Itunes 5 encoding

[donunus]

Has mp3 encoding with itunes improved. I have read before that it cannot beat lame for sound quality. How is it with Itunes 5? Does apple use their own mp3 encoding system or are they like nero and winamp for example... that use LAME. How much better is aac compared to mp3 with the new itunes encoding? What setting in itunes will I be able to start competing with lame 3.96.1 preset extreme in sound quality

 

[Jahn]

well now i can't tell the diff tween 256VBR AAC and 320 AAC, so the new iTunes is saving me even more space on my ipod.

 

[mbd2884]

I just don't plain like itunes or what mac is doing with the music industry. Licensing things that aren't even theirs. Idea of buying an mp3, a degenerated music source from a cd and then licensing it just seems so wrong to me. Sharing music with mp3s with friends is awsome, but selling it, that is wrong. Anyways, I avoid aac, mp3 192 vbr sounds fine to me, and lame mp3 encoding if you use the instructions from ubernet.org will get you pretty much cd quality encode, plus lame encodes faster than itunes. Itune encode isn't mp3 also, its aac. As far as I know the only people who use aac are people who are dependent on itunes and ipods, everyone I know use mp3, ogg, or flac.

 

[JiiEf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 I just don't plain like itunes or what mac is doing with the music industry. Licensing things that aren't even theirs. Idea of buying an mp3, a degenerated music source from a cd and then licensing it just seems so wrong to me. Sharing music with mp3s with friends is awsome, but selling it, that is wrong. Anyways, I avoid aac, mp3 192 vbr sounds fine to me, and lame mp3 encoding if you use the instructions from ubernet.org will get you pretty much cd quality encode, plus lame encodes faster than itunes. Itune encode isn't mp3 also, its aac. As far as I know the only people who use aac are people who are dependent on itunes and ipods, everyone I know use mp3, ogg, or flac.

You mean what the RIAA is doing to the music industry? Apple is just a middleman taking a slice. Opportunistic, maybe, but hardly the root of the problem.

/JF

 

[Elephas]

Apple is primarily a hardware vendor expanding into the digital music space through the iTunes Music Store.

Blame the RIAA and the Big 4 music companies for the state of the music industry.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 I just don't plain like itunes or what mac is doing with the music industry. Licensing things that aren't even theirs. Idea of buying an mp3, a degenerated music source from a cd and then licensing it just seems so wrong to me. Sharing music with mp3s with friends is awsome, but selling it, that is wrong. Anyways, I avoid aac, mp3 192 vbr sounds fine to me, and lame mp3 encoding if you use the instructions from ubernet.org will get you pretty much cd quality encode, plus lame encodes faster than itunes. Itune encode isn't mp3 also, its aac. As far as I know the only people who use aac are people who are dependent on itunes and ipods, everyone I know use mp3, ogg, or flac.

it certainly is not apple alone...all download music services are strapped by the RIAA...DRM is a dangerous thing for apple...but if you're commenting on the format of the music, you're right that there are other better formats. however, as mp3 is the most recognized and ubiquitous format out there, it would be foolish for apple to sell another format.

 

[donunus]

So are you guys saying itunes doesn't encode to mp3, only AAC??? So if thats the case, how is lame 3.96.1 preset extreme going to stack up against 224 to 256 AAC for example? Has anyone compared them like crazy around here?

With me, I tried ubernets setting for example with the old lame vs 3.96.1 and the old lame sounded hard and dry to me even though they say its the best... I can also tell between preset standard and extreme but preset insane sounds slightly more full than extreme but IMO is not worth the very big space difference. Extreme works the best for me and my portable player

Give me your paranoid sound comparison stories. I'll be happy to read them

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 I just don't plain like itunes or what mac is doing with the music industry. Licensing things that aren't even theirs. Idea of buying an mp3, a degenerated music source from a cd and then licensing it just seems so wrong to me. Sharing music with mp3s with friends is awsome, but selling it, that is wrong. Anyways, I avoid aac, mp3 192 vbr sounds fine to me, and lame mp3 encoding if you use the instructions from ubernet.org will get you pretty much cd quality encode, plus lame encodes faster than itunes. Itune encode isn't mp3 also, its aac. As far as I know the only people who use aac are people who are dependent on itunes and ipods, everyone I know use mp3, ogg, or flac.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this post, but yeah my local record store sells music also. A company paying money to license anothers work? No way! LAME is slower than AAC (LAME is about the slowest encoding there is, though most think it's worth it), iTunes encodes AAC or MP3 (besides iTunes branched FhG MP3 encoder, if you're on the Mac there's even a LAME plugin), iTunes isn't iTMS, AAC wasn't invented by Apple, though it's probably the most used by them. Finally just because you use iTunes and AAC doesn't make you dependent on iTunes and AAC. It's a little too chicken/egg for me.

