Alternate way around problem
 

There is an alternate way around the problem...

If you open the aac file in Roxio Toast and convert it to AIFF or WAV, and then revert back to AAC, the file loses the authorization restriction and you can play it on your Mac even without resolving the authorization problem.

It's not the best solution, but rather a jimmy-rig that will let you play a song for some instant gratification instead of waiting to fix the overall problem.

Cheers.

gsparks: Any loss of quality doing that?

Re: Alternate way around problem
 

- you will definitely lose sound quality in doing so. whether the resulting quality loss is acceptable or not is a matter of personal taste.

- i could be wrong, but i don't believe you can convert a protected AAC file to AIFF without authorization.

No loss in quality that I could detect... I'm a DJ, so I'm particularly picky about my sound...

Toast will allow the conversion without authorization... going from .aac to .wav or .aiff loses no quality, since those are uncompressed, lossless formats. Then, when you encode back to aac, the process essentially puts the file back where you started from, provided that you are careful with bit rates.

I experimented with a couple of songs I downloaded from the Apple Music Store (128-bit .aac), converted it in each direction, and ended up with a replacement 128-bit file that still sounds pretty incredible... I played it and the original back and forth, and they sounded identical to me. I also encoded it back to .aac at 160 and 192-bit, with similar results.

I presume it's probably because encoding back to .aac attempts to strip frequencies and data that were never in the file in the first place, so there's no additional loss (just a guess on that one).

Hope this helps... experiment on a couple of files and see what you think!

Of course, once Apple and Roxio realize that you can do this, there'll probably be an update to Toast that adds authorization support down the line... keep a copy of today's version on a CD just in case!!

Thoughts on conversion..
 

Well, isn't the music that you download from the store already authorized on your computer?

I will try bringing some songs from work that have not been authorized on my home machine and see if I can do this.

Does it seem strange that ToastT can even convert an AAC file at all? (It can)

Re: Thoughts on conversion..
 

i haven't tested, but my hunch is that yellow is correct. i believe that when you authorize a computer, Quicktime will then permit other apps to convert M4P files. my guess is that gsparks is using Toast on an authorized computer.

---

concerning AAC -> AIFF -> AAC conversions and loss of quality, petey would like to offer his trademarked friendly but definitive "No, you're wrong" to gsparks. in this case, i'd like to amend it to "No, you're dead wrong."

there really is a significant audio loss in that conversion, whether you notice it or not. i've done the roundtrip, and i can notice it. other people have noticed the degradation as well.

and recompressing into the same format you uncompressed from offers no special benefits. in other words, going AAC -> AIFF -> AAC is no different than going AAC -> AIFF -> MP3.

you can read a further exploration of this issue at:

http://forums.macosxhints.com/showth...light=fairplay

and just because you're a DJ, gsparks, doesn't mean you have a discerning ear for audio quality. you seem to think 128 bit AAC files sound 'pretty amazing', which i certainly don't.

(the quality of audio codecs is a whole other topic, of course. i believe minimal acceptable quality varies by person.)

Yipee! Got it back...
 

First, I got my authorization back. Yipee!

I guess we all knew what the answer would be by now (if you read the entire thread, right petey?), but there is a big difference between theory and practice. I can now make several definitive conclusions about this whole authorization thing:

1) There is no file stored anywhere on the computer with this info, at least not one that matters.

2) There is no computer related info stored in the AAC file, just account related info.

I know #1 because I put an entirely new drive in the old Mac, installed OS X and iTunes. I put no music files on the system whatsoever. Immediately after downloading and installing iTunes, I opened it (iTunes). The first thing I noticed was that it already indicated that the system was authorized, because the Advanced menu only had "Deauthorize..." as an option. I chose Deauthorize..., entered my Apple login and password and it reported to me that I had successfully de-authorized the computer. I checked my account settings and sure enough, my authorizations were decremented by one.

I'll leave the deduction of #2 as an excercise for the reader....

Thanks for all the chatter and everyone that helped.

Congrats
 

congratulations. there is indeed a big difference between theory and practice.

#2 - i agree wholeheartedly.

#1 - this is the interesting part.

your deduction may or may not be true.

first, there MUST be account authorization info stored somewhere locally on the computer. i arrive at this because given your #2, and the fact that you can play protected songs when not connected to the internet, there is no other way for things to work.

there are two places for the info to be stored locally, either in a HD file, or in NVRAM. if the account info is stored in NVRAM, then you are correct that it isn't stored in a local file.

the only scenario i can come up with that ends up with you being wrong is as follows:

Apple has given forethought to the concept of the user reformatting and reinstalling. therefore, when iTunes launches for the first time, it queries Apple's servers with your unique hardware identifier, and sees if that machine is already authorized. if so, it writes the HD file locally with the authorization info.

the way to disprove this, of course, would be to reformat and reinstall, and then launch iTunes without being connected to the internet.

