Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,742 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Dunno about Canada, but Coke has just launched with 1/4 million songs in the UK.

This article gives an interesting perspective...

At the same time Pepsi has NOT announced an iTunes promo, 'cuz there is no ITMS in the UK :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
You know what really bothers me about this whole AAC vs WMA 'Battle Royale' standards crap...

What about MP3? Who cares WHICH format you use if you can convert it to MP3 at some point anyway?

Being a Mac User, I am much more comfortable with AAC than I am WMA, but still, the standards battle hype is just that. hype. In the long run, it ill matter little since MP3 is as valid a music format. (It may not have DRM in it, but if you have legal music in MP3 format, it really is a non-issue.

:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
Well in standards, its about what everyone can use, not what is the most popular. AAC is an open codec that anyone can incorporate into their systems and or programs. The WMA standard is not a standard, its a proprietary piece of software that no one can get access to.

Case in point, Real networks new delivery system is based on the AAC codec. Apple is not the only one adopting it.

Also, with the HP-Apple deal, I think more companies will start to look at AAC as an implementable standard as every new HP machine will come preloaded with itunes which only uses AAC.

WMA and M$ will not continue to be the standard on everyones desk forever. It may take a while, but they will move down that ladder as Linux and the open source community gains momentum...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,742 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Well Strongblade it bothers me in the sense that I have a bunch of music from 'before I switched' in MS format. I guess that I could always burn an MP3 CD with them and reimport to iTunes, but what will the quality be like by the time two other compression algorythms have sliced through the music?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Has anyone ever used WMA? It is hands down the absolute worst format you can ever work with. It is very unlikely that it gets adopted as a standard. My bet is that this time, MS is forced to bend and support AAC.
 

·
Canadian By Choice
Joined
·
5,141 Posts
Standards follow the users. In this case, AAC is winning hands-down in the purchased music arena. However, that will change if more players are not released that can play AAC. I think this will happen simply due to market pressures and opportunities (probably not through Apple, which is jealously guarding its own interests until its leadership position is safe enough).

I can imagine Apple will broadly license Fairplay DRM in the next 6-12 months. It's just waiting for a few noisy failures of the WMA-based music sites. Just think of the PR associated with a WMA site switching (or even just offering AAC).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Has anyone ever used WMA? It is hands down the absolute worst format you can ever work with. It is very unlikely that it gets adopted as a standard.

Have you ever worked with WMA? It may be proprietary, but it has better fidelity than MP3 does. If you have good a good sound system, play an MP3 through it and then a WMA (at the same bitrate) through it, the WMA will sound better.

And considering that 90% or MP3 players out there will play WMA, I'd say it is already a standard.

That said, AAC is better than WMA in a lot of ways, the most important of which being that it is open and easier to implement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
I've heard a fair bit of stuff in WMA format and no, I don't feel it is better than MP3 or AAC.

I think the WMA format, on a Mac is probably worse than a PC because we all know Microsoft just LOVES Mac Users...

But then again, your mileage may vary...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,626 Posts
If you have good a good sound system, play an MP3 through it and then a WMA (at the same bitrate) through it, the WMA will sound better.
I disagree.. when I had my PC I compared WMA and MP3 and I have to say at 192kbps MP3 sounded much better..WMA had an annoying ringing sound with treble, commonly heard in MP3s encoded at 96 & 128kbps..

I haven't actually heard an AAC file. How does it compare to MP3 at 192kbps? Are there different bitrate settings? Are they the same file size as MP3s?
 

·
Canadian By Choice
Joined
·
5,141 Posts
Kloan,

I think AAC sounds significantly better than mp3 at the same bit-rate (and WMV - but I've only tried WMV through my Mac and, as someone already said, its possible WMV plays back better on a PC). AAC can be encoded at the same range that you can encode mp3s although not all AAC encoders are the same. To listen to an AAC track, you can launch iTunes and click on the iTMS and sample any of the songs for 30s. iTunes will also rip to AAC or mp3 so you can easily do a side-by-side rip and burn and play back the tracks in your sound system.

I rip songs from CD to my iPod using 192 kb/s AAC. Apple's iTMS songs are ripped at 128 bp/s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,626 Posts
thanks for the info.. I'm really surprised Apple's selling MP3s that are only 128kbps! There should at least be a choice for people that can actually hear the difference..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Kloan,

A correctly encoded WMV (which is hard to find on a Mac) played through a nice stereo compared to an MP3 at the same bitrate will sound better. I have a few audiophile friends who swear by this. Much better range, especially in the mids. Of course, we were listening on his multi thousand dollar stereo set up, so it was easier to tell the difference.

Apple uses 128 kilobit AAC files (which are MP4s, not MP3s) on the iTunes music store for two reasons: the average ear can't tell the difference between a 192 kilobit MP3 and a 128 kilobit AAC, and at 128 kilobit they are 50% smaller than a 192 kilobit MP3 (roughly)
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top