Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple' started by Scott L, Sep 8, 2003.
I'll consider it depending on the quality of the songs. I personally don't like anything below a 192/44 because I can hear distortion, but that's with MP3. I've never heard the quality of AAC. Any audiophiles out there want to give the low-down on its quality?
Yea I'm curious about it too. Since it's derived from MPEG-4 I'd assume it compresses more efficietly than MP3. Whether that means better file sizes or better quality still has me wondering. Here's what Apple has to say about it:
This site offers some observations on mp3/AAC encoding.
I was very curious about this issue myself, especially since iTunes is coming to PCs soon. I am by no means an audiophile, but I did come across a number of commonly held observations about this issue. Generally speaking for sound quality, if 192k mp3 was preferred. Of course, when it comes to sound quality, such observations are highly subjective.
Seems like AAC is slightly more efficient at retaining audio quality than MP3. I might have to look into this when it's finally availble, depending on what kind of draconian DRM will be implemented.
The DRM isn't bad at all. AAC-Locked files (like ones purchased from the iTunes Music Store) can be listened to on up to three authorized computers. If you have three computers authorized, you can de-authorize on and authorize another, so no problems there. They also play fine on an iPod, because it's AAC aware. The iPod doesn't count as one of your authorizations. You can also burn an AAC file 10 times before you need to change the playlist that it belongs to around a bit, then you can burn it again.
I think Apple is being very fair with their DRM. I buy songs and listen to them on a few different Macs, and the AAC-Locked files have never been a burden at all. The iTunes Music Store has the same rules for all songs, which is something that the BuyMusic store doesn't have.
You can also encode your own music in AAC format, and those files will have no restrictions. Since I ripped my entire CD collection recently, I wasn't up for re-ripping it in AAC. I'm happy with my --alt-preset=standard encoded MP3s.
I refuse to download songs from sites such as iTunes until they offer songs uncompressed or use lossless compression.
TyC: You realize that they'd need to charge much more than $1.00 just to cover their bandwith and storage costs, right? Such a proposition would hardly be financially responsible, since so few users would want to download a 60mb music file.
While I agree that paying $10 for 10 great songs is better then spending $15 for 2 or 3, I don't find this to be the case with most of the albums that I buy. Perhaps I’m just picky.
At close to $1 per song I still don't see the value or the cost savings. Why pay the same amount...sometimes more for a compressed version of a song with pretty serious DRM limitations when the uncompressed unlimited original is sitting on music store shelves all over the country and on the internet. Don't get me wrong, I burn almost all of the CDs that I buy for distribution throughout my house so I'm a big fan of digital music. I would be a huge fan of services like iTunes if they would increase the quality, loosen up the DRM rules and lower the price. Until then I will continue to buy and burn regular albums.
$10 for 10 songs seems like a waste of money, when you are getting lossy compressed files, and you have nothing physical. No liner notes, no nifty cover artwork etc... Their DRM is better than the other services, but like John, I have more than 3 pooters in the house. And I don't think I'd be able to stream these files to my Xbox.
Still, even with these negatives, this is a good step in the right direction. Hopefully someone in the industry will pull their head out of their butt & realize this. (In between suing 12 yr old girls and 70 yr old men, of course)
Oh ok, Dan gave us a false impression when he said the files can only be listened to on 3 computers. Streaming music works great in Windows and is really more of a hardware issue than software.
Does this mean you can have the actual files copied onto 3 computers in the house?
BTW, a whole album on ITMS is not the number of songs x $.99.
Most full albums are $9.99 even if they have 16 songs. Today, I bought The Jayhawks Rainy Day Music for $9.99 and it contains 14 tracks. I doubt I could find it in a corner music shop for less than $12.99 and more realistically it would be $13.99 and up. But I'd have to search for $12.99 and waste gas and time. $9.99 is well worth it.