File size differences between cp3 and cp4

Hello
I created a cp file in captivate4 & import audio file (mp3) & published it.
swf file size was 305kb.
but when I created this file in cptivate3 & published it swf file size was 260kb.
why swf file size in cptivate3 less than cptivate4?
in two sample setting is default.
Thanks for any help.

Similar Messages

File size difference between DNG Converter and Lightroom Beta 4

Hi,
I want to go the all-DNG route and am trying several things ATM. I want my files to be as small as possible, thus I disable previews and RAW embedding and enable compression in DNG Converter. In Lightroom, there are no options at all. What I do get, are pretty amazing file size differences:
Original .NEF as it came from my D70s: ~5MB
.DNG created by DNG Converter: ~1MB
.DNG created by Lightroom: ~4MB
The very small file size in DNG Converter is the one that bother's me most. I get these small files from time to time. I checked both the DNG and the NEF in Photoshop, and they seem to be identical. So my question is: What triggers these small file sizes? Do I loose anything? Or is the Lightroom DNG converter not as advanced as the stand alone version?
Maybe this helps: I get the ridicolous small files for very dull subjects that tell the computer scientist in me that it should be easily compressable by common compression algorithms.
Thanks for any pointers,
Markus

Thanks for the hint! It did make me revisit those files and now I see the reason for the small file sizes: The Apple Finder does note update the file size view once a file was added to a folder. Here's what I did:
Opened a folder full of .NEFs in detail view in Finder.
Converted them using DNG Converter
Looked at the sizes of the files as they were shown in the Finder window allready open.
Unfortunately, those file sizes are not correct. If I open a new Finder window of the same folder, file sizes are correctly reported as between 3.5 and 5 MB.

Size difference between 60GB and 80GB?

Is there a size difference between the 60GB and 80GB iPod with videos? I was looking at a Belkin Tunepower power source for my iPod and it said it has sleeves for 30GB and 60GB iPod videos, but I just checked the Apple store and they only sell 30 and 80 gig iPods. Will my 80GB fit the 60GB sleeve?

Your 80 GB ought to fit the 60 GB case, since the exact dimensions of both iPods are identical:
60 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55 inches
80 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55 inches
Of course, if you are using a 30 GB, that would be different, since the 30 GB is a little thinner than the 60 and 80 GB models of Fifth Generations.
-Kylene

File size difference between version 3 and 4

I'd like to know how to publish a file at the smallest possible size with Captivate 4.
I have 1 file that is 9176KB published with Captivate 3. The same file published with Captivate 4 becomes 10300KB. I didn't add any functionality just publish it once saved in 4.
What is the same content ~1MB bigger with the new version? How do I make it smaller?
Thanks,

Thanks for the hint! It did make me revisit those files and now I see the reason for the small file sizes: The Apple Finder does note update the file size view once a file was added to a folder. Here's what I did:
Opened a folder full of .NEFs in detail view in Finder.
Converted them using DNG Converter
Looked at the sizes of the files as they were shown in the Finder window allready open.
Unfortunately, those file sizes are not correct. If I open a new Finder window of the same folder, file sizes are correctly reported as between 3.5 and 5 MB.

File size differences between JE 3.3.87 and

Our application when using JE 4.1.17 builds a database that is 3.5 times larger than when using JE 3.3.87.
Is this expected? Is there anything we can do with 4.1.17 to build smaller file size DB?
Chuck Koscher

