Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

westrock · Nov 12, 2005, 09:23 PM

I don't have an iPod yet, so I don't know how iTunes handles them. But I have all my music backed up at 320Kbps MP3, so the average file size is about 10mb a song. Does iTunes allow you to lower them to a lower bit rate when transfering to an iPod, say 192 MP3 or even AAC? It would sure be helpfull since it would almost double the amount of songs that would fit.

Right now I can only fit about 40-50 songs on my PSP (512mb card). I've thought about just re-encoding from the CD's and having 2 rips, but I don't want all the formats intermingling in iTunes.

westrock · Nov 12, 2005, 09:25 PM

One more thing. iTunes will allow me to put MP3's on an iPod right? I use MP3 because I can take it anywhere, I don't want to rerip 300 albums in AAC just to use an iPod.

brokenjago · Nov 13, 2005, 01:13 AM

The iPod plays MP3's, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless, AAC, Protected AAC, and MPEG4 & H.264 video (5th Generation Only).

I don't believe you can lower the bitrate for transfer to your iPod.

Sorry.

chabig · Nov 13, 2005, 01:28 AM

iTunes can re-encode to a lower bitrate on the fly if you have an iPod Shuffle, which leaves only one copy of each song on your computer. Otherwise, you can re-encode the music to a lower bitrate in iTunes, which will leave you with two copies of each song.

Chris

westrock · Nov 13, 2005, 02:53 AM

Well cool, because I was actually thinking a Shuffle would be about right for me.

siMac · 04:51 AM

It bugs me that some people seem to have this impression that AAC is some bizarre non-standard iPod-only codec and therefore continue to use MP3s at ridiculously high bitrates to keep some level of audio quality.

AAC is the next generation of MP3, jointly developed by many of the same experts who were involved in the development of MP3, and is designed to take advantage of the continual increase in computing (and therefore decoding) power to provide a more efficient and better quality codec. But that's fine, you can keep your '90s codec if you want, at least you can decode it on your 486DX. I assume these people are still enjoying VHS too?

Anywho, getting slightly back on-topic - I would like to see the re-encode on-the-fly option added for all iPods, not just the Shuffle, it would certainly come in handy for my nano.

(AAC-128 all the way baby!)

ghporter · Nov 13, 2005, 07:06 AM

AAC is, however, not supported on many platforms, much like Sony's proprietary ATRAC3 system. Not that there is any problem with AAC, particularly if all of your hardware is Mac, just that depending on it limits your flexibility.

I personally burn my iTunes purchases to an audio CD and then re-rip them as MP3s so I can use them wherever I happen to be and without depending on iTunes (having multiple copies of iTunes running on different computers and different platforms is a disaster waiting to happen).

siMac · Nov 13, 2005, 07:57 AM

There is absolutely no difference between burning a CD/re-encoding and simply converting directly from AAC to MP3. Save yourself the blank CDs.

jaydon34 · Nov 13, 2005, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by siMac

There is absolutely no difference between burning a CD/re-encoding and simply converting directly from AAC to MP3. Save yourself the blank CDs.

I think he does this to get around the copy protection in his purchased itunes songs.

siMac · 08:49 AM

Indeed. My bad.

Still, so long as people insist on using old technology, new technology will be slow to be widely supported. It's kind of a chicken/egg thing - many people won't use AAC because so many players don't support it, many player manufacturers don't support AAC because many so people are using MP3.

I for one have no problem with having all my music as AAC because I will no longer purchase a device that does not support it.

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 13, 2005, 02:16 PM

AAC-128 is for the proverbial birds. The sound quality is definitely lower than CD-quality. Can you hear it when you're walking around with your iPod? Probably not. But if you're going to use iTunes with a decent set of speakers, give it a few years of backing up and transfering and moving files around, and see where you are. Guaranteed you'll notice a degeneration in sound quality in some songs.

I never do less than AAC 160. Go get a decent set of headphones (not earbuds), and play a CD and then the AAC-128 track. Listen carefully and you can hear the difference (I especially tend to notice it in very rich high-frequency tones such as drum cymbals, or in lower-end bass clarity). I think 160's a good balance between quality and size of the file. My ears aren't especially good thanks to years of working with motorized equipment, but many claim they can notice the difference in 160 and lossless.

Then again, I would never considering buying songs off iTunes either, so there you go. I can't understand how files on a burned CD can substitute for an album in your hands.

Then again I think Canada has especially cheap CDs, so that could be a factor.

greg

SpaceMonkey · Nov 13, 2005, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I never do less than AAC 160. Go get a decent set of headphones (not earbuds), and play a CD and then the AAC-128 track. Listen carefully and you can hear the difference (I especially tend to notice it in very rich high-frequency tones such as drum cymbals, or in lower-end bass clarity). I think 160's a good balance between quality and size of the file. My ears aren't especially good thanks to years of working with motorized equipment, but many claim they can notice the difference in 160 and lossless.

You should try 160 kbps AAC files with VBR enabled--I think it eliminates that difference (I used to use 192 kbps).

I think AAC compatibility is slowly penetrating the market. I know that Pioneer has a car CD receiver that will play CDs with AAC files.

analogika · Nov 13, 2005, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I can't understand how files on a burned CD can substitute for an album in your hands.

I concur. That is why I never buy CDs. That stupid fiddly little plastic thingy is no substitute for an actual album in your hands.

siMac · Nov 13, 2005, 03:48 PM

Still using vinyl then, huh? Welcome to the iPod forum, you may find some things here quite shocking!

analogika · Nov 13, 2005, 05:23 PM

Yeah, there's a Linn Sondek in the living room.

However, I have a 1st-generation 5gig iPod here.

My 60-gig video (black) hopefully arrives tomorrow...

Wait, you can put music on these things!?

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 13, 2005, 05:41 PM

It doesn't matter if it's vinyl or CD...it's just the feel of having the music and artwork in your hands. (In other news, vinyl-style CD cases are starting to be seen a little more, which I approve of.) I actually do collect some vinyl records (mostly rare releases from favourite bands, etc.) but as of yet I don't have a turntable.

It was mostly out of jealously of my ex – her dad left her mom, so she appropriated a large portion of his record collection. The beeotch has original pressings of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jimi, Doors, etc. hanging all over her room.

Anyways, buying AAC-128 is still a ripoff, and your sound quality suffers. Welcome to the iPod forum.

greg