[Lyga]

Found two very interesting songs by a sound engineer in Singapore under his Soundcloud name "Team Brooklyn."
 
 
This first one is called "Friend No More" and it has some strange portions that kind of take you by surprise but I really like the rhythm and especially the progression from 2:20 - 3:15.
 
https://soundcloud.com/team-brooklyn/team-brooklyn-friend-no-more
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
His other song is a remix and is probably one of the most unique I have ever heard. Tickles my ears
 
https://soundcloud.com/team-brooklyn/ocean-dub-singapore-bass-vocal

 

[Apo0th3karY]

for purposes of DJing, Traktor can't read DRM coded files

 

[MorbidToaster]

iTunes is DRM free AAC. If it doesn't play AAC then just convert to MP3 and delete your 256 AAC files. 
 
You used to have to 'remove' iTunes DRM by burning the files to a CD and re-ripping, but they wised up.
 
Quote:

for purposes of DJing, Traktor can't read DRM coded files

 

[Apo0th3karY]

Just got home to test it, yeah Traktor won't play AAC. 
At risk of going OT....
I don't get the logic in 256AAC being equal to 320mp3, and 'side converting'. The file size will change and I'm not getting another 44kbs of information from the AAC, so it'll be a 320 file playing back 256kps, and I wouldn't play that with the rest of my 320mp3s out live.... 
 
Ugh. This is annoying. I wish I knew this would happen before buying. It sounds great, good quality, but I'm still miffed that it HAS to be converted in order for it to be useful on Traktor. 

 

[MorbidToaster]

AAC and MP3 bitrates are NOT equal. 256 AAC is the same as 320 MP3. You're only 'losing bits' in the number, not the actual file. 
 
It still not sound like a 256 MP3.
 
EDIT: Be sure that your conversion setting are actually set to 320 MP3 when you do the conversion. 
 
Quote:

Just got home to test it, yeah Traktor won't play AAC. 
At risk of going OT....
I don't get the logic in 256AAC being equal to 320mp3, and 'side converting'. The file size will change and I'm not getting another 44kbs of information from the AAC, so it'll be a 320 file playing back 256kps, and I wouldn't play that with the rest of my 320mp3s out live.... 
 
Ugh. This is annoying. I wish I knew this would happen before buying. It sounds great, good quality, but I'm still miffed that it HAS to be converted in order for it to be useful on Traktor. 

 

[Apo0th3karY]

Sorry, poor choice of words.
I meant I don't get how it's the same quality. I've come to understand that the compression algorythm for AAC is superior, and therefore a 256AAC should theoretically sound better than a 320mp3.
 
But my confusion is in the conversion from 256AAC to 320mp3, the end result won't sound as good as if it were a 320 in the first place...?
 
If this assumption is wrong, I'd need a link or two to explain to me why because I've not bothered with anything other than 320 and lossless for sometime now, and AAC for me has always had a stigma, being proprietary to Apple and the past DRM bs that they've apparently smartened up about. 

 

[JonnyRocket]

Subscribed

 

[MorbidToaster]

Conversions don't 'degrade' just because they're converted. You could convert a WAV to AIFF (both perfect CD copies) back and forth over and over and it would never actually change...
 
So if 256 AAC is the same as 320 MP3 (which is what I've read everywhere and heard myself) and you convert one to the other it'll be the same and never change unless you change it to something worse. 
 
Not going to find links at 1am, but it's been discussed on Head-fi at least a few times before (that's where I learned most of this). 
 
Bottom line, just convert the thing and listen for yourself. I'd suggest ABX in Foobar and see if you can actually hear a difference. Also, if you're worried about mixing (and them being of different quality) you really shouldn't. If you hear a difference it'll be small at best, and nothing you'll ever be mixing through will be revealing enough to show these differences. We're not talking 128 MP3s here.
 
Quote:

Sorry, poor choice of words.
I meant I don't get how it's the same quality. I've come to understand that the compression algorythm for AAC is superior, and therefore a 256AAC should theoretically sound better than a 320mp3.
 
But my confusion is in the conversion from 256AAC to 320mp3, the end result won't sound as good as if it were a 320 in the first place...?
 
If this assumption is wrong, I'd need a link or two to explain to me why because I've not bothered with anything other than 320 and lossless for sometime now, and AAC for me has always had a stigma, being proprietary to Apple and the past DRM bs that they've apparently smartened up about. 

 

[TJ Elite]

Quote:

They do offer 320 MP3...It's called 256 AAC.
 
Also, you can convert ANY of the stuff you purchase to MP3 directly through iTunes...It's not hard. 
 
And you shouldn't ask for ALAC and then be mad about an Apple specific format (AAC). They're both 'Apple' things. Just like AIFF (my preferred format).
 
Quote:

Well that's a shame they can't even offer ALAC, or 320mp3. This is why I hate Apple. 

 
I don't mean to be nitpicky but AAC isn't actually a format developed by Apple even though it starts with 'A'; that's a common misconception. AAC was developed by several large companies including Dolby, Fraunhofer, Sony and Nokia. Apple did co-develop AIFF, though.
 
