ipod advice.

In article <1hdg6me.17r9i4gp2tfr8N%nonesuch@place.com>,
nonesuch.DeleteThis@place.com says...
> <michael_r_hanlon.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any advice on how i go about downloading my own cd's onto the ipod
> > would be greatly recieved!!
>
> As others have already said, you need iTunes software. The next stage is
> to use iTunes convert your CDs into a suitable format for the iPod. The
> preferred choice of format is AAC (see iTunes preferences - you can use
> mp3 if that format is really necessary for you - otherwise use AAC).

I'd suggest using MP3 unless you *know* you only need AAC.

MP3 is slightly lower quality, but MUCH more portable. Anything will
play MP3... if you ever buy a non-ipod, or want to play it in your car
cd player or your home-stereo dvd player, or send the file to a friend
without itunes, etc etc etc... you'll find your self re-ripping your
library.
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

42 <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:

> MP3 is slightly lower quality, but MUCH more portable. Anything will
> play MP3... if you ever buy a non-ipod, or want to play it in your car
> cd player or your home-stereo dvd player, or send the file to a friend
> without itunes, etc etc etc... you'll find your self re-ripping your
> library.

Well, yes ... but most people would have to *require* that extra
portability if they were to choose to sacrifice quality, surely. If you
have an iPod you've got personal potability. Most computers can use AAC
with free software (eg. iTunes). So unless you need to share with people
who are using mp3-only portable players there is no necessity to give up
the quality/file size benefit of AAC (IMHO).

--
Adrian
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

In article <1hdhubj.1qfclylwnd1puN%nonesuch@place.com>,
nonesuch.RemoveThis@place.com says...
> 42 <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > MP3 is slightly lower quality, but MUCH more portable. Anything will
> > play MP3... if you ever buy a non-ipod, or want to play it in your car
> > cd player or your home-stereo dvd player, or send the file to a friend
> > without itunes, etc etc etc... you'll find your self re-ripping your
> > library.
>
> Well, yes ... but most people would have to *require* that extra
> portability

I suspect most people will encounter devices that won't play AAC files.
I have like 5 in my own household. And Not one of those is a "portable
mp3 player".

> if they were to choose to sacrifice quality, surely.

Most people don't notice the difference... or more accurately most
people *can* tell there is a difference but can't reliably tell you
which is which, especially in real world precision acoustical
environments like "jogging with a nano" or "the car stereo in their
Honda civic in stop and go traffic"

In other words the "sacrifice" is insignificant to most people.

> If you
> have an iPod you've got personal potability.

By portability I mean the ability to use the files on any device you
encounter, not the ability to carry your ipod around.

> Most computers can use AAC
> with free software (eg. iTunes). So unless you need to share with people
> who are using mp3-only portable players there is no necessity to give up
> the quality/file size benefit of AAC (IMHO).

Both my wife and I have ipods. They are our primary music player (for
now), however they aren't the only ones we use our music libary with.

My car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
My wifes car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
My home theatre dvd player - MP3 yes, AAC no
My cellphone - MP3 yes, AAC no
My parents car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
My parents home theatre - MP3 yes, AAC no
My sister's Sony Bean - MP3 yes, AAC no
My father in laws portable stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
My friends Samsung YEPP, MP3 yes, AAC no
....
etc

And while iTunes is free and there are AAC plugins for WinAmp and
Windows Media Player, several of my friends and relatives do not have
iTunes or the AAC plugins installed. Nor the desire, or in some cases
the technical know how to do so.

I don't have anything against AAC, but the number of MP3 but not AAC
players in my life is really pretty staggering.

MP3 is a defacto standard -- everything supports it, no matter what
device you encounter or person you need to send a file to, now or in the
foreseeable future you'll be able to rely on MP3 support... AAC is a
much more limited proposition.

And who knows -- sure you have an ipod NOW, but your next player might
be a non-AAC capable player. (Or perhaps that's what your wife will
decide on, or one of your kids... or you'll buy a new car that has an SD
card slot to load music into -- but of course, no AAC support. My wife's
last player was a YEPP and she liked it immensely... who knows what the
future will hold?

