from
you libary... and how the hell does it look up all the tracks names
and info when you put a cd in??? At first I thought it was
referencing the All Music Guide, but it's WAY TO ACCURATE. I can't
believe the CDs it knows. And I can't figure out how it's getting the
info.

My own library just hit 3000 songs, gotta get me another hard disk.
It's always right there with me on my powerbook when I need it, it
plays out my metric halo into my Genelecs in the studio without having
to configure anything. Client says "can you make the drums sounds
like that one song on Blood Sugar Sex Magic?" Hmmm what do those
drums sound like? Well I happen to be able to play them for you in 3
seconds, no digging around for the CD.

I've noticed I've been more active as a music consumer and music fan
these since my powerbook and ipod. I email aac mixes in progress to
clients and friends and they put them on their ipod and listen to them
all day and come back later with ideas. It's a good time and that's
what it's all about.

Or I could pull my hair out using that piece of **** Windows Media
Player. It clips every time I send an email. Nice.

-bh

[Charles Tomaras]

"Bill Davis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Charles Tomaras"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Povl H. Pedersen" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> > > > pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played
on
> > > > "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> > > > computer?
> > >
> > > You can burn it to CD. You can burn any "collection" to CD 10 times.
> > > Add one more song, and you have a new collection to burn 10 more
> > > times. And it is legal. You can also copy it to all the iPods you
> > > want.
> >
> > If you are gonna burn it to CD, why not buy the CD and not deal with the
lossy
> > degradation of the encode/decode cycle. Face it, no-one who is serious about
> > music quality is going to invest very much in lossy compressed online music
> > stores.
>
> Excuse me, folks, but you SO do not "get" the whole iTunes thing.
>
> It's not about delivering the ultimate in sonic quality. There are already
> super-bit CDs and audio DVDs and other consumer mechanisms for doing that.
> And everyone is absolutely free to go out and support that stuff to your
> hearts content. If you've invested a zillion dollars in gear and have an
> ideal acoustic listening environment you're NUTS to use an iPod to drive
> it.
>
> That's not the POINT of the iPod.
>
> This is about a distribution system that is, quite simply far, far
> superior to what came before it. Not, perhaps in the relm of absolute
> quality , but firmly in the relm of convenience and consumer choice.
>
> The iPod is easy. Downloading songs is easy. Debate the royalty system if
> you want, but you can't deny that it's the first VOLUNTARY royalty
> collecting system that has succeeded to a massive degree.
>
> Also consider what they did with the rev they released this week.
>
> They established what are essentially "electronic music accounts" that
> lets parents give their kids an "allowance" for buying music.
>
> How BRILLIANT is that? What better way to re-acquaint a generation of kids
> with the idea that you need to PAY for your music.
>
> Sure, some kids will still do peer to peer ripping, but if grandma can
> give little Johnny a birthday gift of $25 bucks credit on the iTunes music
> store, and he gets access to 25 cuts from his favorite bands, you can't
> tell me that this won't divert some of the stealing back into into artists
> pockets where it belongs.
>
> Again, this is about choice and convenience, NOT about pure quality.
>
> And personally, since most of my iPod listening has been on AIRPLANES
> lately, trust me, darn good is often good enough when it comes to
> listening quality in PLENTY of "real life" music situations.
>
> --
> Bill Davis
> NewVideo

Much of what you say makes sense Bill. I'm still not going to buy bandwidth
limited music for essentially the same price as "full bandwidth" CD's. The
iTunes player on Windows is great. The iPod is great. If they supported WM9 I
could use them with my large library of ripped music and probably would. I'm not
going to re-encode 700+ CD's to AAC just to use these two products. WM9 works on
my computers, it works via my network music player
(http://www.govideo.com/?ID=D2730) that is tied into my home stereo, and it
works with my Kenwood Keg (http://www.kenwoodusa.com/excelon/excelonKeg.jsp) in
my automobile. AAC has so little support in my world that it is practically
useless.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

[P Stamler]

>Much of what you say makes sense Bill. I'm still not going to buy bandwidth
>limited music for essentially the same price as "full bandwidth" CD's.

But the other point of iPod is that they're selling single songs. Not albums.
They've essentially re-invented the single. I'm not about to go buy 18
band-limited tracks from a CD for $17.82, of course not. But I might buy one
track for $0.99. In fact, I probably will now and again.

Peace,
Paul

[Charles Tomaras]

"P Stamler" > wrote in message
...
> >Much of what you say makes sense Bill. I'm still not going to buy bandwidth
> >limited music for essentially the same price as "full bandwidth" CD's.
>
> But the other point of iPod is that they're selling single songs. Not albums.
> They've essentially re-invented the single. I'm not about to go buy 18
> band-limited tracks from a CD for $17.82, of course not. But I might buy one
> track for $0.99. In fact, I probably will now and again.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

You make another good point. As a jazz fan who doesn't often listen to popular
music I'm not very interested in purchasing single songs but I can see a place
for it. I've also got to comment that I think Apple could sell a large
additional number of iPods if they supported WMA in addition to the codecs they
currently support. I'm certain there are many hundreds of thousands of people,
if not more, who were as impressed as I was with the Windows Media 9 codecs that
have encoded large libraries in the WM9 format. I sat out MP3 for a few years
waiting for a codec that provided the quality I desired to encode my CD library.
I think that AAC is also a fine codec that is worthy of anyone's consideration
for high quality compressed music and I will be the first one to install an AAC
plug-in for the Windows Media Player when/if it becomes available. I do hope
that Apple or a third party configures support for WM9 on the iPod and within
iTunes.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

