Apple's itunes commercials, lol

[hotwings]

Technically more of an audio post for you mac users, but has anyone tried downloading any itunes from apple's store? What is the quality like and what format? Some of the commercials crack me up - like the white guy jamming to Sir mixalot's "baby got back", just classic.

Apple might be on to something, they need to broaden their horizons quickly though to include pc users. I wouldn't mind paying 99c for a song... thoughts?

[squeed]

iTunes for PC is coming out within the next few months.

-Squeed

[pusa]

Yes, I have purchashed and downloaded songs from the itunes music store.
The format of the file is AAC and it's better than MP3. It sounds better. Read on at http://www.apple.com/music/
I like the commercials though.

[pusa]

High-quality tracks

One of the first things you’ll notice about the music is the stunning sound quality. In fact the sound was so good that audiophiles who beta tested the iTunes Music Store were astonished to learn they were listening to 128 kbps sound files. The secret? It’s the new AAC format, which combines sound quality that rivals CDs with smaller files sizes (compared to MP3s). So not only do the songs take up less space on your hard disk, they can be downloaded faster, too.

[vitualis]

AAC is hardly new...

Regards.

[AntnyMD]

PC users with a copy of Quicktime Pro 6 or 6.1 can try out the sound quality of AAC now. Take an uncompressed WAV rip from a CD you own, and open it in Quicktime Pro 6. Export it as an MPEG-4, then go into options. The video options should be greyed out. The audio options will let you set bitrate and sample rate. Encode it. Compare to an MP3 at the same bitrate.

Unprotected M4A AAC files can be played on a PC by changing the extention to MP4 and opening in Quicktime. Currently the only QT6.1 is available for the PC, and thus fails to understand AAC files with the M4A extension.

[hotwings]

hmm interesting. Although the aac format would be a problem for my portable mp3 player, and I don't want to shell out cash to get an ipod just for aac. I suppose you might be able to convert the files (depending on how hard apple is working to encrypt the files), but that might kind of defeat the purpose of the unique properties of the file format.

[vitualis]

I believe that AAC has been used in a variety of proprietary audio encoding schemes. There are a number of portable players that can play it (?? Panasonic) but whether it can play Apple's spin on AAC is unknown.

Regards.

[moegreen]

AAC is relatively new. It's from Dolby. It was introduced in 2001 and hit the market in 2nd half 2002. If that's not "new" enough for you, then the fact it's been sitting on the shelf doing nothing makes it new. It's really only used as part of the MPEG-4 standard, and Apple is the first one to really implement into anything of significants. 128kbps VBR AAC is pretty good. I'd say in the range of 160-192 kbps MP3. It's be nice though if Apple would put out a 160 kbps version.

You can burn a m4p file to a CD, then rip the cd. You'll lose quality in the conversion, but even if you could get arond the DRM, you'd still be doing a conversion and losing about the same quality. Apple's system works well and it's pretty fair. It should be a little cheaper, but tell that to the labels who get the bulk of the $.99 fee.

For portable music right now your choices are either to do the conversion, get an iPod or keep pirating music. There certainly isn't any other service out there that lets you put legally downloaded music on a portable device. I'd suggest picking up one of the older iPods for $200-$250 or just get one of the new ones. They're fantastic.

[rockinsage]

You can burn a m4p file to a CD, then rip the cd. You'll lose quality in the conversion, but even if you could get arond the DRM, you'd still be doing a conversion and losing about the same quality.

If you're talking about losing quality during conversion of m4p to red book audio during the burn process, there is no loss of quality during this process. Generally, a conversion from a compressed, lossy format like m4p or mp3 to a raw format like red book audio will not introduce any loss of quality. Also, ripping the then-red book audio from the CD to .WAV or .AIFF will not degrade quality. If ripped to some other lossy, compressed format like mp3, then possibly some quality could be lost.

[Jeffersonian]

[quote="rockinsage"]

If you're talking about losing quality during conversion of m4p to red book audio during the burn process, there is no loss of quality during this process. Generally, a conversion from a compressed, lossy format like m4p or mp3 to a raw format like red book audio will not introduce any loss of quality. Also, ripping the then-red book audio from the CD to .WAV or .AIFF will not degrade quality. If ripped to some other lossy, compressed format like mp3, then possibly some quality could be lost.