...at least not one that matters
 

petey, that's why I put in my qualification. Certainly something must be stored on the HD to let iTunes know that it is authorized on particular accounts-- but this file is not what constitutes the authorization itself, checking in with Apple does that (the file just remembers this). We can also conclude that this file (or pref) must store some form of local ID that is matched against the computer (which we know is at least the ethernet card). Thus, the file can't be moved to a different computer (which I found out the hard way).

My point was that this file is not necessary or critical to the process-- just the playback. We know that if the file is lost or hosed (eh), it is trivial to get it back. That's all I meant. To put it another way, Apple's system is quite elegant in that there is no dependency on a local file in order to provide authentication-- thus less potential for disaster and phone calls to Apple.

Now, blow-out your ethernet card by a lightening strike, or lose a motherboard that has the ethernet on it, and you're at Apple's mercy.

Your theory about my computer checking in with Apple depends upon that lookup being able to match against the MAC address-- because I had not as yet provided any account info to the computer. I find it unlikely that this is the case, though certainly possible. Also, what I didn't mention before was that the iTunes menu never reverted to Authorize-- it still says Deauthorize Computer.... I even tried this on my laptop and it does the same thing. My assumption is that there is no "Authorize Computer..." menu (easy enough to check if someone wants to pour through iTunes using the developer tools) since it will automatically ask to authorize you if you try to play a tune (for which you aren't already authorized). So I doubt my computer checked in-- maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I leap to the conclusion that my computer never did check in with Apple-- it makes me feel better to think that Apple doesn't waste my bandwidth and their computing power to lookup my MAC address when there hasn't been a request to play protected music.

...it's been nice picking nits... I've learned a lot. I've also been even more convinced that Apple goes the extra mile to make a solution both elegant and robust. Just think if this had been executed by MS....

I thought this was supposed to be a helpful forum... Petey, WTF?? I certainly didn't deserve the digs from you. Too many people posting on this forum (Petey's not the only one) seem to think it's their opportunity to have free reign on pot shots at anyone they disagree with... and a high quantity of posts certainly doesn't automatically make them superior.

Compared to mp3, a 128-bit AAC files sounds pretty amazing. Personally, when I rip my own tunes, I do it at 256-bit now (used to do it at 320 for mp3s).

Furthermore, in going from 128-bit AAC >> AIFF >> AAC, if you re-rip at a higher bit rate, the degradation in quality is extremely minimal.

Perhaps audiophile snobs might notice a difference, but for the ordinary user, and even for the EXTREMELY PICKY DJ, the resulting sound quality is more than acceptable. I take offense at your comments. (BTW, a true audiophile wouldn't be caught dead with mp3s or AACs in the first place.) I run top-of-the-line audio PA equipment and speakers, matched on top of that, and probably have a better ear for sound than 99% of the DJs out there (having run audio production in a studio and live performances for more than 15 years, dude). So chill out.

My original posting here was intended to get someone around the problem of having run out of authorizations to play a tune... that's all.

FTR, yes, the computer I used to convert the AAC to AIFF with Toast was authorized. However, the new AAC file plays on any unauthorized machine.

Let's keep this civil and intelligent.

gsparks,

i'm sorry if you took offense at the tone of my comments, which was partially tounge in cheek, and partially referred back to an interaction earlier in the thread.

but i'll stand by them. i think they were helpful. and i think they were both civil and intelligent.

- i don't think your Toast idea would have worked for the original poster who was seeking help.

- i don't think you have a very discerning ear for the artifacts of digitally compressed audio.

(i'm no audiophile either - i encode into MP3 at 192VBR.)

in your post, you claimed that a file processed 128AAC -> AIFF -> 128AAC sounded identical to the original.

i can notice the difference there. i find the degradation reasonably dramatic. i think it would take a reasonably undiscerning ear to not notice the difference. but there are people with undiscerning ears. some folks are fine with AM radio, you know.

perhaps you might want to consider wearing ear plugs when you do live shows? an ounce of prevention...

again, sorry if you take offense. i'm sure you were trying to be helpful. i just happen to think you aren't exactly clear on the specific subjects you're discussing.

Petey,

This is what I'm talking about... WTF? Why is this necessary? I could suggest brain surgery to you for the same reason, except that it might be too late.

The fact that you encode to VBR shows me what I need to know about your audio skills. Furthermore, in trying to prove your point earlier, you referred me to another thread in which this was being discussed... problem is, you are the only one in that thread advocating that there is some huge degradation in quality. Seems that there were plenty of posts much more in agreement with me. Just because you post a lot doesn't make you an expert on the subject. Stick with what you know best... being an a**.

If I can just fit nazi into a sentence, this thread is done... :p

Maybe you two can continue your love fest via private messages?

ha!

the first mention of "nazi" wins! or loses. i forget. anyhow, akcrab wins/loses!

gentlemen, please be valorous and end the escalation.

Obligatory Soup Nazi reference:

NO TUNES FOR YOU!

It's springtime for Hitler in iTunesLand...

Sadly not:

"However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. "

taken from the link mentioned above ;)

I concur, lets take this to the next level. Mods could have some fun here, but implementation with PHP might be a tad daunting.

ha! thanks, dave. dang codicils and their effects. i invoke the "Ernesto 'Che' Guevara" edict !