I also ran DbPrintLog on the partial 4.1.17 built Db (gona take more time to run on the ver 3 DB). What does this all mean?
[qs@cr3 bin]$ more DbPrintLog.out
<DbPrintLog>
Log statistics:
type total provisional total min max avg entries
count count bytes bytes bytes bytes as % of log
LN 1,641,390 0 635,530,086 37 38,103 387 35.8
MapLN 39,660 0 129,537,451 50 5,377 3,266 7.3
NameLN 5 0 426 35 111 85 0
DupCountLN 31,568 84 891,783 22 32 28 0.1
FileSummaryLN 2,978,385 0 203,225,292 28 38,130 68 11.5
IN 176,586 16,952 281,957,554 44 9,735 1,596 15.9
BIN 216,441 64,082 356,220,165 44 10,188 1,645 20.1
DIN 40,046 2,111 22,350,697 85 5,425 558 1.3
DBIN 42,555 2,907 143,815,258 71 10,146 3,379 8.1
Root 168 0 452,371 123 3,719 2,692 0
CkptStart 68 0 2,101 29 31 30 0
CkptEnd 66 0 4,179 57 64 63 0
BINDelta 175 0 17,715 35 1,507 101 0
DupBINDelta 22 0 3,996 51 1,361 181 0
Trace 450 0 69,440 46 305 154 0
FileHeader 178 0 6,764 38 38 38 0
key/data 578,081,436 (32.6)
Total bytes in portion of log read: 1,774,085,278
Total number of entries: 5,167,763
Per checkpoint interval info:
lnTxn ln mapLNTxn mapLN end-end end-start start-end maxLNReplay ckpt
End
0 6 0 3 10,016,254 10,002,932 13,322 6 0x2/0x3f7
e
0 21,291 0 209 20,537,114 20,353,908 183,206 21,294 0x10/0x87
198
0 10,557 0 141 10,187,476 10,044,801 142,675 10,723 0x14/0xb4
dec
0 41,526 0 900 46,753,313 46,610,643 142,670 41,612 0x203/0x7
25a0d
0 35,418 0 711 41,367,099 41,354,438 12,661 35,538 0x314/0x8
73648
0 7,992 0 187 9,537,017 9,521,859 15,158 7,992 0x349/0x8
025c1
0 10,424 0 185 10,332,196 10,238,081 94,115 10,426 0x34f/0x8
53765
0 10,467 0 216 10,123,100 10,110,090 13,010 10,562 0x353/0x8
71841
0 8,814 0 190 10,170,639 10,012,047 158,592 8,816 0x355/0x8
9b2d0
0 20,157 0 585 24,985,565 24,896,315 89,250 20,233 0x3d2/0x3
d2f2d
0 8,614 0 197 10,266,414 10,227,891 38,523 8,681 0x3da/0x4
13fdb
0 29,407 0 709 34,661,770 34,645,633 16,137 29,408 0x45a/0x8
861e5
0 8,512 0 203 10,694,331 10,622,804 71,527 8,513 0x46a/0x9
2fa20
0 17,131 0 349 20,149,317 20,118,102 31,215 17,153 0x470/0x9
54165
0 50,120 0 1,106 56,983,602 56,958,921 24,681 50,120 0x533/0x6
73a97
0 16,608 0 418 20,484,484 20,467,444 17,040 16,619 0x53f/0x6
e9f1b
0 16,920 0 395 20,846,145 20,819,500 26,645 16,920 0x557/0x7
b885c
0 9,033 0 219 10,860,030 10,834,496 25,534 9,037 0x56f/0x8
8a7da
0 68,165 0 1,762 90,245,785 90,214,129 31,656 68,168 0x68e/0x8
c67f3
0 9,140 0 200 9,904,174 9,827,759 76,415 69,294 0x800/0x8
af1a1
0 9,032 0 215 10,299,639 10,201,642 97,997 9,095 0x80a/0x8
f8418
0 66,535 0 1,462 75,431,349 75,410,311 21,038 66,600 0x880/0x4
9cdcd
0 8,504 0 222 10,680,253 10,659,337 20,916 8,507 0x896/0x5
42f0a
0 17,543 0 632 20,080,030 20,050,546 29,484 17,546 0x89a/0x5
567a8
0 25,548 0 617 32,433,830 32,368,958 64,872 25,564 0x8d6/0x7
a8ace
