1. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    So to continue with this issue, I would also like to mention that the iTunes encoder found in 7.1 has been upgraded.
    Is there proof of this, because that interests me? If the new AAC encoder sounds better, I may be re-ripping some of my classic CDs(the ones before they started remastering everything). Although I don't really have too much of a problem with the old one, I'm always up for better sound!
    04-06-2007 10:56 PM
  2. surur's Avatar
    Is there proof of this, because that interests me? If the new AAC encoder sounds better, I may be re-ripping some of my classic CDs(the ones before they started remastering everything). Although I don't really have too much of a problem with the old one, I'm always up for better sound!
    Just to let you know, I tested thunder.wav again with itunes 7 and I didn't notice any change. Stereo positioning still borked as usual..

    I hope Quicktime 7.1.3 isn't the "fixed" version skuo was talking about.

    But even if the fix finally comes with Leopard (due to somewhen in early 2007): one year to fix a (IMHO serious) bug in probably the most used AAC encoder is way too long. Especially considering that all iTunes-Store songs are encoded with a buggy encoder (with no way for the end-user to reencode) -- another reason not to buy lossy music.
    http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...mparison&st=25

    Maybe Archie read that wrong somewhere ...

    Surur
    04-07-2007 04:58 AM
  3. marcol's Avatar
    Is there proof of this, because that interests me? If the new AAC encoder sounds better, I may be re-ripping some of my classic CDs(the ones before they started remastering everything). Although I don't really have too much of a problem with the old one, I'm always up for better sound!
    Why not try it and see? One of the things I find annoying is that it's so difficult to try digital audio players and headphones before you buy, but that doesn't apply to encoding software, different codecs or bit rates. You could of course ask Surur to Google you some others' experiences or get Archie to produce some spectra, but I'd say trust your ears
    04-07-2007 05:27 AM
  4. surur's Avatar
    Why not try it and see? One of the things I find annoying is that it's so difficult to try digital audio players and headphones before you buy, but that doesn't apply to encoding software, different codecs or bit rates. You could of course ask Surur to Google you some others' experiences or get Archie to produce some spectra, but I'd say trust your ears
    Its great fun rubbing Archie's nose in it, but the truth is that for the vast majority of people today's codecs are already perfectly fine, especially at 192 and above, and there is probably virtually nothing to gain from repeating all that work.

    Surur
    04-07-2007 05:47 AM
  5. marcol's Avatar
    ... but the truth is that for the vast majority of people today's codecs are already perfectly fine, especially at 192 and above, and there is probably virtually nothing to gain from repeating all that work.
    I disagree that you shouldn't try it for yourself but have found that 192 kbps is pretty much the cut-off for me. In blind tests I did a while ago I simply couldn't tell the difference between MP3 and AAC at that bit rate. It wasn't just that I was unable to make a judgement as to which was best, I couldn't tell which was which. Those tests were with lower-end headphones than I have now though and I also just got the Apple audio dock (and the line-out is supposed to be better than headphone jack) so it might be worth revisiting the tests. Even if I can, say, tell the difference between 256 and 192 though, I very much doubt that it would actually mean I'd be enjoying the music more.

    On headphones (despite getting the dock this still mostly how I listen to the iPod), it's as clear as day to me that these make a *much* bigger difference than the codec or even the bit rate (unless you're encoding at some stupidly low rate I suppose). I base this on buying a pair of V-Moda Vibes and comparing to a variety of cheaper headphones I already had. The Vibes were 70 shipped and I'm seriously wondering whether there might not still be quite a bit to be gained by spending even more.
    04-07-2007 09:12 AM
  6. archie's Avatar
    Finally, I understand what's going on here. It's pretty hard to have a reasoned debate with someone that either can't read or reverses facts regardless of clear evidence. Who knows where the spectrograph pictures came from (Photoshop comes to mind) - or even if they are correctly labeled.
    I apologize for being conditioned to respond to surur's persistent trash talking of anything related to Apple, Inc.

    But on the hand, I deplore your inane ignorance to be forgiving of surur's own misquoted facts and misunderstandings and half-truths.