If you are ripping a LOT of music -- I have nearly a thousand CDs -- it
makes sense to future proof the ripping effort as much as possible,
IMHO.
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

42 <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:

> My car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My wifes car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My home theatre dvd player - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My cellphone - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My parents car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My parents home theatre - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My sister's Sony Bean - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My father in laws portable stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> My friends Samsung YEPP, MP3 yes, AAC no

I agree. For your situation you are best to stick with mp3. Your
situation is not everybody's situation. Each should make their decision
based on their own needs and circumstances.

In the 1980s everyone had cassette players. You could play your
cassettes anywhere ... great universal portability from player to
player. However, thank goodness, we gave that up for other formats,
despite the fact that few people could play those CDs for several years
after they came out.


--
Adrian
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

In article <1hdj0s6.qpshbcn0dxboN%nonesuch@place.com>,
nonesuch.DeleteThis@place.com says...
> 42 <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > My car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My wifes car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My home theatre dvd player - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My cellphone - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My parents car stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My parents home theatre - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My sister's Sony Bean - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My father in laws portable stereo - MP3 yes, AAC no
> > My friends Samsung YEPP, MP3 yes, AAC no
>
> I agree. For your situation you are best to stick with mp3.

No question.

> Your
> situation is not everybody's situation.

It would be arrogant to say it was. But even so I'm quite confident most
of us have an "mp3 but not aac" player in our life, in our family, in
our circle of friends, or in our future.

I think for most of us MP3 is the better and safer bet.

> Each should make their decision
> based on their own needs and circumstances.

I never claimed otherwise.

But choosing AAC over MP3 confers what advantages?

Slightly higher quality (even "imperceptibly"), and slightly smaller
files (in era where space is very cheap)... vs much much more limited
portability in terms of device support.

Who exactly benefits from ripping to AAC? And how? When is AAC a better
choice than MP3? There are several cases where its a toss up, and in
those I would recommend MP3 for future compatibility.

I really can't think of a situation where you would be better off
ripping to AAC; except perhaps someone who genuinely found MP3 to sound
terrible and AAC sounded much better -- that person would probably be
willing to forego device compatibility and limit himself to AAC players,
but really that's a pretty tiny group. (And I'd wager over half the
people who claim to be in it couldn't pass a blind AAC vs MP3 hearing
test.)

> In the 1980s everyone had cassette players. You could play your
> cassettes anywhere ... great universal portability from player to
> player. However, thank goodness, we gave that up for other formats,
> despite the fact that few people could play those CDs for several years
> after they came out.

That analagy really isn't very applicble.

There is no reason to beleive that AAC players of the future won't
continue to support MP3, however very few cd players can play cassettes.
Worse, while CD was widely recognized at the outset as the successor to
cassette, no such recognition exists for AAC. AAC is merely Apples
proprietary music format with Apple's proprietary DRM
capabilities/support. revisions to MP3, AAC, Ogg, WMA, atrac and several
other formats are all possible "next generation" formats -- and in all
liklihood several of them will be used for some time. Personally, I'd
like to see ubiquitous ogg support for non-DRMed content because I like
its open license.

Additionally the quality difference between CD and cassette is dramatic,
AAC to MP3 is scarely noticeable.

CD was a much more convenient form factor for music, it didn't degrade
by playing it, allowed random access to music tracks, you didn't have to
turn them over, you didn't have to mess around balancing the playlist to
avoid having a couple minutes of space at the end of side B, etc... AAC
vs MP3 in terms of features and convenience is almost irrelevant for
music.

(I think I've read there are some advantages to AAC for podcast
subscriptions, for example, in terms of book marking, chapter marking,
etc but they don't really apply to the average music cd.)
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

42 <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

> But choosing AAC over MP3 confers what advantages?

---cut very long response---

Wow, this issue is clearly very close to your heart. I'm glad you got
that off your chest! Despite acknowledging different choices you go to
some length to question any reason for choosing AAC. That happens to be
*my* choice ... don't lose any sleep over it ... you stick with yours. I
simply recommended AAC for those who want the best compromise of file
size/quality and who do not require compatibility with mp3-only devices.
Quit simple really; and no further discussion necessary.

