This includes Apple Lossless, AAC, Audio-CDs and standard MP3! Even audio tracks in video files can be re-encoded to Ogg Vorbis/MP3. So, why is it different from similar scripts? It offers support for all audio filetypes supported by iTunes and Quicktime due to the use of “mov123” by the slimserver project. On Linux - it is the most supported, and that is what the original poster was seeking.It's also better than mp3 and quite possibly better than aac.The iTunes Alternative Encoders pack includes two AppleScripts for iTunes that allow to (re-)encode almost any audio file to either Ogg Vorbis using oggenc or MP3 using LAME. Not for mp3 players, but for Linux.And the fact is on Linux that mp3 is not the most compatable - ogg is.I'm sorry if you hate ogg and don't care to see it as the answer to any questions - but that's your problem. I work around it myself.You may not care about what codec is most supported, and I'm not here to argue ogg - I use aac on Mac/Windows and flac in Linux.But the original poster, you know, the person who started this thread - said he wanted mp3 because he thought it was the most compatable. you'll be good to go.Until a small vulnerability is found in gstreamer and yum updates your custom gstreamer with the fedora updated library.Sure - it's not difficult to work around. It's more than that.If you add madplay and rebuild your gstreamer libraries to support mp3 etc (which with fedora isn't just a simple recompile from srpm - you have to get the source yourself because redhat ripped it out of the gstreamer srpm) etc. Quote:Originally posted by esquilax:who the hell cares what codec is 'most' supported? is there some 'most supported codec' trophy for each operating system that i've never heard of? all anybody needs is the ability to get something to work with a reasonable amount of effort. if you are gonna bump up to 224k, you might as well use aps since on average its going to be smaller than a straight 224k rip If you can't tell the difference between 192k AAC and CD, you are in good shape, or you could bump it up to 224k just for extra insurance. 128k AAC is good for 128k but shows room for improvement. Furthermore, as bitrates go up, the amount of sound you can discern from CD quality goes down a fair bit. pretty damn close, I don't have anything in AAC 192k so I couldn't say. Quote:Originally posted by Xevion:quote:, but instead about OGG's legality I have not once seen anything suggesting anything regarding the legal status of ogg. MP3 has slightly worse quality at 128k (using LAME) and for all intents and purposes both are equal when you are using Alt-presets versus high bitrate AAC - it's a matter of convenience - for good AACs you can use itunes but you need to use LAME for good MP3s. You may not be able to tell the difference now, but transcoding it to some other format will result in more sound quality loss than if you are transcoding from a higher quality encode.If you want it to work in iTunes, ogg is out of the picture.

Ogg has the proven best sound quality of the bunch through double blind testing), and MP3 is absolutely the compatability leader across the board.AAC makes sense if you have an iPod, but then if you are going for archival, 128k is NOT the solution, and I'd recommend using at least 192k. AAC and Ogg aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so there is nothing to worry about there. Ogg does have the best linux support, and it has some hardware support too. 192k AAC would be fine, or MP3 using LAME and Alt-Preset Standard or Alt-preset extreme.quote:oh god, lets not get into that. It's not like we have 20GB hard disks these days. Quote: Is AAC going to replace mp3? No.quote:that seems a like probably overkill, despite what many people would have you believe, 128 is pretty good Given that 128k Ogg is in the same range/slightly discernably better than 128k AAC, 128K AAC is not transparent and hence is not overkill.

Itunes lame encoder