I hate lossy audio with a passion, but AAC is pretty okay. There would be no MP3s on my computer if all of the music I have was available in lossless, but sadly that is not the case. It boggles my mind that over three decades after the first CDs were released the majority of digital distributors are still only offering files that are inferior to CD (perhaps most people don't hear a difference but that's beside my point).

 

[adamlr]

Quote:

(perhaps most people don't hear a difference but that's beside my point).

why do you say that? and i ask this respectfully and with all sincerity. if you dont hear the difference, then whats the difference? if something isnt audible, then whats the point? so long as its all casual listening? to quote fear and loathing in lass vegas - "why not?"
i really dont mean to start one of those tiresome arguments about lossless vs lossy, im curious as to why youd care so much, if you cant hear any advantages either way? why is this beside the point? audibility is exactly the point, isnt it?
 
 
anyway, this popped up on my facebook page somehow, oh the nostalgia!
 

 

[Apo0th3karY]

Well for all (my) intents and purposes, Apple sold me useless AAC files when I would have much rather preferred ALAC or 320mp3. So I'm not happy about it.
 
Yeah yeah I can convert but it still makes no logical sense. If I had a 320 ripped from a lossless file, the 320mp3 file size would be larger (and therefore more data) than the 320 ripped from a 256AAC.
 
And through research, 256AAC is technically superior so I'd be totally okay with it...... but it's still useless to me in Traktor. 

 

[MorbidToaster]

I feel like you're just complaining to complain now. Sounds like Traktor should be the reason, not iTunes. No support for probably the world's largest music store? Pft.

iTunes gives you very tool you need to make those files they give you work with Traktor, but Traktor should support one of the most highly used codecs out there.

 

[Apo0th3karY]

Quote:

I feel like you're just complaining to complain now. Sounds like Traktor should be the reason, not iTunes. No support for probably the world's largest music store? Pft.

iTunes gives you very tool you need to make those files they give you work with Traktor, but Traktor should support one of the most highly used codecs out there.

 
I'm complaining because I'm upset about it.
 
Traktor is professional DJ software, and AAC is a consumer format. I'm not surprised it's not supported. I doubt Serato or Ableton supports AAC as well.
 
My points are still valid, the conversion doesn't make logical sense to me, and the file size difference is where I stand on the point. I'm not complaining just to complain, I'm complaining because I was hoping that the biggest digital music retailer, iTunes, might offer some more options, such as the much more widely accepted audio codec, 320mp3. 

 

[TJ Elite]

Quote:

Quote:

(perhaps most people don't hear a difference but that's beside my point).

why do you say that? and i ask this respectfully and with all sincerity. if you dont hear the difference, then whats the difference? if something isnt audible, then whats the point? so long as its all casual listening? to quote fear and loathing in lass vegas - "why not?"
i really dont mean to start one of those tiresome arguments about lossless vs lossy, im curious as to why youd care so much, if you cant hear any advantages either way? why is this beside the point? audibility is exactly the point, isnt it?

 
I was trying to choose my words carefully. I didn't say that most people not being able to hear the difference is beside the point, I said it was beside my point, i.e. not related to the point I was trying to get across. All I was trying to say was that in this day and age when HDD space is cheap and most people have decent internet speeds majority of music should be available online in at least the quality an over 30-year-old physical format is capable of. Preferably a lot more music than is today should also be made available in higher resolution files for those who have an interest in them. The part I added inside the brackets was my attempt to avoid anyone starting an - as you said, tiresome - argument over lossy vs. lossless. It's a fact that lossy differs from lossless (do a null test if you want to hear exactly how much[/little]) and I just don't see why anyone should pay money for lossy files in 2013. Bandcamp is so far the only digital distribution platform I can accept in its current state. They give people the option to choose the format they want and it doesn't affect how much you pay. Some artist even offer physical releases there. Can't really complain about that.
 

---

 
Here's two instrumental version of a pair of tracks by AVTechNO!. I can't remember if the originals are also on his/her channel or not, but these are interesting alternatives to them. If a track works without vocals, that's always a good sign I feel.
 

 

 

[Sanotter]

Quote:

Conversions don't 'degrade' just because they're converted. You could convert a WAV to AIFF (both perfect CD copies) back and forth over and over and it would never actually change...
 
So if 256 AAC is the same as 320 MP3 (which is what I've read everywhere and heard myself) and you convert one to the other it'll be the same and never change unless you change it to something worse. 
 
Not going to find links at 1am, but it's been discussed on Head-fi at least a few times before (that's where I learned most of this). 
 
Bottom line, just convert the thing and listen for yourself. I'd suggest ABX in Foobar and see if you can actually hear a difference. Also, if you're worried about mixing (and them being of different quality) you really shouldn't. If you hear a difference it'll be small at best, and nothing you'll ever be mixing through will be revealing enough to show these differences. We're not talking 128 MP3s here.
 

This is wrong. You can transcode a lossless format to any other format, but you should NEVER transcode a lossy format. It severely degrades the quality. Look at the following to see the difference, tell me which you think has been encoded from lossy.
 

or