[Charles Tomaras]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Or I could pull my hair out using that piece of **** Windows Media
> Player. It clips every time I send an email. Nice.
>
> -bh

I've not experienced the clipping you mention. I'm curious what platform,
encoder, and WM codec you are using to create these clipped files. I'm unable to
understand how the act of emailing a file can change it's contents. I'm also
quite certain you could Google yourself silly and not find anyone else with this
clipping/email problem. If you are on a Mac platform then you are dealing with
the older WMP for Mac 7.1 which doesn't support WM9. If that is the case I
suggest you give the upcoming 9 series Mac player an audition when it is
released in the next couple of months. The 9 series codecs are far superior to
the earlier WM codecs in both audio quality and bandwidth consumption.

[Bill Davis]

>
> Much of what you say makes sense Bill. I'm still not going to buy bandwidth
> limited music for essentially the same price as "full bandwidth" CD's. The
> iTunes player on Windows is great. The iPod is great. If they supported WM9 I
> could use them with my large library of ripped music and probably would.
I'm not
> going to re-encode 700+ CD's to AAC just to use these two products. WM9
works on
> my computers, it works via my network music player
> (http://www.govideo.com/?ID=D2730) that is tied into my home stereo, and it
> works with my Kenwood Keg
(http://www.kenwoodusa.com/excelon/excelonKeg.jsp) in
> my automobile. AAC has so little support in my world that it is practically
> useless.
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA

Charles,

First, as a sound professional your standards for your personal use of
music are CLEARLY beyond those of most people. And that's great. But I
still think you remain largely misinformed about iTunes in at LEAST a few
areas.

First, in my experience, using the iTunes Music Store is significantly
LESS expensive than buying CDs. Around here at a music store, the new
Sting CD retails for something over $17 bucks. $14 or so at the
discounters. On iTunes it's 9.99 like everything else. Last night I also
downloaded Seals "live" CD that only had five cuts on it, and the iTunes
price was 4:95. Consistent with .99 per song. I've also downloaded CDs
that contained up to 17 cuts and STILL only paid 9.99.

Yes, some CDs are discounted and it's possible to purchase them retail for
less than 9.99, but typically not "first pressings" by major artists.

Second, while AAC might have little support in your world, you might wish
to consider the 13 MILLION purchase decisions which have already been made
supporting AAC via iTunes. That's a pretty clear indicator that your view
in this area isn't widespread.

Lastly, as someone else reports, you misunderstand the iPod. It's merely a
mobile hard drive with a clever interface. If you don't mind leaving the
interface behind, you're absolutely free to load it up with as much 96khz
uncompressed music as you like. You'll just need to find a way to access
it via a Mac, or a PC, or a Palm, or whatever. No big deal.

Yes, you'll lose all the exceptional functionality of the iTunes
environment. The nearly instant access to CDDB which almost magically
downloads track titles, lengths and cut info for any CD you rip, plus all
the "little" stuff that Apple has done so well.

In fact, here's a practical case in point. My business butt was recently
saved by my iPod.

On a business trip, I nearly panicked when I realized I had to call a new
client at home on a weekend. I'd hardly had time to put his info in my
desktop computer, let alone copying it anywhere else. We had a monday
shoot scheduled and I needed to confirm a LOT of stuff from the road,
which is exactly why he'd given me his home number. I was stressing trying
to figure out how to get someone to go to my house, get the spare key to
my studio, and boot my desktop system in order to read off the number -
when I vaguely remembered I'd updated my iPod with some new music right
before the trip. I opened it up and sure enough, just by using iSync to
update my music for the road, it ALSO updated my iPods address book - and
there was the client's home number!

There's a lot to admire in ALL the modern computer technology out there
from many companies, but Apple's attention to design, functionality and
integration is pretty exceptional. And iTunes success is a clear indicator
that they continue to do many things exceptionally well.

The Mac is certainly NOT the only fine computer system out there. But it
clearly does have some unique and powerful attributes that make the Mac
experience different from that of the typical PC.

Simple as that.

--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill Davis]

> and info when you put a cd in??? At first I thought it was
> referencing the All Music Guide, but it's WAY TO ACCURATE. I can't
> believe the CDs it knows. And I can't figure out how it's getting the
> info.
>

It uses CDDB. (The CD Database) and it kinda scares me too. One quick
connection and it pulls down the title, length, and other stats about
nearly any CD I've EVER been able to shove in my 'puter.

The only thing it's stumbled on so far is one of my more obscure
propriatary buy-out music libraries I use for narration beds. It just
returns Track 1, Track 2, etc. but I can't really fault that. On anything
commercial, it seems nearly flawless.

Spooky.

--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Andrew M.]