0 9,710 0 238 10,564,761 10,547,253 17,508 9,728 0x8ee/0x8
328e7
0 21,166 0 884 26,557,127 26,363,082 194,045 21,167 0x93f/0x4
ea02e
0 133,812 0 2,755 133,366,171 133,318,671 47,500 133,887 0xb95/0x8
1fd49
0 39,793 0 844 41,359,213 41,308,651 50,562 134,394 0xbbf/0x9
6bab6
0 56,793 0 1,231 52,693,165 52,642,716 50,449 56,796 0xc0a/0x2
73c63
0 26,444 0 418 23,694,267 23,628,234 66,033 26,503 0xc1a/0x5
f9b1e
0 23,730 0 459 22,482,062 22,376,959 105,103 23,790 0xc52/0x8
57aac
0 10,907 0 264 10,299,749 10,258,468 41,281 10,980 0xc5c/0x8
a0d91
0 102,960 0 2,034 86,930,064 86,899,807 30,257 102,963 0xddc/0x5
b35a1
0 24,590 0 483 21,204,153 21,176,604 27,549 24,594 0xdf6/0x6
d955a
0 11,364 0 281 11,142,812 11,074,749 68,063 11,366 0xe06/0x7
f0576
0 12,678 0 230 10,256,884 10,224,320 32,564 12,697 0xe0c/0x8
2f0ea
0 23,613 0 434 20,392,697 20,349,744 42,953 23,728 0xe16/0x8
8eee3
0 10,843 0 182 10,415,971 10,370,611 45,360 10,964 0xe20/0x8
f47c6
0 8,959 0 274 10,281,193 10,168,378 112,815 8,959 0xe24/0x9
3922f
0 10,454 0 235 10,273,473 10,202,560 70,913 10,563 0xe2c/0x9
7be70
0 39,113 0 945 36,005,999 35,971,748 34,251 39,193 0xe56/0x5
accdf
0 33,194 0 840 32,108,563 31,996,817 111,746 33,195 0xe8a/0x7
af972
0 31,440 0 556 28,736,169 28,605,453 130,716 31,530 0xedb/0x6
7b09b
0 9,723 0 265 10,446,985 10,392,967 54,018 9,840 0xee9/0x6
e82a4
0 8,672 0 280 10,230,643 10,179,976 50,667 8,788 0xeef/0x7
20797
0 10,486 0 279 11,046,145 10,958,538 87,607 10,491 0xf09/0x8
1fe18
0 19,908 0 417 20,242,451 20,187,638 54,813 19,948 0xf11/0x8
5b12b
0 10,081 0 302 10,045,293 10,023,247 22,046 10,081 0xf13/0x8
66218
0 9,882 0 235 10,053,363 10,004,937 48,426 9,882 0xf15/0x8
7328b
0 150,847 0 3,196 158,056,449 157,994,966 61,483 150,927 0xf90/0x6
98a8c
0 17,077 0 535 20,280,697 20,210,452 70,245 17,080 0xf98/0x6
dd305
0 24,492 0 778 30,374,091 30,330,071 44,020 24,540 0xfa2/0x7
38850
0 16,047 0 484 20,187,429 20,127,635 59,794 16,216 0xfa8/0x7
66475
0 17,957 0 587 20,203,041 20,178,620 24,421 18,022 0xfae/0x7
97d96
0 18,655 0 545 20,290,674 20,201,008 89,666 18,655 0xfb4/0x7
ded08
0 20,961 0 680 30,230,987 30,091,976 139,011 20,964 0xfb8/0x8
17353
0 8,873 0 258 10,075,979 10,001,445 74,534 8,983 0xfba/0x8
29c1e
0 13,760 0 566 20,103,639 20,001,262 102,377 13,760 0xfbc/0x8
430f5
0 22,711 0 1,061 30,151,192 30,123,976 27,216 22,775 0xfc0/0x8
67f8d
0 18,003 0 569 20,054,235 20,000,730 53,505 18,005 0xfc2/0x8
75368
0 17,262 0 555 20,054,765 20,012,053 42,712 17,268 0xfc4/0x8
82955
0 12,110 0 631 20,074,663 20,004,423 70,240 12,156 0xfc6/0x8
94cfc
0 19,100 0 511 20,029,210 20,000,131 29,079 19,180 0xfc8/0x8
9bf16
0 14,124 0 732 20,052,653 20,011,165 41,488 14,127 0xfca/0x8
a8cc3
0 17,306 0 447 20,048,350 20,005,522 42,828 17,309 0xfcc/0x8
b49a1
0 4,326 0 127 5,187,590 5,187,590 0 4,326 0xfcd/0x4
1db27
</DbPrintLog>
[qs@cr3 bin]$