    This is beyond ridiculous and the fact that I am singled out as being incapable of providing any accurate facts and an unformidable citizen here on TreoCentral shows your own stupidity.
    04-09-2007 01:57 PM
  7. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    This is beyond ridiculous and the fact that I am singled out as being incapable of providing any accurate facts and an unformidable [sic] citizen here on TreoCentral shows your own stupidity.
    Interesting how my correctly pointing out your (vitriol-filled, knee-jerk, utterly-misinformed) mistake makes me stupid. I wonder, where does that leave you? (hint: That's clearly a rhetorical question since the answer is obvious)
    04-09-2007 08:51 PM
  8. randyg's Avatar
    I get a kick out of Surur doing his feeble best to blast Apple and Jobs at every turn. The funny thing is, if it weren't for them, you wouldn't have anything worthwhile to say on these forums!
    04-09-2007 10:11 PM
  9. DaddyMac#WN's Avatar
    I am getting realy bored with reading the back and forth between Surur and his Apple bashing compatriots trying to beat up on Archie, just as I'm getting bored with Archie feeling the need to defend all things Apple.

    As my screen name implies, I am a big fan of all things Mac, but I have been a Palm user since the first Palm Pilot and Palm III. My main leaning towards these platforms, and products has always been their elegant design and user interface, and most of all the fact that they have historically played well together (something that has been less the case in recent years, but has been ameliorated by the advent of Missing Sync by Markspace)

    I am probably a more than average techy gadget buyer, but for me the big draw of Apple, especially since the birth of the iPod, is a seamless experience. I like gadgets and technology as much, if not more than, anyone, but I don't want to go through learning 17 steps to do anything where 1 click can do it all. I don't want to have to learn how to do anything, I'd rather it was intuitive, and I could simply deduce it.

    Is the sound quality of digital audio as good as the very expensive high end audiophile setups I have owned in the past? Probably not, but I don't really care. I like the fact that I can very simply carry all (or most, or even some) of my music around with me in a format that is easy to access, and easy to maintain and update. I don't listen to my iPod as much as I did because I'm realy busy, and I'm worried that I might miss a call. If the iPhone means I can listen to my music, or an audiobook, and not miss a call, all in one device, great, sign me up.

    I have never used my Treo 600, Treo 650, or Treo 680 for music. Could I have? I guess I could, but I never got around to doing all the stuff that that would involve. I just plug in my iPod and I'm good to go. The iPhone will do that and sync my contact info etc seamlessly. This is something Palm hasn't managed in some time (mixed up or double entered contact info, or worse contacts that have disappeared into the digital ether after many syncs)
    Will the iPhone be perfect? Probably not, but I don't know as I haven't used one yet (have you Surur or Archie, or Oalvarez, or anyone?). But from my experience with Apple so far, it will be pretty damn close.

    I think the reason most of us were drawn to Palm was that they had a simple user interface, and cool products. Palm has become the tech equivalent of "Fat, Stodgy, and Lazy". Apple has continued to innovate and move forward. They did this by controling all the parts of the equation, and dropping the parts that weren't moving them forward (transition to OS X, move to Intel, shutdown of clones etc). Palm dropped the ball by gripping on to the same outdated OS for grim death, rather than innovating their way out of that same grim death.

    I hope Palm can get their act together, and do something special, just as I hope England can win a World Cup again. I just won't cry into my beer when they don't. Until then........ Roll On June 11th
    04-09-2007 10:48 PM
  10. Malatesta's Avatar
    I am getting realy bored with reading the back and forth between Surur and his Apple bashing compatriots trying to beat up on Archie, just as I'm getting bored with Archie feeling the need to defend all things Apple.
    Are you forced to read their posts? I think not. I think what you are doing now is just trolling.

    As long as they keep it roughly civil they have every right to debate what they want back and forth.

    Back to the topic...

    I don't encode or use anything lower than 192kbps as that is the cutoff for acceptability for myself. Personally I like 256 and the mp3 format since it can work on my other devices.

    I still use Itunes 5.x just so I can use jHymn to rip the DRM and auto-convert any purchased music to mp3.

    If it weren't illegal and frowned upon, I would think www.allofmp3.com has the best solution: let you choose bitrate and format, pay accordingly. They even have cross-platform mobile clients, something that the competition is lacking. They may play outside of the law but their design and implementation is to my liking.
    04-09-2007 11:20 PM
  11. surur's Avatar
    I enjoy playing with Archie, primarily because he is so very very very sure of the superiority of Apple. If he allowed just a small possibility that the IPhone may not be perfect or the second coming, there would really not be anything to argue about.

    e.g.
    The IPhone may not sell 10 million in one year, but I'm sure it will sell a lot
    or
    There will probable be a lack of apps initially, but the ones Apple includes will be enough for most people buying it.