Actually there is. Going from anything compressed to something uncompressed results in loss of quality because it has to be "decoded" and left that way. MP3/AAc players decode the files on the fly (hence the small file sizes), but when you convert that lossy format to an umcompressed format it must be decompressed and left that way so you do in fact lose quality.

[moegreen]

You can burn a m4p file to a CD, then rip the cd. You'll lose quality in the conversion, but even if you could get arond the DRM, you'd still be doing a conversion and losing about the same quality.

If you're talking about losing quality during conversion of m4p to red book audio during the burn process, there is no loss of quality during this process. Generally, a conversion from a compressed, lossy format like m4p or mp3 to a raw format like red book audio will not introduce any loss of quality. Also, ripping the then-red book audio from the CD to .WAV or .AIFF will not degrade quality. If ripped to some other lossy, compressed format like mp3, then possibly some quality could be lost.

I'm talking about AAC - CD - MP3 conversion. My point was that, in short, through this process, an MP3 file will not have the same quality as the original AAC file.

[AntnyMD]

Some of the commercials crack me up - like the white guy jamming to Sir mixalot's "baby got back", just classic.

It was funny in the first few days that commercial came out: Baby Got Back wasn't available at the iTunes Music Store!

It's there now, for those of us who like butts (we cannot lie)!

[vitualis]

AAC is relatively new. It's from Dolby. It was introduced in 2001 and hit the market in 2nd half 2002. If that's not "new" enough for you, then the fact it's been sitting on the shelf doing nothing makes it new. It's really only used as part of the MPEG-4 standard, and Apple is the first one to really implement into anything of significants.

Unless I'm mistaken, you need to check your facts. I'm pretty sure AAC was around long before 2001. AAC was also once called the NBC (non-backward compatible) encoding as a decoder able to decoder AAC wouldn't necessarily be able to decode MPEG-1/2 audio.

I was playing around with AAC encoding back in the third year of uni (1999) with a freeware encoder. Mind you, it wasn't very good... There is even an old freeware MP3 player that supported AAC decoding in-built -- it was called Kjofol (or something like that).

AAC or its various incarnations as proprietary products have popped up multiple times as well. For example, I'm pretty sure a few of the early portable MP3 players played AAC as well.

Of course, whether the Apple implementation of AAC is the same as these earlier ones may well not be.

Regards.

[pusa]

AAC Rocks!!!!!

[hotwings]

iTunes for PC is coming out within the next few months.

-Squeed

yeah, I already heard that a pc version was coming out but I think I heard (i believe it was CNN), that it was expected at the end of the year. That just seems like a long time to me as a pc user, but if apple can be the sole provider of content from all the major U.S. distributors, then the delay might not hurt them as much with regards to competition.

BTW I believe this really could be a step in the right direction. I am not one to buy many albums to begin with, but I'll admit that I have downloaded mp3s for "free" but never felt good about it and was hoping for a feasible online legitimate alternative. I hear it even comes with a music preview, so in that sense you have an idea of what you're paying for.

[RabidDog]

is'nt this as big a dead duck as a dodo? mp3 pro does all this as well (maybe not drm) and that has failed to catch on. Personally I use mp3 simply becuase A) I know and understand it
b) the software is free
c) my dvd player plays it.

Imho mp3 has too big a hold for anything else to dislodge it. new formats are dead UNLESS everyone, including content providers, Hardware mfrs backs its.


I am a Pc user...256k mp3 good enough for me

[mkelley]

Just my two cents, but I also think this is going to end up being an "interesting experiment" that will probably be remembered in the years to come as the forerunner of the online music that really worked.

MP3 is a terrific format that only has one problem for RIAA -- no DRM. That, of course, is why so many people also like it. At some point DRM will be rammed down our throats so we'll have to take it or else (CDs will be impossible to rip into MP3s for our portable players and we'll have to buy online music or no music for our portables at all): at that time this may be what we'll be forced to deal with. That will be a sad day, a reversal of the fair use act.

(And I own and love my iPod -- I just also want the ability to take the CDs I own and use them in any manner I want, whether that's ripping them to .WAV files for background music in my DVD slideshows and movies, or changing them to Vision phone enabled sound formats for playing on my phone, or listening on my high-end CD sound system, or carrying around as MP3s in my 'pod. With DRM I'd be able to pick ONE of these).