--
Adrian
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

In article <1hdkszz.q3p99p1787fwgN%nonesuch@place.com>,
nonesuch.DeleteThis@place.com says...
> 42 <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > But choosing AAC over MP3 confers what advantages?
>
> ---cut very long response---
>
> Wow, this issue is clearly very close to your heart. I'm glad you got
> that off your chest!

Not really, but thanks.

> Despite acknowledging different choices you go to
> some length to question any reason for choosing AAC.

Someone would have to give me a reason to aac before I could question
it.

The only reason I know of is that some people think it sounds better. I
don't question that. I accept that as a valid reason. If that's why
someone uses aac I think that makes perfect sense.

However I also happen to know that most people can't tell the difference
between AAC and MP3 so its simply not a valid reason for most people.

So as it stands, if you can't tell the difference you should go with mp3
to pick up the compatibility benefit. It seems a no-brainer.

> That happens to be
> *my* choice ... don't lose any sleep over it ... you stick with yours.

I'm not trying to convince you; you can do what ever you want for
whatever reason you want.

But I'm suggesting you are giving bad advice to others.

> I
> simply recommended AAC for those who want the best compromise of file
> size/quality and who do not require compatibility with mp3-only devices.


Better advice would be "rip a few songs in each and listen to them, if
you prefer mp3 go with it there are no disadvantages, if you can't hear
or don't care about the difference, go with mp3 because its much more
compatible. If you prefer the sound of the aac files, its up to you to
decide whether the perceived quality improvement is worth giving up
compatibility with mp3 only devices, of which there are many. If it is
go with aac, otherwise stick with mp3.

> Quit simple really; and no further discussion necessary.

Oops. :)
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

42 wrote:
> In article <1hdkszz.q3p99p1787fwgN%nonesuch@place.com>,
> nonesuch.DeleteThis@place.com says...
>> 42 <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But choosing AAC over MP3 confers what advantages?
>> ---cut very long response---
>>
>> Wow, this issue is clearly very close to your heart. I'm glad you got
>> that off your chest!
>
> Not really, but thanks.
>
>> Despite acknowledging different choices you go to
>> some length to question any reason for choosing AAC.
>
> Someone would have to give me a reason to aac before I could question
> it.
>
AAC supports the notion of bookmarks, so you can rip as one long file
but still have the convenience of jumping through tracks. Handy for
those longer CDs and podcasts.

I seriously doubt that there would be any statistical differences in
perceived sound quality between similar bitrate MP3 and AAC files. Not
with a double-blind test, anyway. Both can sound terrible given the
right settings and source material.

MP3 is a lowest common denominator format, which becomes important the
more non-Apple devices one has.
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice. 

In article <zsz_f.17919$43.15584@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
clvrmnky.invalid.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com.invalid says...
> 42 wrote:
> >
> AAC supports the notion of bookmarks, so you can rip as one long file
> but still have the convenience of jumping through tracks. Handy for
> those longer CDs and podcasts.

I actually specifically mentioned aac's bookmark/chapter features in an
earlier post in this thread. I hadn't considered the applicability to
music cds. Its true the odd opera or concept album is just one long
track and might be worth ripping to AAC, but I maintain that for the
average music cd those features add no real benefit.

(And as an aside, I was under the impression that using the
"podcasting" features of AAC changed how itunes/ipod treated the files
-- ie it wouldn't normally rotate them into your playlists. Which if
true would be a strike against using those features on music.)

> I seriously doubt that there would be any statistical differences in
> perceived sound quality between similar bitrate MP3 and AAC files. Not
> with a double-blind test, anyway. Both can sound terrible given the
> right settings and source material.

Agreed.

> MP3 is a lowest common denominator format, which becomes important the
> more non-Apple devices one has.

Its definately the "common denominator", but calling it the "lowest"
implies that AAC or other formats are in someway better -- which for the
task of ripping (most!) music CD's isn't the case.

And if you agree with that then picking the "common denominator" makes
the most sense, because there are a lot of non-apple devices out there,
and its pretty likely you'll encounter one sooner or later.
 >> Stay informed about: ipod advice.