AAC for ipods ? anyone ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Jim on 14 Jan 2010 01:14 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Load up the old QuickTime 7 Player on your Intel 10.6 box (it should be > > QuickTime Pro). > > Which I've not bought, so that's out. It's a standard part of 10.6, or so I think. Why not try it for the 10 seconds it will take to prove/disprove? Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Jim on 14 Jan 2010 01:14 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > But the format Jim told me about is lossy compression. The only > compressed AIFF format available to QT users, according to Jim, is > availble via QT Pro only, and gives lossy compression. Two points: One, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was the only one. It's the only one _I_ know about, but I'm not a big audio-head. Two, it wouldn't need QTPro to use, you'd only need QTPro in order to access it via the QTPlayer. Standard QT still gives other programmess access to such stuff, it's really only the Player you're paying for. I think. Might be wrong on that, but that's the impression I have. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Rowland McDonnell on 14 Jan 2010 01:26 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > Load up the old QuickTime 7 Player on your Intel 10.6 box (it should be > > > QuickTime Pro). > > > > Which I've not bought, so that's out. > > It's a standard part of 10.6, or so I think. Why not try it for the 10 > seconds it will take to prove/disprove? So there's lossy compression available on AIFF. Lossless compression's what's required. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 14 Jan 2010 01:30 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > It's a standard part of 10.6, or so I think. Why not try it for the 10 > > seconds it will take to prove/disprove? > > So there's lossy compression available on AIFF. > > Lossless compression's what's required. Actually I've just checked and I'm wrong about Pro being a standard part of 10.6 - it will install QT7 Player and accept Pro codes but it's not a standard bit of 10.6. However, the original post of yours that I was replying to merely mentioned compressed AIFFs - lossy or lossless wasn't mentioned. You appeared, to me, to think there was no such thing as a compressed AIFF. That's what I was replying to. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Woody on 14 Jan 2010 03:10
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I'm puzzled - that surely is lossy, since there seems no way to compress > > > *any* audio file that much without data loss. Hmm. RTFW. Yep, it's > > > lossy. Lossy compression is not what we're talking about. > > > > There are many ways of compressing *any* file that isn't entirely > > random. > > Yes, and there are no ways of compressing data further than a certain > point, depending on the complexity of the data. 4:1 compression on > arbitrary music is impossible. Who said anything about a 4:1 compression on anything? I certainly didn't. > As you know well - you're just doing your mindless contrarianism again, > are you? This is a technical newsgroup. Could you please can you keep your posts to technical matters. -- Woody www.alienrat.com |