Font Size Difference between Exe and Labview IDE

I'm stumped on the following issue and surprizinglycan't find any references that are similar on this forum.
I've developed an application which, when built to an Exe, has different font sizes than when executed on the same computer in the Labview Integrated Development Environment. In each instance the screen resolution is the same. I've used the "Application Font". I'm having trouble figuring why the font would render differently in each case. Of possible signifigance is that I'm running the Exe by simply browsing to the folder where the build procedure drops it instead of building an installation.
I've attached one of the most glaring examples that shows the rendering in each case.
I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction to resolve this issue.
Attachments:
Font Differences1.zip ‏1704 KB

Hi Doctor,
two notes:
for the font size differences: I would try to change the font settings
to a more 'specific' font like Arial 14pt. The application font is set
somewhere in an ini-file and the setting may change with the
environment (IDE vs. exe-rt).
for your attachment: please convert pictures to jpg or png. This will
reduce size by orders of magnitude :-) And please crop them, unless you
have a very (VERY) beautiful desktop background picture!
Best regards,
GerdW
CLAD, using 2009SP1 + LV2011SP1 + LV2014SP1 on WinXP+Win7+cRIO
Kudos are welcome

Size differences between editable and non-ediatble combo boxes

Hi
There seem to be some differences between the sizes of editable and non-editable JComboBox.
I have two combos one editable and one non-editable.Even though all the constraints(except [x, y], of course) are same for both in gridbaglayout, they are displayed in different sizes.
Why is it so? and what should I do to display them in same size. I dont want to do trial and error.
Another related question is, how do I set two editable comboboxes to always have same sizes irrespective of the values are added into it. I am asking this question bcos I have observed that sizes differ between combos when values are added during initialization and when values are added at a later time.
TIA,
CA

Maybe something like this:
myCombo.addItemListener( new ItemListener() {
public void itemStateChanged( ItemEvent ie )
    JComboBox combo = (JComboBox)ie.getSource();
    ComboValue selection = (ComboValue)combo.getSelectedItem();
    if( combo.getSelectedItem().equals("edit") )
        combo.setEditable( true );
    else
        combo.setEditable( false );
}}):(untested code)

File size deviation between Finder and Quicktime

Today I encountered a weird phenomenon:
Some Quicktime .movs show different filesizes in the finder (e.g. 69,3MB) than the same clip has in Quicktime (Command-I says 34,71MB)
This happens if the clip was opened, truncated and saved (under the same name).
It still occurs after the computer was restartet.
Any idea what this may be?

Hi
According to the QuickTime help, after you delete parts of a movie, the file size stays the same until you choose File > Save As and select "Save as a self-contained movie". I'm only guessing, but this may be to enable the deletion to be undone, even after the file has been saved.
I guess the Finder is reporting the raw file size, whereas QuickTime is reporting the size of the edited clip.

Odd size difference between iPhoto and Finder

I've just noticed something rather odd. In finder my iPhoto Library is calculated at 94.43GB, and yet when i look in the bottom left info window it says 61GB - i've ensured that I have looked at the library as a whole and have emptied trash, but i'm still left with a 30+GB differential.
Anyone got any thoughts?

Nothing odd about it.
The iPhoto Window reports the resulting size of a folder if you exported into it, all the current images, in their current version.
The Library in the Finder reports the size of the package: All those originals, all those modified photos, the database files, thumbnails, faces thumbnails, caches and various other support files.
Regards
TD

File size differences between Acrobat 5.0 and Acrobat 8.0

We have a system where we incorporate .pdf files into word documents. When we use v8.0 the .pdf files suddenly become very much larger (e.g. the word document containing the v5.0 PDFs, around 29 of them, is 1,224kb but is 2,376kb when we use v8.0 PDFs). The .PDF's are created by printing to PDF995 and then using Acrobat to open them, select a section of the page, and copy/paste them into the Word document.
Has anyone come across this before and, if so, how do we tune v8.0?