BananaHead wrote:

>>Excuse me, folks, but you SO do not "get" the whole iTunes thing.
>
>
>
> Yup. Us engineer sorts just love to debate little points back and
> forth. But the bottom line for the consumer = it's just fun. And
> it's really easy. And it sounds really good (btw, what converters
> does Apple use in their computers and pod... sounds quite good
> considering it ain't pro audio).
>
> iTunes and the iPod are easily the the most brilliant digital music
> organizing system out there. On mac it just runs so very very
> flawless and smart. You can have your library AIFF, WAV, MP3, AAC,
> whatever. If you want to keep full size audio on your pod, do it!
> You won't get 10,000 songs on it, but you'll have full quality. Smart
> playlists are great, the volume normalizer works quite nice, no more
> one cd louder than the next, quick searching, iStore if you're into
> that, crossfades between songs, quick burner of compilation cds from
> you libary... and how the hell does it look up all the tracks names
> and info when you put a cd in??? At first I thought it was
> referencing the All Music Guide, but it's WAY TO ACCURATE. I can't
> believe the CDs it knows. And I can't figure out how it's getting the
> info.
>
> My own library just hit 3000 songs, gotta get me another hard disk.
> It's always right there with me on my powerbook when I need it, it
> plays out my metric halo into my Genelecs in the studio without having
> to configure anything. Client says "can you make the drums sounds
> like that one song on Blood Sugar Sex Magic?" Hmmm what do those
> drums sound like? Well I happen to be able to play them for you in 3
> seconds, no digging around for the CD.
>
> I've noticed I've been more active as a music consumer and music fan
> these since my powerbook and ipod. I email aac mixes in progress to
> clients and friends and they put them on their ipod and listen to them
> all day and come back later with ideas. It's a good time and that's
> what it's all about.
>
> Or I could pull my hair out using that piece of **** Windows Media
> Player. It clips every time I send an email. Nice.
>
> -bh
I would LOVE to do a blind study. I bet no one can tell the difference
between quicktime(iTunes) and windows media player. What is this
clipping you are talking about?

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message


> I would LOVE to do a blind study. I bet no one can tell the difference
> between quicktime(iTunes) and windows media player. What is this
> clipping you are talking about?

You can find the tools for doing that blind study; free, fast, and easy at
www.pcabx.com .

[Andrew M.]

Bill Davis wrote:

>>Much of what you say makes sense Bill. I'm still not going to buy bandwidth
>>limited music for essentially the same price as "full bandwidth" CD's. The
>>iTunes player on Windows is great. The iPod is great. If they supported WM9 I
>>could use them with my large library of ripped music and probably would.
>
> I'm not
>
>>going to re-encode 700+ CD's to AAC just to use these two products. WM9
>
> works on
>
>>my computers, it works via my network music player
>>(http://www.govideo.com/?ID=D2730) that is tied into my home stereo, and it
>>works with my Kenwood Keg
>
> (http://www.kenwoodusa.com/excelon/excelonKeg.jsp) in
>
>>my automobile. AAC has so little support in my world that it is practically
>>useless.
>>
>>Charles Tomaras
>>Seattle, WA
>
>
> Charles,
>
> First, as a sound professional your standards for your personal use of
> music are CLEARLY beyond those of most people. And that's great. But I
> still think you remain largely misinformed about iTunes in at LEAST a few
> areas.
>
> First, in my experience, using the iTunes Music Store is significantly
> LESS expensive than buying CDs. Around here at a music store, the new
> Sting CD retails for something over $17 bucks. $14 or so at the
> discounters. On iTunes it's 9.99 like everything else. Last night I also
> downloaded Seals "live" CD that only had five cuts on it, and the iTunes
> price was 4:95. Consistent with .99 per song. I've also downloaded CDs
> that contained up to 17 cuts and STILL only paid 9.99.
>
> Yes, some CDs are discounted and it's possible to purchase them retail for
> less than 9.99, but typically not "first pressings" by major artists.
>
> Second, while AAC might have little support in your world, you might wish
> to consider the 13 MILLION purchase decisions which have already been made
> supporting AAC via iTunes. That's a pretty clear indicator that your view
> in this area isn't widespread.
>
Is that 13 million the MAC users that make up less than 5% of the
installed computer base? That is far from the majority of users. I don't
think that the 5% represent the majority of computer users. I think
iTunes will be very successful with Windows users, but not because of
AAC. I think it's because it's a new toy for everyone. They wouldn't
care if it was 128k mp3's.

> Lastly, as someone else reports, you misunderstand the iPod. It's merely a
> mobile hard drive with a clever interface. If you don't mind leaving the
> interface behind, you're absolutely free to load it up with as much 96khz
> uncompressed music as you like. You'll just need to find a way to access
> it via a Mac, or a PC, or a Palm, or whatever. No big deal.
>
> Yes, you'll lose all the exceptional functionality of the iTunes
> environment. The nearly instant access to CDDB which almost magically
> downloads track titles, lengths and cut info for any CD you rip, plus all
> the "little" stuff that Apple has done so well.

I think there are a bunch of programs that access CDDB for info(on a
PC). I have been using programs that access CDDB since 1999.