[Kryton]

(MPEG-4) AAC is relatively new. To say otherwise is splitting hairs.

Even 1999 could be considered as 'new'. Virtualis could have played around with AAC in 1998 but that was surely MPEG-2 AAC.

MPEG-4 AAC is basically an umbrella term for a whole bunch of pateneted stuff (a lot from Dolby labs).

When referring to quality, 'AAC' alone is not sufficient to accurately describe its worth just as 'MP3' isn't sufficient either. There is more than one way to encode in MP3 and the same applies to AAC.

However, MP3 lags in several areas when pitted against (MPEG-4) AAC. A quick search for AAC should bring back a fair amount of info regarding its advantages over MP3.

However, I think that Apple's AAC encoder doesn't take advantage of some of the more fancy stuff in AAC. It's possible that those bought songs could have sounded a bit better at the same bitrate.

To say that MP3 has too much of a foothold to be dislodged is to be very optimistic.

AAC represents a certain amount of progression. How much of a foothold it eventually gets, I don't know, but let's give it some leeway. It took a while for MP3 to get a hold.

[hotwings]

is'nt this as big a dead duck as a dodo? mp3 pro does all this as well (maybe not drm) and that has failed to catch on. Personally I use mp3 simply becuase A) I know and understand it
b) the software is free
c) my dvd player plays it.

Imho mp3 has too big a hold for anything else to dislodge it. new formats are dead UNLESS everyone, including content providers, Hardware mfrs backs its.


I am a Pc user...256k mp3 good enough for me

I'm not sure what mp3 pro is, but I'll assume it is the mp3 version of itunes, except I doubt that it has all the major record labels on board, because I know for a fact that this has been a problem with trying to get such a system going, is that there has been a lack of variety. The CNN report I saw (which can be wrong at times when it comes to tech matters i admit) stressed the cooperation of the 5 major labels. So you could call it a dead dodo and you might be right in the sense that people will not want to pay for what they can get free, but in terms of a legitimate equivalent on the pc side of things, I have yet to hear of one...feel free to correct me otherwise.

[galactica]

Don't know if this will put things into perspective on the topic, but here's something I ran across during my daily internet surfing. Audiophile's review of mp3 and aac formats at various kbps:

96 kbps MP3
Harsh Digititis. Extremely rolled off treble. Very phasey. No dynamics. Horrible overall.

Tonal Accuracy - 5/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 4/10
Naturality - 3/10
Musicality - 3/10
Total - 15/40

96 kbps AAC
Noticeable digital sheen, but overall inoffensive. Very rolled off treble. Poor imaging. Light bass. Slightly phasey.

Tonal Accuracy - 6/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 5/10
Naturality - 5/10
Musicality - 7/10
Total - 23/40

128 kbps MP3
Flat, compressed sound/dynamics. Rolled treble (quite bad). One dimensional, plodding bass.

Tonal Accuracy - 5/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 5/10
Naturality - 4/10
Musicality - 4/10
Total - 18/40

128 kbps AAC
Rolled treble, but not too bad. Light bass especially in transients/impact. Compressed dynamics. Surprisingly musical.

Tonal Accuracy - 7/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 6/10
Naturality - 6/10
Musicality - 8/10
Total - 27/40

160 kbps MP3
Noticeably lighter bass than even lower MP3 bit rates. Smeared/flangey treble.

Tonal Accuracy - 7/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 8/10
Naturality - 7/10
Musicality - 6/10
Total - 28/40

160 kbps AAC
Decent bass weight. Much better treble definition/air. Somewhat compressed dynamics. Good, but still a little lifeless.

Tonal Accuracy - 8/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 8/10
Naturality - 8/10
Musicality - 7/10
Total - 31/40

192 kbps MP3
Midrange somewhat forward. Good imaging.

Tonal Accuracy - 7/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 9/10
Naturality - 9/10
Musicality - 8/10
Total - 33/40

192 kbps AAC
No sparkle. Light bass, although with good detail.

Tonal Accuracy - 7/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 7/10
Naturality - 7/10
Musicality - 7/10
Total - 28/40

AIFF (in comparison)

Beautiful sparkle to piano keys. Generally filled with much more life and atmosphere on a tactile level. Far more musically involving. This is the reference piece so it naturally gets a perfect 40/40 score.