Thank you for the quick response. We are able to get some results through the Optimizer however they are not the same. Also we would like to keep from adding an extra step into the process. Especially a step that adds a lot of time to the process as the Optimizer does. In versions 7 and 8 we did not have run the Optimizer (we also did not have to do this in version 5 back in the day). Why would 9 have to add this step? I am really looking for a way to keep the same workflow steps. -Dan

JPG file size differences in ACR and PS

Camera: Nikon D80
Photoshop: CS3 Extended v.10.0.1
ACR: version 4.3.1
Saving from ACR, Q=9 -> 1,2Mb
Saving from ACR, Q=10 -> 1,8Mb
PS, Q=11 (no thumbnail) -> 3,1Mb
PS, Q=11 (with thumbnail) -> 3,1Mb (no difference)
PS, Q=12 (no thumbnail) -> 5,8Mb
PS, Q=12 (with thumbnail -> 5,8Mb (no difference)
Save for Web, Q=90: 3,7Mb (larger than PS/11)
Save for Web, Q=100: 5,8Mb (same as PS/12)
1.) Why ACR saves much smaller files?
2.) Why there isn't difference when saving with thumbnail or not?
3.) Why the different methods?
4.) Is any of them better? If yes: why the other? If not: why does it exist?
Saving from ACR produces much smaller files than any other known RAW converter. I've tried Bibble, Lightroom, CaptureNX, DxO and all of them created nearly the same size as Photoshop does. So the most important question: why ACR creates so small JPG files?
Thanks in advance!

Huhh,
the question isn't stupid, just seems a little bit strange in my point of view. But you're right, i must confess. So halfway i am the stupid, not the question (and not the software).
But when i choose 'maximum' in ACR it gives me the 10, and i thought maximum is the maximum. For me it tells about the highest possible quality. There is no value bigger than the maximum.
I've never realize that in PS the way is exactly the same like in ACR! In PS the maximum is 10 too!! I'm always enter the value by the keyboard and never choose a preset. And in PS there's a slider showing the full scale and the entered value, so on that i can see that there's life after the maximum. in ACR the missing slider suggested me that 10 is the top level. But now i've entered 11 and 12 and gave the same sizes as i gave from PS with 11 and 12.
So i can conclude that the GUI of ACR isn't perfect (OK, i *must* now it uses the same engine/values like PS), but the method behind the scenes is perfect, like in PS. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for the very fast answer!

Size difference between recorded and published?

I'm launching a custom sized window using javascript for a
e-learning course that has a nav bar at the bottom (my own, not
captivate related - including next and back buttons that navigate
html pages). I'm recording my movies at 790x496. When the .swfs and
the html outputed by captivate 2 are published it is adding 24
pixels at the bottom. I'm using a captivate controller but it is at
the top. If I try and manually go change the html back to my custom
height the swf displays messed up. Anybody know how to get these 24
pixels from being reserved/displayed at the bottom by the swf's?
Just seems wierd to offer the ability to record at a custom
size but then it automatically adds 24 pixels to the height.

Hi theconfusedone and welcome to our community
Hopefully I can help un-confuse you.
Okay, click Project > Skin... > Borders tab. Note that
the bottom border is the one selected. Further note the "Width"
value. These are normally configured with the bottom border enabled
so that the playback control doesn't cover any part of your
project. So DE-select the bottom border and RE-select the top. This
should allow space for your playback control and allow it to
operate as you want.
Keep in mind that this also creates an additional .SWF that
will need to be included in your output. If you want no additional
.SWF, you may DE-select the "Show borders" check box to force it
all to be stored in a single .SWF.
Cheers... Rick

What's the difference between PNG and JPG for exporting .idea files from the Adobe Ideas app?

What's the difference between PNG and JPG for exporting .idea files from the Adobe Ideas app?
What situations are better to export to to .PNG or .JPG?
J

iPad apps are designed specifically for the iPad and will not run on the iPhone or iPod Touch. iPhone/iPod apps will run on the iPad, but will only take up an iPhone sized portion of the iPad screen (though you get a 2x button which effectively doubles each pixel in both directions so may appear pixelated). There are also 'universal' apps (which have a '+' symbol against them in the store) which have processing in them to recognise the device that they are on and will tailor the display accordingly (so will make use of the iPad's larger screen).

Looking for new laptop what are the differences between pro and air? Besides size. Does the air preform like the pro?

Looking for new laptop what are the differences between pro and air? Besides size. Does the air preform like the pro?