>
> In fact, here's a practical case in point. My business butt was recently
> saved by my iPod.
>
> On a business trip, I nearly panicked when I realized I had to call a new
> client at home on a weekend. I'd hardly had time to put his info in my
> desktop computer, let alone copying it anywhere else. We had a monday
> shoot scheduled and I needed to confirm a LOT of stuff from the road,
> which is exactly why he'd given me his home number. I was stressing trying
> to figure out how to get someone to go to my house, get the spare key to
> my studio, and boot my desktop system in order to read off the number -
> when I vaguely remembered I'd updated my iPod with some new music right
> before the trip. I opened it up and sure enough, just by using iSync to
> update my music for the road, it ALSO updated my iPods address book - and
> there was the client's home number!
>
> There's a lot to admire in ALL the modern computer technology out there
> from many companies, but Apple's attention to design, functionality and
> integration is pretty exceptional. And iTunes success is a clear indicator
> that they continue to do many things exceptionally well.
>
> The Mac is certainly NOT the only fine computer system out there. But it
> clearly does have some unique and powerful attributes that make the Mac
> experience different from that of the typical PC.
>
> Simple as that.
>
MAC is different, not better or worse than a PC. I don't think the MAC
does ANYTHING that the PC doesn't do anymore(except SD2 files). Two
different dogs doing the same tricks.

One thing I will say for iTunes is that it is the best sounding internet
radio I have ever heard.

[Ethan Winer]

Richard,

> You can do it with TotalRecorder <

Thanks for the link. I'm very interested in this so I went to that site and
read nearly everything. But I didn't see the specific claim that TR can
capture an MP3 - streaming or otherwise - and save it in its *original* MP3
form. From what I saw, it captures the audio *after* decompression from, say
RealPlayer, and saves that in a variety of formats which implies a second
compression pass.

If I missed something, and TR really can save an MP3 without an extra
decompress/compress cycle, please point to the right page on their site. I'd
love it if this were true, so I'm hoping you're right!

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Povl,

> You can burn any "collection" to CD 10 times. <

But I don't want to burn them to CD! I have a few hundred of my favorite
oldies in MP3 format on a laptop in my home theater, and I can play any of
them quickly and easily without shuffling dozens of CDs. Most of these were
ripped from my CD collection for convenience and to save drive space, or
recorded by me from old LPs and 45s. I'll accept lossy MP3 files for the
tunes I want to buy, but I refuse to pay for anything wrapped in copy
protection.

--Ethan

[Rob Adelman]

P Stamler wrote:

> But the other point of iPod is that they're selling single songs. Not albums.
> They've essentially re-invented the single. I'm not about to go buy 18
> band-limited tracks from a CD for $17.82, of course not. But I might buy one
> track for $0.99. In fact, I probably will now and again.

And this could be a real revolution for the small artist who comes up
with a couple of really great songs. I way to get them to the public
(for money) without the uphill battle usually associated with getting
your music to market. I hope to be in that category myself so I find
this very exciting!

-Rob

[BananaHead]

> I've not experienced the clipping you mention.

XP.

Oh man the clipping is the small part of my issue with WMP my friend.
I use both and it's not even a remotely close race.

The clipping occurs in playback when I do an intensive task... ya I
don't know how it could... it just does. Typical PC bug. We could
get 17 support specialists out and it would stump all of them. Every
other PC issue I've had has. There are so many variables with PCs
given the rag-tag configurations of hardware and software, bugs are
largely permanent features you get to live with.

Back to my beef. It (WMP) doesn't do cross fades, they didn't think
of that, it puts a big pause and often a CLICK as it changes tracks.
It doesn't do volume normalization from song to song, they didn't
think of that, quiet song, loud song, very annoying. It's of course
as visually unappealing as any PC product and the experience of using
it isn't exactly enjoyable. It encodes really nasty stuff. It goes
on and on. My main problem with the experience is that the program
lacks intelligence. iTunes just kinda figures stuff out on it's own,
sometimes I think it has become self-aware and is going to take over
the universe from it's small home on my hard drive. WMP *never* gives
me that impression :). WMP is like the retarded child I never had.

Same goes for the Windows Media Player vs Quicktime. It's just so
depressing to use. Especially on mac, but on windows too. WMP is a
real slow chuggy terd. Quicktime on my 867Mhz mac rips WMP on my
2.4Ghz PC a new one in speed and viewing pleasure, again hands down.

-bh

[Andrew M.]

So you just hate PC's. Whatever.

BananaHead wrote:
>>I've not experienced the clipping you mention.
>
>
> XP.
>
> Oh man the clipping is the small part of my issue with WMP my friend.
> I use both and it's not even a remotely close race.
>
> The clipping occurs in playback when I do an intensive task... ya I
> don't know how it could... it just does. Typical PC bug. We could
> get 17 support specialists out and it would stump all of them. Every
> other PC issue I've had has. There are so many variables with PCs
> given the rag-tag configurations of hardware and software, bugs are
> largely permanent features you get to live with.
>
> Back to my beef. It (WMP) doesn't do cross fades, they didn't think
> of that, it puts a big pause and often a CLICK as it changes tracks.
> It doesn't do volume normalization from song to song, they didn't
> think of that, quiet song, loud song, very annoying. It's of course
> as visually unappealing as any PC product and the experience of using
> it isn't exactly enjoyable. It encodes really nasty stuff. It goes
> on and on. My main problem with the experience is that the program
> lacks intelligence. iTunes just kinda figures stuff out on it's own,
> sometimes I think it has become self-aware and is going to take over
> the universe from it's small home on my hard drive. WMP *never* gives
> me that impression :). WMP is like the retarded child I never had.
>
> Same goes for the Windows Media Player vs Quicktime. It's just so
> depressing to use. Especially on mac, but on windows too. WMP is a
> real slow chuggy terd. Quicktime on my 867Mhz mac rips WMP on my
> 2.4Ghz PC a new one in speed and viewing pleasure, again hands down.
>
> -bh

[BananaHead]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message >...
> So you just hate PC's. Whatever.
>

No, I hate things that suck. Merit. If it would quit sucking I would
quit hating it.