Tonal Accuracy - 10/10
Imaging/Soundstage - 10/10
Naturality - 10/10
Musicality - 10/10
Total - 40/40

Odly enough, they stoped at 192. Personally, I encode all my mp3's at 256k/sec and can hardly tell the difference to the cd.. I think the AppleStore's downloads are the 128k/sec ?!? or am i incorrect.

[mkelley]

That's interesting information. I'm with you -- all my encoding is much higher than they stopped at (still yet another reason I'm against Apple's implementation of online music -- not only am I limited as to how and where I can use the music, I'm also limited as to how good it can sound).

However, the piece you quoted seemed to imply it was a classical piece, perhaps heavy in piano. I've read an awful lot about music compression which suggests that different types of music compresses very differently -- pieces that are apt to be "heavy" in terms of harmonics (like rock) compress very differently than piano only pieces with silent moments. The information I've read suggests there is no easy way to compare such formats -- it isn't enough to say that what's good quality for one will be good for another.

(Still more reasons to keep buying CDs and choose you *own* format :>)

[AntnyMD]

There are some of you who look for audiophile quality in compressed music. Give it up. They are making Super Audio CDs and DVD-Audio for people like you. For those who want to keep it simple, keep it portable, and keep it legitimate, we now have a legal way to get it without having to deal with Tower Records (or Virgin or wherever you shop), or wait for days while its being delivered from Amazon.

Something for everyone is a very good thing, damnit.

[vitualis]

@ galatica:

Usually, "audiophile" codec tests are worthless (if the test you referred to is different, then please supply a URL as I would be very interested to read it).

Why?

More often than not, they don't know how to encode using the best settings/encoder.

More importantly, they never do a double-blinded A-B test. The tester states (for example) "now this clip is 128 kbps MP3" and then the audiophile, who is prejudiced pre-test by various opinions about codecs and bitrates simply states some sort of wanky rubbish like "Rolled treble, but not too bad. Light bass especially in transients/impact. Compressed dynamics. Surprisingly musical."

I seriously question whether ANYONE can easily and reprodudibly distinguish between the original audio and the compressed version at 192 kbps MP3 (if encoded using a high quality encoder like LAME) in a blinded A-B test.

Regards.

[vitualis]

Personally, I encode all my mp3's at 256k/sec and can hardly tell the difference to the cd.. I think the AppleStore's downloads are the 128k/sec ?!? or am i incorrect.

As long as you encoded properly and there weren't artifacts introduced in the ripping, you can't tell the difference between the original and 256 kbps MP3. ALL good blinded testing has shown that at this bitrate, MP3 is transparent.

Regards.

[stung4ever]

Did anyone else see Leno's "newest Osama video"?

It was basically Osama signing "I Like Big Butts", ala the Music Store ads, complete with the white background, and the 99¢ message at the end.

[hotwings]

Did anyone else see Leno's "newest Osama video"?

It was basically Osama signing "I Like Big Butts", ala the Music Store ads, complete with the white background, and the 99¢ message at the end.

Damn, must have missed that one, although I know I would have laughed my butt off

[pacmania_2001]

I'm not sure what mp3 pro is, but I'll assume it is the mp3 version of itunes

MP3 Pro is another encoding codec/method. It has equivilent quality compared to MP3 at lesser bitrates (i.e a 128kbps MP3 Pro encoded song equals a 192kbps MP3 song).

[pacmania_2001]

Also to address your statement about the recording companies cooperation in the viability of such a scheme. I believe it will only be a matter of time before another company/conglomerate will see the opportunity in launching it's own version and do so.

The key to Apple's success so far is that it has allowed a somewhat unrestricted use of the songs once a person has paid/downloaded for it as well as the record company cooperation.

I wouldn't put it past a large company (someone like Microsoft say) with large cash reserves to enter the market and offer lower prices than Apple and eventually drive them out. It may not be profitable in the short term but over the long run it would be a cash cow for them.

[energy80s]

I have been following the Apple experiment and hoping that they (or someone else) would set up a similar service for the majority of computer users (ie. PCs). I would certainly use such a service but the bitrates would need to be higher. In this day and age even uncompressed wave files are possible. At least ACC coding (which has been around for many years - introduced just after MP3) gives better sound quality than MP3 for the same bitrates (and about twice the sound quality of MP2 audio) but the bitrates would still need to be above 192kbps to be a viable alternative top buying the CD.