It's but one mans test (you can read much more over at HydrogenAudio), but donunus you may want to glance at this page. It doesn't compare LAMEs alt presets or iTunes new VBR AAC, but it's worth a read. I haven't heard anyone claim iTunes 5 improved its MP3 encoding. It's extremely likely LAME will beat it at the bitrates you'll use for music (though at the extreme top bitrate end it may matter far less). But more importantly LAMEs VBR can set a quality standard across you collection using various bitrates. That's something iTunes MP3 VBR 'minimum bitrate' method can't.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 I just don't plain like itunes or what mac is doing with the music industry.

Ok, I can respect that.

Quote:

Licensing things that aren't even theirs. Idea of buying an mp3, a degenerated music source from a cd and then licensing it just seems so wrong to me.

So paying to copyright holders (and also in indirectly to the artists) for their work is 'wrong' somehow?

What should Apple do instead?

Steal the music and give it away to you for free?

Just sell music they've made themselves to begin with?

Quote:

Sharing music with mp3s with friends is awsome, but selling it, that is wrong.

So, copying music to your friends and not giving money to the copyright holders OR the artists in question, that's "aweseome" to you?

What if EVERYBODY did that and nobody bought the originals?

Ever think of that?

Now that others are paying and others are stealing (or borrowing, depending on legislative definition), then who do you think the record companies are making to pay the bill?

Us, who buy the originals.

Quote:

Anyways, I avoid aac, mp3 192 vbr sounds fine to me, and lame mp3 encoding if you use the instructions from ubernet.org will get you pretty much cd quality encode, plus lame encodes faster than itunes.

AAC at 128kbps ABR has been proven to be statistically better in listening tests than LAME 3.96-branch with alt-preset at c. 128 average VBR.

Lame 3.97a11 takes about 25 seconds to compress a 7:45 track to mp3 using the fastests vbr-new flags (at avg. 128kbps VBR). iTunes 5 with AAC 128kbps ABR / Hi-Quality takes c. 18 seconds on the same track.
Hence, iTunes/AAC is faster in encoding.


Quote:

Itune encode isn't mp3 also, its aac. As far as I know the only people who use aac are people who are dependent on itunes and ipods, everyone I know use mp3, ogg, or flac.

I think mostly everybody uses mp3.

However, the big majority of new cellphone users and iPod users use AAC. Also, it's the defacto standard of all hi-def dvd formats.

It _is_ the way of the future and it's use will only increase, as the encoders get progressively better (esp. at lower bitrates) and other encoder implementations become widely available.

regards,
halcyon

 

[donunus]

Halcyon, whats 128abr for AAC? AAC also has ABR and VBR?
So basically if I get an Ipod and use Itunes, youre saying I should forget mp3 encoding cause AAC definitely sounds better?

Ive heard that AAC has a different distortion signature compared with mp3. Its supposed to be thinner sounding than the original cd while mp3 has a warmer sound signature with more blurry transients.

Please Tell Me More

 

[blessingx]

Nero has had VBR encoding, but iTunes 5 just introduced 'VBR' a few days ago which is actually an extended ABR (old CBR was reportedly ABR also, just with a narrower range to fluctuate). Both settings should give you very similar file sizes, but in theory the 'VBR' setting should increase quality. It's so new there hasn't been any tests I know of though against CBR or LAME 128, etc.

donunus you should take a look at the link in my previous post for comparisons as it sounds like partially what you're looking for.

 

[mbd2884]

My question is, why do people always talk of comparisons of 128, who cares, 128 for some songs sounds like crap. Personally for me as bit rate increases, what format I use doesn't matter that much. Its just on personal preference for that day, whim. I can't hear the difference between a 192 vbr mp3 or a 192 vbr ogg or 192 mpc.

 

[binkgle]

would it be a better idea to use itunes 5 aac 160 vbr or nero's? i want to use foo_pod in foobar to send songs to my ipod, and want it to transcode my flac files to aac on the fly instead of taking up hd space to do so.

 

[donunus]

Does AAC easily convert to audio CD when burning a selection on Nero? Does the conversion to audio cd format degrade the quality?
I found mp3 to be good with this but now for AAC

 

[halcyon]

People should use the format and bit-rate that's suitable to them.

I have tried to ABX 128kbps ABR lame mp3 (3.97alpha series with vbr-new), Ogg (Aotuv b4) and iTunes AAC 128kbps ABR from originals.

It is hard work, even with very good gear and trained hearing (I claim not to be a golden ear).

Hearing the differences from a less stellar source (i.e. portable), on-the-go, in a noisy environment, using less than optimal headphones, it is even harder (in my experience).

However, tracks and hearing vary.

Some people like the extra bitrate just as a safety buffer.

I used to encode all my music with MPC xtreme myself.

No more.

Now compatibility, size, likelihood of audible artifacts (to me) and battery playback times dictate my format.

regards,
halcyon

PS iTunes 5 AAC c. 160kbps could be could, but remains untested (as far as I've seen). Most of the tuning could have gone to 128kbps ABR for all we know. Also, there are no direct head-to-head comparisons of Nero vs Apple AAC encoders that I know of. However, based on how well Apple has done at 128kbps ABR (even with QT6.5/iTune4.x) and how not-so-well Nero has done so far in some isolated blind listening tests, I'd _guess_ that Apple would be better. However, that's all it is, a guess. Use the format that you like.