| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2004 12:29:01 AM · #1 |
Anybody here as addicted to iTunes as me? Just downloaded a crapload... some real good Norah Jones! Got a slow groove goin' on. And some kick-butt country (Nickel Creek, Rascal Flatts, Montgomery Gentry, etc.) for when I'm in the mood for some good boot-stompin. Plus a little 3 Doors Down for when I'm ready to rock out (bet my son will like that stuff).
What about ya'll? |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 12:42:51 AM · #2 |
| So is iTunes like the legal version of kazaa? Yes,. I do live under a rock. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 12:44:15 AM · #3 |
I downloaded about 15 songs a couple of weeks ago... I use their service exclusively. No problems with downloading, burning, or playback. It rocks! :o)
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 12:46:00 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by d14:
So is iTunes like the legal version of kazaa? Yes,. I do live under a rock. |
Well then I must have a rock for a house too 'cause I don't know what 'kazaa' is. But iTunes is Apple's answer to legal music downloading. You go through their (extensive) library of selections and buy the songs you want for .99 cents a piece (or an album for usually about $9.99). Since iTunes came out, I don't think I've bought a CD the traditional way. It's awesome! |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 12:48:53 AM · #5 |
| I got Brad Paisley's duet with Allison Krauss, "Whiskey Lullaby" - it's sad and haunting but dang! it sure is pretty! |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 12:50:24 AM · #6 |
| With my taste in music,. I don't think I have much of a choice but to buy my music the traditional way. Thats what I get for being kinda strange. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 01:25:07 AM · #7 |
i use Rhapsody from listen.com. i have access to more than 50,000 cd's there.
$24.95/3 months subscription that includes customizable music libraries and playlists and streaming cd-quality radio with no ads. $.79 per track to burn.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 02:17:15 AM · #8 |
OK, I-tunes users. I have a few questions for you. (Warning: slightly geeky information coming, I'll try to explain in parentheses for the non-geeky as I go along)
The music you download is in AAC format, correct? (AAC is a music encoding format like MP3, but is incompatible with MP3 players)
Due to the "Digital Rights Management" in AAC, you can only copy it to a limited (3?) number of computers and/or AAC-compatible digital music players, correct? (Digital Rights Management is encoded restrictions that keep the file secure from file sharing and unlimited copying)
If you choose to use AAC files to burn a CD, you can re-rip the music as MP3s, but supposedly with some audio quality degradation, correct? (Like taping from a tape, the info I've heard is that an MP3 file ripped from a CD burned from AAC files is of lower quality than the original AAC file)
My final question, that I've been leading up to, is, does anyone know how the supposed audio quality degradation is accomplished? If the music is Digital, it should be able to be directly copied to and from CD's with no degradation, since it's all 1's and 0's. The only way I can see the resulting MP3 being of lower quality than the original AAC is if the CD itself is, through the process of decoding the music back to a WAV file, of a lower quality than the original AAC.
If that's the case, I'm glad I avoided Itunes and Ipods, and other Apple music-related products. I like making personal compilation CD's, and it sucks to me that I would only be able to make an inferior-sounding CD from my music collection.
Opinion aside, Does anyone know the answer to my questions? |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 02:40:20 AM · #9 |
computerking: I don't know the answer to your question, but I agree with your concerns. I just can't see spending nearly the same amount for a low-quality compressed version of the same thing I can get in actual digital CD-audio on a disk from the local music store.
As a guess to answer your question; most CD players have logic built into the player that smooths out the sound (so to speak). Oversampling, I believe it is called (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong). It's purpose in the CD player is to be able to play a scratched or dirty CD without any interruption to the sound but would also smooth out the sound of a low-quality compressed version of the audio. Then, when ripped to MP3 that sound is taken directly, and every compression artifact can be heard clearly.
David
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 02:40:46 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by computerking:
If you choose to use AAC files to burn a CD, you can re-rip the music as MP3s, but supposedly with some audio quality degradation, correct? (Like taping from a tape, the info I've heard is that an MP3 file ripped from a CD burned from AAC files is of lower quality than the original AAC file) |
Why don't you just convert the audio from AAC to MP3? That's easier than burning it. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 02:48:34 AM · #11 |
| I'm gonna guess from what I know about dubbing videos. In transfering music from CDs and in converting one digital music format to another the quality is always lost. A music waveform from one format has to be sampled at a certain sample rate and whenever you sample something, you can never exactly match the original waveform perfectly. Although the higher sample rate you use the better the original waveform can be approximated but the bigger file size you will have. Therefore, the fewer number of conversion the better. The only way to preserve the exact quality is a straight copy. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 03:15:02 AM · #12 |
computerking - the main reason you lose quality in an AAC - CD - MP3 conversion is because the AAC file has already "thrown out" some of the original waveform through its lossy compression. when you burn a song that's encoded in AAC from iTunes to a CD, you have much less of the original information and a few new encoding artifacts thrown in. when you then rip that CD to MP3 you introduce more loss and new artifacts as the MP3 encoder tries to take the WAV stream from the CD and compress it down. though you don't actually lose much info in the burning or ripping process, the multiple lossy encoding loses a bit. that and the fact that apples AAC from itunes is only recorded at 128k (not terribly high quality) even compressing at high quality MP3 will still have some loss.
i hope this explanation is clear enough - i've been bar tending a party making margaritas all night long and feel the beginnings of a terrible hangover already - it's easier to keep typing than to check what i've typed already
peace,
ara
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 03:36:30 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Xarthan:
Why don't you just convert the audio from AAC to MP3? That's easier than burning it. |
From what I heard, it wasn't directly possible. Part of it was the fact that most converters are MP3 playing programs, and don't read/recognize AAC, the other part was the Digital Rights management interfering.
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
the main reason you lose quality in an AAC - CD - MP3 conversion is because the AAC file has already "thrown out" some of the original waveform through its lossy compression. when you burn a song that's encoded in AAC from iTunes to a CD, you have much less of the original information and a few new encoding artifacts thrown in. when you then rip that CD to MP3 you introduce more loss and new artifacts as the MP3 encoder tries to take the WAV stream from the CD and compress it down. though you don't actually lose much info in the burning or ripping process, the multiple lossy encoding loses a bit. that and the fact that apples AAC from itunes is only recorded at 128k (not terribly high quality) even compressing at high quality MP3 will still have some loss.
|
Thanks BR, sounds like a good reason. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 10:07:12 AM · #14 |
I can't go into the techie side of it but I use iTunes exclusively, I burn regular audio CD's that can be listened to on any CD player and I have an iPod that use in my car. No problems whatsoever with sound quality (and believe me, I'm picky).
Of course, to each their own. My point in starting the thread was more of a 'what's your favorite music' song sort of thing. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:41:53 PM EDT.