BTW, my PC works very well for Word, Excel, Access and email, and as
one would expect I do not hate it for those tasks.

-bh

[BananaHead]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message >...

> I would LOVE to do a blind study. I bet no one can tell the difference
> between quicktime(iTunes) and windows media player.


I only need one ear for this test. :)

Seriously engineering-homies, I own both, and this isn't some deep
mystery that requires precise testing tools. I've put a CD in my PC
many times and encoded it 128 MP3 in WMP. I've put a CD in my
Powerbook many times and encoded it 128 AAC in iTunes. We're talking
the stock methods the masses will use here, no special tweaks allowed.

The results ain't no subtle thing. You're just not getting it.

THE WMP MP3 HAS A FLANGER ON THE CYMBALS MAN!

-bh

[flint]

Windows Media Player uses WM9 (WMA) encoding by default. If you used MP3,
you must've downloaded another codec other than the built in WMA encoder.

I have done the exact same test, and the WMA file is superior on cymbals to
AAC (hardly perceptable in this test) and extremely superior to three
difference MP3 encoders (very clearly audible).




"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> "Andrew M." > wrote in message
>...
>
> > I would LOVE to do a blind study. I bet no one can tell the difference
> > between quicktime(iTunes) and windows media player.
>
>
> I only need one ear for this test. :)
>
> Seriously engineering-homies, I own both, and this isn't some deep
> mystery that requires precise testing tools. I've put a CD in my PC
> many times and encoded it 128 MP3 in WMP. I've put a CD in my
> Powerbook many times and encoded it 128 AAC in iTunes. We're talking
> the stock methods the masses will use here, no special tweaks allowed.
>
> The results ain't no subtle thing. You're just not getting it.
>
> THE WMP MP3 HAS A FLANGER ON THE CYMBALS MAN!
>
> -bh

[Jonathan Roberts]

Ethan Winer wrote:

> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?

You can de-certify a computer in the application, certify a new one, and
move the tunes to that.

--
in days somehow distracted / in nights of troubled sleep
these memories long suppressed emerge / too difficult to keep
To reach me reverse: moc(dot)xobop(at)ggestran

[Arny Krueger]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om
>> I've not experienced the clipping you mention.
>
> XP.
>
> Oh man the clipping is the small part of my issue with WMP my friend.
> I use both and it's not even a remotely close race.
>
> The clipping occurs in playback when I do an intensive task... ya I
> don't know how it could... it just does.

It's not clipping, its a noise. If you wanted to deal with it there's a 100
or more web sites that discuss the problem and the cures, and they are
mentioned here several times a week. How did you miss them?

[Ethan Winer]

Jonathan,

> You can de-certify a computer in the application <

I could, but I won't. I won't install PACE, or dongles, or any other form of
copy protection on any of my computers. Systems that use copy protection
usually do so in devious ways that circumvent normal OS practices. I'm
amazed that so many people are willing to take that risk and put such
nonsense on their computers.

--Ethan

[LeBaron & Alrich]

BananaHead wrote:

> THE WMP MP3 HAS A FLANGER ON THE CYMBALS MAN!

Yeah, but does it have ottotoon?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

"Ethan Winer" wrote:

> Jonathan,

> > You can de-certify a computer in the application <

> I could, but I won't. I won't install PACE, or dongles, or any other form of
> copy protection on any of my computers. Systems that use copy protection
> usually do so in devious ways that circumvent normal OS practices. I'm
> amazed that so many people are willing to take that risk and put such
> nonsense on their computers.

This from a guy running OE? <g>

--
ha

[Angelo Bello]

I've tried three download pay services available for the PC:

1 - iTunes for Windows
2 - BuyMusic.com
3 - Rhapsody

For me, Rhapsody is the best - it has an edge over iTunes (for me at
least), in that you can stream full songs - and whole albums - on
Rhapsody for a relatively small fee.

BuyMusic sucks compared to iTunes and Rhapsody.

With Rhapsody, you pay a monthly fee of $9.95. This monthly fee
permits you to stream any song in their catalog - i.e., the whole
song, not a 30-second low quality snippit. You can create playlists,
CD burn lists, and they are saved/remembered for the next time you log
on. Like iTunes, you install a sort of gateway application to the
internet, and you stream through this app. And, you can install the
same app on multiple PCs (for the same $9.95 a month), and your
playlists/CD burnlists will also migrate to this other computer (as
these lists are saved on a server someplace). To burn a CD, _all_
songs are 79 cents (BuyMusic.com will charge anywhere from 79 cents to
$1.29 per song, but there is no mnthly fee with BuyMusic, and there is
no streaming with BuyMusic, either).

The streaming with Rhapsody is not too bad - the quality is passable,
considering.

I'm willing to pay the $9.95 a month in order to listen to any song in
their catalog whenever I'm logged onto my computer (I have an app
installed here in the office at the station, and one at home - all
playlists are duplicated). Others may not want to do this. This
playlist thing is nice, and the referral/links to other artists, etc.
is also nice...