    See, neutral statements which wont offend anyone, vs statements of "fact" from some-one which is clearly just based on "faith in Apple" without any insider knowledge.

    Until Archie relents a bit, where do I get my handbag?

    Surur
    04-10-2007 02:35 AM
  12. marcol's Avatar
    I don't encode or use anything lower than 192kbps as that is the cutoff for acceptability for myself.

    I still use Itunes 5.x just so I can use jHymn to rip the DRM and auto-convert any purchased music to mp3.
    jHymn not only rips out the DRM but it ups the bit rate to 192 kbps? Or do you rip out the DRM and then not use the file?
    04-10-2007 08:45 AM
  13. surur's Avatar
    I don't know about Malatesta, but whenever I transcode I do it to a higher bitrate, to reduce the chance of further compression artifacts, so I would transcode a 128 kb/sec AAC to 192 mp3. Of course I would keep the original also.

    Surur
    04-10-2007 08:58 AM
  14. marcol's Avatar
    I see what you're saying, and will confess I have very little knowledge of transcoding, but at best wouldn't you get music of the same quality as as the original 128 kbps AAC file? It's not like transcoding can find the missing data, I presume (or am I missing something?). I was just wondering how Malatesta could find this quality acceptable as he says anything less than 192 is unacceptable.
    04-10-2007 09:41 AM
  15. surur's Avatar
    For me, transcoding is about compatibility. Of course you are right, and no amount of up-sampling can create data which isn't there.

    Surur
    04-10-2007 09:54 AM
  16. Malatesta's Avatar
    Marcol,

    No, you're right the transcoding is not necessarily to improve quality of the track but rather:

    1) remove DRM
    2) make it an mp3 for better compatibility w/other devices

    I'll confess, I rarely buy music via ITMS. Using jHymn is sort of a last-resort procedure on my part if I have to buy the song via iTunes.

    Given the choice though I always go for 256 and even 320 if it's something really good.

    I guess what bothers me about the ITMS and any other mp3 service, is what Jobs says about DRM: we just want to make online music the same as a CD you buy. I agree which is why they should give you the song ripped at the same audio quality as a CD, not reduced. Although I understand the notion of making the files smaller so you can fit more on the device, I just do not like the lesser quality. I notice it very much when I connect my iPod to my car stereo system.
    04-10-2007 11:50 AM
  17. crazycray's Avatar
    Surur needs to recognize that his **** stinks just like everybody else, even when you try to cover it up with ridicule. Such as the case with archie pointing out that 128 on AAC is better than 192 on WMA. Surur did in deed pronounce 192 on WMA to be better than 128 on AAC (which if you will note - IS the opposite of what surur had said), but then went on a rampage when archie misquoted him.

    But Archie, if you are not an Apple insider, you are the most crazy pathetic fanboy I have ever witnessed.

    I know these are threads about the iPhone but lets keep it in line or keep out.
    04-10-2007 12:10 PM
  18. Certs's Avatar
    Surur needs to recognize that his **** stinks just like everybody else, even when you try to cover it up with ridicule. Such as the case with archie pointing out that 128 on AAC is better than 192 on WMA. Surur did in deed pronounce 192 on WMA to be better than 128 on AAC (which if you will note - IS the opposite of what surur had said), but then went on a rampage when archie misquoted him.
    128 AAC is NOT better than 192 WMA. Surur believes this, Archie does not. That is the whole argument.
    04-10-2007 12:16 PM
  19. surur's Avatar
    Surur needs to recognize that his **** stinks just like everybody else, even when you try to cover it up with ridicule. Such as the case with archie pointing out that 128 on AAC is better than 192 on WMA. Surur did in deed pronounce 192 on WMA to be better than 128 on AAC (which if you will note - IS the opposite of what surur had said), but then went on a rampage when archie misquoted him.

    But Archie, if you are not an Apple insider, you are the most crazy pathetic fanboy I have ever witnessed.

    I know these are threads about the iPhone but lets keep it in line or keep out.
    But crazycray, the question, ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED!!! If not, why are you reading

    Surur
    04-10-2007 12:42 PM
  20. marcol's Avatar
    Malatesta,

    Yeah, I figured you probably weren't a big user of iTMS (me neither). I agree it would be great if they just gave us the CD audio files as downloads and let us do with them what we want. 256 kbps with no DRM is a big step forward though and I can actually see myself buying some of these. I wonder if they'll have that John Lee Hooker album I've had on order for three months
    04-10-2007 01:56 PM
95 ... 234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD