On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:17:49 GMT, Thump wrote:

> I'm just curious - anyone know what bitrate the songs in the Apple iTunes
> catalogue are encoded at?

When the US site started up, there was a lot of discussion that Apple had
encoded everything at a CBR of 128kbps.

But for the labels that do their own encoding, it's really up to them. You
may get better quality files from the smaller labels or independents but I
don't think many would stray to far from Apple's guidelines.

Sarch
--
Spamblock in action: Remove NOTREAL from email address to reply via email.

"Look, if that's where those poor children are, of course I'll go
to Somalia." - Amanda Keller, "The Hub"

From:	Robert Atkins
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	12 Jan 2005 09:43:26 GMT

In article <1k0e6kgp3ucoe.toapl91jgzxw$.dlg@40tude.net>, Sarch wrote:
> When the US site started up, there was a lot of discussion that Apple had
> encoded everything at a CBR of 128kbps.

Don't forget that this is AAC, not mp3. Bit-for-bit a 128kbps AAC will
sound better than an 128kbps mp3. I used to encode all my mp3s at
192kbps and I find I get similar quality with AAC at 160kbps.

Cheers, Robert.

From:	Sarch
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:25:44 +1100

On 12 Jan 2005 09:43:26 GMT, Robert Atkins wrote:

> In article <1k0e6kgp3ucoe.toapl91jgzxw$.dlg@40tude.net>, Sarch wrote:
>> When the US site started up, there was a lot of discussion that Apple had
>> encoded everything at a CBR of 128kbps.
>
> Don't forget that this is AAC, not mp3. Bit-for-bit a 128kbps AAC will
> sound better than an 128kbps mp3.

Yep, I know. However, I shouldn't have made the assumption that the OP knew
that.

> I used to encode all my mp3s at
> 192kbps and I find I get similar quality with AAC at 160kbps.

MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free implementations are
hard to come by (or not very user friendly).

Sarch
--
Spamblock in action: Remove NOTREAL from email address to reply via email.

"Look, if that's where those poor children are, of course I'll go
to Somalia." - Amanda Keller, "The Hub"

From:	Anthony Horan
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:40:39 +1100

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:25:44 +1100, Sarch wrote:

> MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free implementations are
> hard to come by (or not very user friendly).

Err, well, there IS iTunes...

:)

From:	Sarch
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:52:19 +1100

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:40:39 +1100, Anthony Horan wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:25:44 +1100, Sarch wrote:
>
>> MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free implementations are
>> hard to come by (or not very user friendly).
>
> Err, well, there IS iTunes...

Doesn't that only encode at CBRs?

Sarch

From:	Iain Chalmers
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:10:41 +1100

In article <34ocfiF4dman1U1@individual.net>,
Sarch wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:40:39 +1100, Anthony Horan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:25:44 +1100, Sarch wrote:
> >
> >> MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free implementations are
> >> hard to come by (or not very user friendly).
> >
> > Err, well, there IS iTunes...
>
> Doesn't that only encode at CBRs?

At least as far back as 4.2 you could encode at variable bit rates -
admittedly the option is fairly well hidden (go to
iTunes->Prefs->Importing, select "Custom" from the "setting" pulldown
and it reveals a panel with a "use VBR" checkbox).

big
--
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
That's the only way to be sure." - Ellen Ripley

From:	Sarch
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:45:15 +1100

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:10:41 +1100, Iain Chalmers wrote:

> At least as far back as 4.2 you could encode at variable bit rates -
> admittedly the option is fairly well hidden (go to
> iTunes->Prefs->Importing, select "Custom" from the "setting" pulldown
> and it reveals a panel with a "use VBR" checkbox).

It must be a Mac-only feature. In the Windows version (4.7) this option is
not available.

There is FAAC for Windows if you're willing to hunt it down. Thankfully
programs like Foobar2000 allow conversions from lossless formats to AAC
using FAAC.

Sarch

From:	Matt McLeod
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:45:56 +1100

In article <34oq4cF4e2706U1@individual.net>,
Sarch wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:10:41 +1100, Iain Chalmers wrote:
>
>> At least as far back as 4.2 you could encode at variable bit rates -
>> admittedly the option is fairly well hidden (go to
>> iTunes->Prefs->Importing, select "Custom" from the "setting" pulldown
>> and it reveals a panel with a "use VBR" checkbox).
>
>It must be a Mac-only feature. In the Windows version (4.7) this option is
>not available.

Nope, it's not on 4.7.1, not for AAC. It is there for MP3.

>There is FAAC for Windows if you're willing to hunt it down. Thankfully
>programs like Foobar2000 allow conversions from lossless formats to AAC
>using FAAC.

Given that it's out there, I expect it'll eventually wind up supported
by things like Winamp's encoding wossname. Don't expect to ever see it
in WMP though, what with being not-Microsoft.

Matt

From:	Iain Chalmers
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:23:35 +1100

In article ,
Matt McLeod wrote:

> In article <34oq4cF4e2706U1@individual.net>,
> Sarch wrote:
> >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:10:41 +1100, Iain Chalmers wrote:
> >
> >> At least as far back as 4.2 you could encode at variable bit rates -
> >> admittedly the option is fairly well hidden (go to
> >> iTunes->Prefs->Importing, select "Custom" from the "setting" pulldown
> >> and it reveals a panel with a "use VBR" checkbox).
> >
> >It must be a Mac-only feature. In the Windows version (4.7) this option is
> >not available.
>
> Nope, it's not on 4.7.1, not for AAC. It is there for MP3.

Ahh, sorry, I was confusing things. Yeah, iTunes only seems to offer
vbr for mp3 encoding. I kinda lost track of the fact that this thread
was actually discussing aac encoding.

Ooops,

big
--
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
That's the only way to be sure." - Ellen Ripley

From:	Anthony Horan
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:08:01 +1100

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:45:15 +1100, Sarch wrote:

> There is FAAC for Windows if you're willing to hunt it down. Thankfully
> programs like Foobar2000 allow conversions from lossless formats to AAC
> using FAAC.

Both iTunes and Nero's implementations of AAC sound much better than FAAC,
though; I was not at all impressed with FAAC at 128kbit/sec - it produced
results that sounded noticeably worse than an equivalent-bitrate MP3.

From:	Sarch
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:42:25 +1100

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:08:01 +1100, Anthony Horan wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:45:15 +1100, Sarch wrote:
>
>> There is FAAC for Windows if you're willing to hunt it down. Thankfully
>> programs like Foobar2000 allow conversions from lossless formats to AAC
>> using FAAC.
>
> Both iTunes and Nero's implementations of AAC sound much better than FAAC,
> though; I was not at all impressed with FAAC at 128kbit/sec - it produced
> results that sounded noticeably worse than an equivalent-bitrate MP3.

Hence my comment about the lack of quality, free implementations on
Windows. The last time I tried FAAC was a year back and I compared it with
Nero. On some songs I wasn't pleased with the quality but I put it down to
FAAC's early development and unstable build.

Sarch
--
Spamblock in action: Remove NOTREAL from email address to reply via email.

"Look, if that's where those poor children are, of course I'll go
to Somalia." - Amanda Keller, "The Hub"

From:	Shadowking
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	15 Jan 2005 01:46:23 +1100

Sarch wrote in
news:1h9xm5ifbojq1.4pfkxas5gxqg$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:08:01 +1100, Anthony Horan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:45:15 +1100, Sarch wrote:
>>
>>> There is FAAC for Windows if you're willing to hunt it down.
>>> Thankfully programs like Foobar2000 allow conversions from lossless
>>> formats to AAC using FAAC.
>>
>> Both iTunes and Nero's implementations of AAC sound much better than
>> FAAC, though; I was not at all impressed with FAAC at 128kbit/sec -
>> it produced results that sounded noticeably worse than an
>> equivalent-bitrate MP3.
>
> Hence my comment about the lack of quality, free implementations on
> Windows. The last time I tried FAAC was a year back and I compared it
> with Nero. On some songs I wasn't pleased with the quality but I put
> it down to FAAC's early development and unstable build.
>
> Sarch

Frankly I don't see any reason to jump on the AAC hype wagon. Technically
it is very capabale but it hasn't reached maturity. Again there are many
encoder implementations just like MP3 which I don't really like.

Another quality encoder to consider is Vorbis 1.1 which is also strong in
low-mid bitrates, patent free, open source. Some DAP's already support
it.

If portable support is no issue and you want a lean mean machine, try
Musepack (MPC). The mpc psychoacoustic model is close to perfection -
most advanced of any lossy. Standard settings handles nearly anything at
around 170 kbits, encoder is pure vbr, speed is increadible for both
encoding and decoding.

Still, I see no clear reason to abandon MP3. The LAME encoder has the
advantage over aac and vorbis in terms of quality tunings - and is more
stable especialy at bitrates >160k. The encoder is often transparent with
--alt preset standard setting (200k) and 128k performance is also
acceptable esp with the new vbr modes. Decoding is fast and mp3 is
compatible with anything now and probably forever.

From:	Shadowking
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	14 Jan 2005 10:19:45 +1100

Sarch wrote in
news:34ocfiF4dman1U1@individual.net:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:40:39 +1100, Anthony Horan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:25:44 +1100, Sarch wrote:
>>
>>> MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free
>>> implementations are hard to come by (or not very user friendly).
>>
>> Err, well, there IS iTunes...
>
> Doesn't that only encode at CBRs?
>
> Sarch
>

I think so but quality is still good. Nero encoder is vbr.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128v2/results.html

--

From:	Matt McLeod
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:53:02 +1100

In article ,
Sarch wrote:
>MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free implementations are
>hard to come by (or not very user friendly).

There's libfaad, which seems to be OK and is supported by a bunch of
players on Linux. There's no particular reason it couldn't be ported
to Windows for use in a Winamp (or whatever) plugin.

Matt
(showing my ignorance here, for all I know there might already be
Winamp [or whatever] support for it.)

From:	Shadowking
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	13 Jan 2005 17:32:55 +1100

Matt McLeod wrote in
news:ulffb2-o11.ln1@zim.its.unimelb.edu.au:

> In article ,
> Sarch wrote:
>>MPEG-4 audio isn't bad. It's a shame that quality, free
>>implementations are hard to come by (or not very user friendly).
>
> There's libfaad, which seems to be OK and is supported by a bunch of
> players on Linux. There's no particular reason it couldn't be ported
> to Windows for use in a Winamp (or whatever) plugin.
>
> Matt
> (showing my ignorance here, for all I know there might already be
> Winamp [or whatever] support for it.)
>

Huh ?

You have Foobar2000 which plays anything and Winamp plays AAC by default
through in_mp4.dll. There are also some based on faad.

http://www.rarewares.org/aac.html

--

From:	Matt McLeod
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:50:48 +1100

In article <41e61617$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Shadowking wrote:
>You have Foobar2000 which plays anything and Winamp plays AAC by default
>through in_mp4.dll. There are also some based on faad.

I did say "showing my ignorance". So, Sarch, how much more by way
of free implementations do you want?

Matt
(touches Windows *very* rarely, hence not up on current software.)

From:	Sarch
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:37:50 +1100

On 13 Jan 2005 17:32:55 +1100, Shadowking wrote:

> Huh ?
>
> You have Foobar2000 which plays anything and Winamp plays AAC by default
> through in_mp4.dll. There are also some based on faad.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was talking about encoders. I
think you're right about Foobar2000 in that it does do AAC encoding (I've
never used it).

Sarch

From:	Matt McLeod
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:51:40 +1100

In article <34mjc7F47ctvqU1@individual.net>,
Sarch wrote:
>Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was talking about encoders. I
>think you're right about Foobar2000 in that it does do AAC encoding (I've
>never used it).

Ah. There's also libfaac, which does the encoder side, though I've
not used it and am not in a position to comment with respect to output
quality.

Matt

From:	Shadowking
Subject:	Re: iTunes query - what bitrate?
Date:	13 Jan 2005 00:10:03 +1100

Robert Atkins wrote in
news:41e4f13e$0$1833$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.
au:

> In article <1k0e6kgp3ucoe.toapl91jgzxw$.dlg@40tude.net>, Sarch wrote:
>> When the US site started up, there was a lot of discussion that Apple
>> had encoded everything at a CBR of 128kbps.
>
> Don't forget that this is AAC, not mp3. Bit-for-bit a 128kbps AAC will
> sound better than an 128kbps mp3. I used to encode all my mp3s at
> 192kbps and I find I get similar quality with AAC at 160kbps.
>
> Cheers, Robert.

Depends on the aac encoder and mp3 encoder. Note that Lame 3.96.1 has a
VBR mode for 128k with quality on par or better than some aac encoders
for 128k - to activate it simply add -V5 to the encoder command line.
Also aac is still more complex to decode than mp3 - thus less batery
life.

--