Anyway, once fibre to the home is running in the future, all this
stuff about mp3 quality, and how poor it is will be moot. My gut
feeling is that this is the real reason why the majors and the RIAA
are so concerned about this now (among other obvious reasons - to them
at least). Nip it all in the bud, before ultra-broadband via fibre
allows uncompressed true CD quality streaming to where-ever you are...


Angelo



"Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message >...
> BH,
>
> > iTunes for Windows was released today. <
>
> I'm astonished nobody mentioned the fatal flaw with iTunes and the other
> pay-to-download sites: The files you download from iTunes can be played on
> "up to three computers." So what do I do in 2011 when I get my fourth
> computer?
>
> I have LPs and 45s from 30 years ago that I can still play. Well, I could
> play them if I had a working turntable, but you get the idea. This is just
> more copy protection crap and I'll have nothing to do with it. Too bad the
> masses have no idea they are buying music that eventually self-destructs
> like those tapes on Mission Impossible...
>
> --Ethan

[S O'Neill]

I could be wrong, but going "directly" from AAC to MP3 (or any other lossy
compressed formats) is "recompression"; I doubt it can even be done without
decompressing in between anyway, whether or not it tells you it's doing that.
You definitely don't lose anything in the decompression process (a decompressed
PCM copy is exactly what you listen to when you play it), whatever got lost was
lost when it was compressed.

Ethan Winer wrote:

> Richard,
>
>
>>You can do it with TotalRecorder <
>
>
> Thanks for the link. I'm very interested in this so I went to that site and
> read nearly everything. But I didn't see the specific claim that TR can
> capture an MP3 - streaming or otherwise - and save it in its *original* MP3
> form. From what I saw, it captures the audio *after* decompression from, say
> RealPlayer, and saves that in a variety of formats which implies a second
> compression pass.
>
> If I missed something, and TR really can save an MP3 without an extra
> decompress/compress cycle, please point to the right page on their site. I'd
> love it if this were true, so I'm hoping you're right!
>
> --Ethan
>
>

[[email protected]]

(Angelo Bello) wrote:

>I've tried three download pay services available for the PC:
>
>1 - iTunes for Windows
>2 - BuyMusic.com
>3 - Rhapsody


A couple of months ago, I was just about to sign up with Rhapsody when they
sold out to Real Networks. I want nothing to do with Real Networks, who I
despise as much as Microsoft for their aggressive intrusiveness. I know
they would require I run their software and that it would upload every
filename on my computer and the contents of those that interest them. They
have no shame.

Their website requires I run Microsoft's IE (which I never use). Ugh! and
****em.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Angelo Bello" > wrote in message
om...
> I've tried three download pay services available for the PC:
>
> 1 - iTunes for Windows
> 2 - BuyMusic.com
> 3 - Rhapsody
>
> For me, Rhapsody is the best - it has an edge over iTunes (for me at
> least), in that you can stream full songs - and whole albums - on
> Rhapsody for a relatively small fee.

I've mentioned this many times here but it's worth mentioning again. I
haven't tried the others but Rhapsody is awesome.

[BananaHead]

"flint" > wrote in message >...
> I have done the exact same test, and the WMA file is superior on cymbals to
> AAC (hardly perceptable in this test) and extremely superior to three
> difference MP3 encoders (very clearly audible).


Floored. It's like... oh nevermind. Sometimes I find myself
wondering in my day to day life if I am in fact on a different planet
or what gives. Is it me?

OK, so just to make sure I'm not the one sniffing glue here I went and
scanned in some music today.

Medesky Martin & Wood "Combustication" (jazz funk)

I placed said cd in my pc and encoded it default settings in Windows
Media Player. This is the way an average consumer joe PC guy will
work 99% of the time. (btw way you're right of course, it isn't mp3, i
just always assumed, it's wma).

I placed said cd in my mac and encoded it default settings in iTunes.
This is the way an average consumer joe Mac guy will work 99% of the
time.

I now have both songs on my desktop. Hmmm I am listening to both out
some computer speakers like an average consumer joe will be doing.
"sound enhancer", eq, volume normalization and cross fade are all off.
everything is flat and playing back same volume.

HELLO? It's just sick. Blatant. No race.

WMA: The WMA has so many blatant artifacts and a general non-firmness
to the stereo image and it sounds like cardboard. I can't listen to
this even casually. Sorry. This is why I never even considered a
digital music library until iTunes. The good news is that there is
not a flanger on the cymbals of the encoding of this tune, unlike
others. Nor is there an ottotoon Hank.

AAC: The AAC is not immediately distinguishable from the CD on this
system. I can listen to this casually. When it gets this close it's
all cool with me for casual use.

This is a real world test doing things the way average people do
things in actual real life. I have the files. They are 3mb each if
anyone wants me to email them.

-BH

[flint]

I'll choose other source material and try it again.

But my tests, done with 27 volunteer listeners (for a consulting gig), were
very clear with 100% of blind listeners agreeing. I did go the trouble to
ensure the sample rate and byte size was identical for all formats. Sample
rate ran from 64kbps to 320kbps (both fixed and variable). We also included
Real Media, but I am contractually prevented from discussing any of the
results for their codec.