The NEW macbook Pro and Air are EXTREMELY close in form factor
The newest macbook Pro is essentially a larger macbook Air with Retina display and options for speed in increasing prices up to an independent graphics and quad core processor.
both Air and new Pro now have PCIe SSD and permanent RAM.
The Air is the lightweight portable form factor, fast to boot and shut down, but with longer battery life than any of the macbook pro in 13"
Now the new macbook Pro and macbook Air are extremely close in form factor and nature.
both have 802ac wifi
both have permanent RAM, no superdrive
both are slim profiles and SSD
The only real differences now are (in the most expensive Pros) faster processors and quadcore processors and top end model autonomous graphics.
....and of course the retina display
both are now "very good for travel"
Other than features the form factor of the Air and Pro are VERY close now,....so now its merely a matter of features and price more than anything.
You need an external HD regardless of what you get for backups etc. Drop into an Apple store and handle both and make your choice based on features, such as Retina or non-retina, .... both at a distance now look like the same computer.
The Pro weighs more, ....but nowhere near what it used to just a month ago on the older macbook Pros
The NEW macbook Pro is a different creature entirely than the older macbook Pro, .....the new Pro is thicker than the Air, but id frankly call the NEWEST Pro a "macbook Air with Retina display" , or
Maybe a “macbook Air PRO with Retina display”
Instead of Air VS Pro now,.....its really a smooth transition from Air to pro without comparing say, 2 different creatures, now its like contrasting a horse from a race horse.
Either one in 8gig of RAM (preferably)... the 4gig upgrade costs very little, the I7 you will notice only 15% faster on heavy applications over the I5, and NOTHING on most APPS.....I5 has longer battery life.
As you see below, the non-Retina 13" AIR is 82% of the Macbook with Retina display in resolution
there is no magical number of pixels per inch that automatically equates to Retina quality.
http://www.cultofmac.com/168509/why-you-might-be-disappointed-by-the-resolution- of-those-new-retina-display-macs-feature/
A huge internal SSD isnt a game changer for anything, you need an external HD anyway
what you WONT READ on Apple.com etc. is that the larger SSD are MUCH FASTER due to SSD density
"The 512GB Samsung SSD found in our 13-inch model offers roughly a 400MB/s increase in write speeds over the 128GB SanDisk/Marvell SSD"
http://blog.macsales.com/19008-performance-testing-not-all-2013-macbook-air-ssds -are-the-same
Here is an excellent video comparison between the 11” I5 vs. I7 2013 Macbook Air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqJ-on03z4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-465 0u/2
I5 vs. I7 performance 13” Macbook Air 2013
Boot performance
11.7 I5 ……11.4 I7
Cinebench
1.1 I5….1.41 I7
IMovie Import and Opt.
6.69 I5….5.35 I7
IMovie Export
10.33 I5…8.20 I7
Final Cut Pro X
21.47 I5…17.71 I7
Adobe Lightroom 3 Export
25.8 I5….31.8 I7
Adobe Photoshop CS5 Performance
27.3 I5…22.6 I7
Reviews of the newest Retina 2013 Macbook Pro
13”
Digital Trends (13") - http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-...h-2013-review/
LaptopMag (13") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...play-2013.aspx
Engadget (13") - http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/29/m...-13-inch-2013/
The Verge (13") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5...ay-review-2013
CNet (13") - http://www.cnet.com/laptops/apple-ma...-35831098.html
15”
The Verge (15") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5...w-15-inch-2013
LaptopMag (15") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...inch-2013.aspx
TechCrunch (15") - http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/lat...ok-pro-review/
CNet (15") - http://www.cnet.com/apple-macbook-pro-with-retina-2013/
PC Mag (15") - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426359,00.asp
Arstechnica (15") - http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/10...-pro-reviewed/
Slashgear (15") - http://www.slashgear.com/macbook-pro...2013-26303163/

Difference between AAC and m4a files, converting from AAC to useable format

Does anyone know the difference between AAC and m4a files? iTunes has an option to use an AAC encoder to compress CD files, but this creates an m4a file not an AAC file. I just got some actual AAC files and iTunes cannot read these, is there a way to convert from AAC to a format that iTunes recognizes? Thanks

iTunes uses AAC data wrapped in an MPEG 4 container file. If you got some *.AAC files, and they're just raw AAC files, then you need to wrap them in an MPEG 4 container. The only way I know to do this is using the foobar 2000 program. You can find more information at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org and http://www.foobar2000.org

File size differences between cp3 and cp4

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for