Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
correct access.
After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
used.
* w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
correct access.
After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
used.
* w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:59:25 -0800, wrct@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote
(in article <fq7sed02t25@news4.newsguy . com >):
> The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
> 160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
> basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
> Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
> correct access.
>
> After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
> based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
> A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
> frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
> functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
> used.
>
> * w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
Or Buy an Apple TV much cheaper, does the same thing.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:59:25 -0800, wrct@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote
(in article <fq7sed02t25@news4.newsguy . com >):
> The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
> 160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
> basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
> Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
> correct access.
>
> After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
> based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
> A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
> frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
> functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
> used.
>
> * w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
Or Buy an Apple TV much cheaper, does the same thing.
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
wrct@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote:
> The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
> 160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
> basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
> Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
> correct access.
> After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
> based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
> A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
> frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
> functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
> used.
> * w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
Apple's AAC is highly tuned, but it's still proprietary. LAME MP3
is 'free' and works just as well, and on more platforms.
Codecs have been compared extensively at lower and middle bitrates,
on hydrogenaudio.org.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
wrct@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote:
> The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
> 160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
> basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
> Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
> correct access.
> After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
> based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
> A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
> frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
> functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
> used.
> * w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
Apple's AAC is highly tuned, but it's still proprietary. LAME MP3
is 'free' and works just as well, and on more platforms.
Codecs have been compared extensively at lower and middle bitrates,
on hydrogenaudio.org.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> Apple's AAC is highly tuned, but it's still proprietary.
It is not.
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
> LAME MP3 is 'free' and works just as well, and on more platforms.
AAC is more advanced than mp3, creates smaller files with the same
quality or better quality with the same size.
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> Apple's AAC is highly tuned, but it's still proprietary.
It is not.
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
> LAME MP3 is 'free' and works just as well, and on more platforms.
AAC is more advanced than mp3, creates smaller files with the same
quality or better quality with the same size.
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@web.de> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> > Apple's AAC is highly tuned, but it's still proprietary.
> It is not.
> * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
My bad. I was confusing AAC per se with iTunes AAC-encoded tracks with
DRM.
> > LAME MP3 is 'free' and works just as well, and on more platforms.
> AAC is more advanced than mp3, creates smaller files with the same
> quality or better quality with the same size.
Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
* w w w .listening-tests.info/
. And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top performers
are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
What's being encoded also matters, e.g. a person here ABX'd AAC artifacts
on a couple of tracks at ~220 VBR.
* w w w .hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=d42fecf95112f88682253db3444f9f94&showtopic=61667
AAC's Hydrogenaudio wiki page is here
* wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advanced_Audio_Coding
listing pros and cons.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@web.de> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> > Apple's AAC is highly tuned, but it's still proprietary.
> It is not.
> * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
My bad. I was confusing AAC per se with iTunes AAC-encoded tracks with
DRM.
> > LAME MP3 is 'free' and works just as well, and on more platforms.
> AAC is more advanced than mp3, creates smaller files with the same
> quality or better quality with the same size.
Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
* w w w .listening-tests.info/
. And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top performers
are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
What's being encoded also matters, e.g. a person here ABX'd AAC artifacts
on a couple of tracks at ~220 VBR.
* w w w .hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=d42fecf95112f88682253db3444f9f94&showtopic=61667
AAC's Hydrogenaudio wiki page is here
* wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advanced_Audio_Coding
listing pros and cons.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
> * w w w .listening-tests.info/
> . And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
Maybe. But actually: as long as my own platform supports it - I don't
care, because I don't share.
> From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top performers
> are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
> usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
Wasn't it normally said it's below 160?
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
> * w w w .listening-tests.info/
> . And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
Maybe. But actually: as long as my own platform supports it - I don't
care, because I don't share.
> From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top performers
> are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
> usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
Wasn't it normally said it's below 160?
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@web.de> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> > Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
> > * w w w .listening-tests.info/
> > . And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
> Maybe. But actually: as long as my own platform supports it - I don't
> care, because I don't share.
> > From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top performers
> > are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
> > usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
> Wasn't it normally said it's below 160?
Whether that's said or not, the tests show that the best LAME and AAC
codecs perform audibly the same down to 128, for most tracks, within the
margins of error (Sebastian Mares's hydrogenaudio tests show error bars,
but soundexpert doesn't seem to display those in a way I can parse).
FWIW, my archiving/home listening is via lossless Flac, and I use
192 VBR LAME MP3s for my iPod...I'm sure AAC files would sound just as
good.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@web.de> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix . com > wrote:
> > Only at lower bitrates, viz. the hydrogenaudio tests
> > * w w w .listening-tests.info/
> > . And MP3 does work on more platforms and devices than AAC.
> Maybe. But actually: as long as my own platform supports it - I don't
> care, because I don't share.
> > From the soundexpert pages, it is not clear that any of the top performers
> > are signficantly different at higher bitrates. Below 128 , AAC is
> > usually considered a safer choice than MP3.
> Wasn't it normally said it's below 160?
Whether that's said or not, the tests show that the best LAME and AAC
codecs perform audibly the same down to 128, for most tracks, within the
margins of error (Sebastian Mares's hydrogenaudio tests show error bars,
but soundexpert doesn't seem to display those in a way I can parse).
FWIW, my archiving/home listening is via lossless Flac, and I use
192 VBR LAME MP3s for my iPod...I'm sure AAC files would sound just as
good.
___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
Re: Secrets of iTunes and iPod, music server
On Feb 28, 9:59 pm, w...@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote:
> The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
> 160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
> basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
> Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
> correct access.
>
> After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
> based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
> A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
> frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
> functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
> used.
>
> * w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
No need to move your computer or buy another one. Take a look at
this.
* w w w .slimdevices . com /pi squeezebox.html
I rip at 256kbs and store on a second 256g hard drive. I have about
650 cds ripped. You can browse by all the significant track
attributes as well as use itunes playlists.
On Feb 28, 9:59 pm, w...@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote:
> The author says apple 128 coding transparent enough for most music and
> 160 for more difficult classical. He has both technical and musical
> basis for saying so, and as also based on subjective listening.
> Provides info on getting different musical formats unto ipods for
> correct access.
>
> After reading it occurs to me this makes it possible to set up a mac
> based system with remote to control entire music collection and playbac.
> A mac mini for about $500 with the footprint of a cd case now has
> frontrow' which works with a remote to control itunes and other
> functions. With an external largish drive even lossless coding could be
> used.
>
> * w w w .kenrockwell . com /apple/itunes.htm
No need to move your computer or buy another one. Take a look at
this.
* w w w .slimdevices . com /pi squeezebox.html
I rip at 256kbs and store on a second 256g hard drive. I have about
650 cds ripped. You can browse by all the significant track
attributes as well as use itunes playlists.