- Flint

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> "flint" > wrote in message
>...
> > I have done the exact same test, and the WMA file is superior on cymbals
to
> > AAC (hardly perceptable in this test) and extremely superior to three
> > difference MP3 encoders (very clearly audible).
>
>
> Floored. It's like... oh nevermind. Sometimes I find myself
> wondering in my day to day life if I am in fact on a different planet
> or what gives. Is it me?
>
> OK, so just to make sure I'm not the one sniffing glue here I went and
> scanned in some music today.
>
> Medesky Martin & Wood "Combustication" (jazz funk)
>
> I placed said cd in my pc and encoded it default settings in Windows
> Media Player. This is the way an average consumer joe PC guy will
> work 99% of the time. (btw way you're right of course, it isn't mp3, i
> just always assumed, it's wma).
>
> I placed said cd in my mac and encoded it default settings in iTunes.
> This is the way an average consumer joe Mac guy will work 99% of the
> time.
>
> I now have both songs on my desktop. Hmmm I am listening to both out
> some computer speakers like an average consumer joe will be doing.
> "sound enhancer", eq, volume normalization and cross fade are all off.
> everything is flat and playing back same volume.
>
> HELLO? It's just sick. Blatant. No race.
>
> WMA: The WMA has so many blatant artifacts and a general non-firmness
> to the stereo image and it sounds like cardboard. I can't listen to
> this even casually. Sorry. This is why I never even considered a
> digital music library until iTunes. The good news is that there is
> not a flanger on the cymbals of the encoding of this tune, unlike
> others. Nor is there an ottotoon Hank.
>
> AAC: The AAC is not immediately distinguishable from the CD on this
> system. I can listen to this casually. When it gets this close it's
> all cool with me for casual use.
>
> This is a real world test doing things the way average people do
> things in actual real life. I have the files. They are 3mb each if
> anyone wants me to email them.
>
> -BH

[Kurt Albershardt]

S O'Neill wrote:

> I could be wrong, but going "directly" from AAC to MP3 (or any other
> lossy compressed formats) is "recompression"

The techincal term would be 'transcoding' but your description of the
process (uncompressing with one algorithm and recompressing with
another) is most likely correct. There are some cases (e.g. MP1 to/from
some flavors of MP2) where common components could allow a more
efficient and direct transcoding process, but I don't know enought about
about AAC yet to comment intelligently.

[Ethan Winer]

S,

> going "directly" from AAC to MP3 <

I'd be happy just keeping the original format if it avoided an extra
compression. I don't care what format I end up with as long as I have a
suitable player program.

--Ethan

[Charles Tomaras]

"Bill Davis" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Much of what you say makes sense Bill. I'm still not going to buy bandwidth
> > limited music for essentially the same price as "full bandwidth" CD's. The
> > iTunes player on Windows is great. The iPod is great. If they supported WM9
I
> > could use them with my large library of ripped music and probably would.
> I'm not
> > going to re-encode 700+ CD's to AAC just to use these two products. WM9
> works on
> > my computers, it works via my network music player
> > (http://www.govideo.com/?ID=D2730) that is tied into my home stereo, and it
> > works with my Kenwood Keg
> (http://www.kenwoodusa.com/excelon/excelonKeg.jsp) in
> > my automobile. AAC has so little support in my world that it is practically
> > useless.
> >
> > Charles Tomaras
> > Seattle, WA
>
> Charles,
>
> First, as a sound professional your standards for your personal use of
> music are CLEARLY beyond those of most people. And that's great.

Well, this is an audio PRO newsgroup.

>But I
> still think you remain largely misinformed about iTunes in at LEAST a few
> areas.
>
> First, in my experience, using the iTunes Music Store is significantly
> LESS expensive than buying CDs. Around here at a music store, the new
> Sting CD retails for something over $17 bucks. $14 or so at the
> discounters. On iTunes it's 9.99 like everything else. Last night I also
> downloaded Seals "live" CD that only had five cuts on it, and the iTunes
> price was 4:95. Consistent with .99 per song. I've also downloaded CDs
> that contained up to 17 cuts and STILL only paid 9.99.

That doesn't change the fact that ALL of the online music from ANY of the stores
in ANY format is bandwidth limited and I'm not about to purchase music, save for
a novelty tune, in any format (save for CD, DVD-A and SACD) that doesn't allow
me to upgrade in the future as codecs improve.


>
> Yes, some CDs are discounted and it's possible to purchase them retail for
> less than 9.99, but typically not "first pressings" by major artists.
>
> Second, while AAC might have little support in your world, you might wish
> to consider the 13 MILLION purchase decisions which have already been made
> supporting AAC via iTunes. That's a pretty clear indicator that your view
> in this area isn't widespread.

I have great respect for AAC as I think it's a fine codec. This discussion was
about iTunes for Windows and I expressed my opinion that it does not support my
library of WMA9 compressed music and that I can't really make much use of it
until it does. Furthermore I expressed the opinion that Apple could increase
their market share beyond whatever level they have by including support for WMA
in iTunes and on the iPod.

>
> Lastly, as someone else reports, you misunderstand the iPod. It's merely a
> mobile hard drive with a clever interface. If you don't mind leaving the
> interface behind, you're absolutely free to load it up with as much 96khz
> uncompressed music as you like. You'll just need to find a way to access
> it via a Mac, or a PC, or a Palm, or whatever. No big deal.

Using an iPod for uncompressed music is not the primary application I would
purchase a portable music player for.


>
> Yes, you'll lose all the exceptional functionality of the iTunes
> environment. The nearly instant access to CDDB which almost magically
> downloads track titles, lengths and cut info for any CD you rip

Nearly instant access to the CDDB is also a feature of many other software
players and has been for a number of years.


>
> In fact, here's a practical case in point. My business butt was recently
> saved by my iPod.
>
> On a business trip, I nearly panicked when I realized I had to call a new
> client at home on a weekend. I'd hardly had time to put his info in my
> desktop computer, let alone copying it anywhere else. We had a monday
> shoot scheduled and I needed to confirm a LOT of stuff from the road,
> which is exactly why he'd given me his home number. I was stressing trying
> to figure out how to get someone to go to my house, get the spare key to
> my studio, and boot my desktop system in order to read off the number -
> when I vaguely remembered I'd updated my iPod with some new music right
> before the trip. I opened it up and sure enough, just by using iSync to
> update my music for the road, it ALSO updated my iPods address book - and
> there was the client's home number!
>
> There's a lot to admire in ALL the modern computer technology out there
> from many companies, but Apple's attention to design, functionality and
> integration is pretty exceptional. And iTunes success is a clear indicator
> that they continue to do many things exceptionally well.

No dissagreement from me on this. I just wish they would support WMA thereby
expanding the functionality of the player and software and expanding the choices
their users have by allowing them use of an additional codec and access to
nearly one million WM9 formatted tracks that are additionally available at other
online stores.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "BananaHead" > wrote in message
> om
> >> I've not experienced the clipping you mention.
> >
> > XP.
> >
> > Oh man the clipping is the small part of my issue with WMP my friend.
> > I use both and it's not even a remotely close race.
> >
> > The clipping occurs in playback when I do an intensive task... ya I
> > don't know how it could... it just does.
>
> It's not clipping, its a noise. If you wanted to deal with it there's a 100
> or more web sites that discuss the problem and the cures, and they are
> mentioned here several times a week. How did you miss them?

How's about you save us the search and just post us the links to maybe only five
of the 100 or more web sites you mention that discuss the issue you first called
clipping and now are calling noise.

[Charles Tomaras]

"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> "flint" > wrote in message
>...
> > I have done the exact same test, and the WMA file is superior on cymbals to
> > AAC (hardly perceptable in this test) and extremely superior to three
> > difference MP3 encoders (very clearly audible).
>
>
> Floored. It's like... oh nevermind. Sometimes I find myself
> wondering in my day to day life if I am in fact on a different planet
> or what gives. Is it me?
>
> OK, so just to make sure I'm not the one sniffing glue here I went and
> scanned in some music today.
>
> Medesky Martin & Wood "Combustication" (jazz funk)
>
> I placed said cd in my pc and encoded it default settings in Windows
> Media Player. This is the way an average consumer joe PC guy will
> work 99% of the time. (btw way you're right of course, it isn't mp3, i
> just always assumed, it's wma).

Why don't you confirm for us which version of Windows Media Player you are using
and what those default settings are. If you compare WMA 9 (that's nine not
eight) at 128kbps with AAC at 128kbps I don't think you are going to notice any
worthy differences. WM9 and AAC are both fine codecs. The difference between WM8
and WM9 is extreme. WM9 Audio and Video codecs are one of the finest products
Microsoft has ever produced. I get the distinct feeling that you are running the
WM8 player that comes with XP and have not upgraded to the 9 series player.



>
> I placed said cd in my mac and encoded it default settings in iTunes.
> This is the way an average consumer joe Mac guy will work 99% of the
> time.
>
> I now have both songs on my desktop. Hmmm I am listening to both out
> some computer speakers like an average consumer joe will be doing.
> "sound enhancer", eq, volume normalization and cross fade are all off.
> everything is flat and playing back same volume.
>
> HELLO? It's just sick. Blatant. No race.
>
> WMA: The WMA has so many blatant artifacts and a general non-firmness
> to the stereo image and it sounds like cardboard. I can't listen to
> this even casually. Sorry. This is why I never even considered a
> digital music library until iTunes. The good news is that there is
> not a flanger on the cymbals of the encoding of this tune, unlike
> others. Nor is there an ottotoon Hank.
>
> AAC: The AAC is not immediately distinguishable from the CD on this
> system. I can listen to this casually. When it gets this close it's
> all cool with me for casual use.
>
> This is a real world test doing things the way average people do
> things in actual real life. I have the files. They are 3mb each if
> anyone wants me to email them.

Yes, please email me your WMA file.

[Chris Smalt]

> > I won't install PACE, or dongles, or any other form of
> > copy protection on any of my computers. Systems that use copy protection
> > usually do so in devious ways that circumvent normal OS practices. I'm
> > amazed that so many people are willing to take that risk and put such
> > nonsense on their computers.


Hank wrote:

> This from a guy running OE? <g>


Ouch!


Chris

______________________________________
Please remove the r from my address to reply by email

[Laurence Payne]

>
> I won't install PACE, or dongles, or any other form of
> copy protection on any of my computers. Systems that use copy protection
> usually do so in devious ways that circumvent normal OS practices. I'm
> amazed that so many people are willing to take that risk and put such
> nonsense on their computers.

If you're working with audio, this attitude is going to SEVERELY
restrict your choice of software. You might want to reconsider
making copy-protection your primary criterion :-)

CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm