PDA

View Full Version : Will the iTMS ever go hi-fidelity?




Demon Hunter
Apr 22, 2006, 04:00 PM
I want to make the leap to the iTunes Music Store, but the quality has always held me back. The convenience is astounding, but you're paying for it! You can't switch formats, bitrates or anything. I really like ripping my tracks AAC@256kbps VBR.

On the other hand, you get album covers, instant access...

And also, do you think the iTMS will offer "hi-fi" tracks? Will the 128kbps standard ever be raised? If so, do you get the option to upgrade your tracks, or do you have to buy them again?

Any thoughts?



bousozoku
Apr 22, 2006, 04:26 PM
It'll take a wholesale change in the attitude of the record companies' administration. They want electronic distribution to fail.

I think it will happen but probably not in my lifetime. I hope it happens earlier, but until stores start to sell music in custom ways, such as an iTunes vending machine, record companies won't change their tune.

MacNut
Apr 22, 2006, 04:34 PM
Thats why I still buy CD's call me old fashioned.:rolleyes: They still sound better then MP3's and you can do anything with them.

Benjamindaines
Apr 22, 2006, 04:53 PM
...you can do anything with them.
Not if the damn IRAA has their way :rolleyes:

Sam*
Apr 22, 2006, 05:20 PM
Dunno what its like in the usa,

but here in the UK you can buy most cds cheaper than they are from the iTMS from places like www.play.com and then you can do what you want with them


i dont think i will ever buy from the iTMS but i will use free copouns, codes etc...;)

hob
Apr 22, 2006, 05:23 PM
It'll take a wholesale change in the attitude of the record companies' administration. They want electronic distribution to fail.

I think it will happen but probably not in my lifetime. I hope it happens earlier, but until stores start to sell music in custom ways, such as an iTunes vending machine, record companies won't change their tune.
It's a shame. If they were a little more open minded, realised that most people (?) would rather have the convenience of downloading their music, with the same quality they'd get if they were buying it on a CD - stopped spending SO MUCH MONEY pushing the CD's and started helping out the online sales - they'd probably make more money! why does noone tell them this??

grapes911
Apr 22, 2006, 05:24 PM
I have fairly good ears when it comes to sound quality (wish my eyes where as good :o ) and I have to agree with you. 256 is not enough. But I don't think most people can hear the difference between 128 and 256.

Demon Hunter
Apr 22, 2006, 06:05 PM
It's a shame. If they were a little more open minded, realised that most people (?) would rather have the convenience of downloading their music, with the same quality they'd get if they were buying it on a CD - stopped spending SO MUCH MONEY pushing the CD's and started helping out the online sales - they'd probably make more money! why does noone tell them this??

That's why Steve won't let them do it... they're just greedy bastards!

On that website, it's $19.58 USD. :eek:

iTMS is much cheaper here... you can't even find retail CDs for less than $13.

bousozoku
Apr 22, 2006, 06:17 PM
It's a shame. If they were a little more open minded, realised that most people (?) would rather have the convenience of downloading their music, with the same quality they'd get if they were buying it on a CD - stopped spending SO MUCH MONEY pushing the CD's and started helping out the online sales - they'd probably make more money! why does noone tell them this??

Plenty of people have told them. I think it has to do with small minds. If you can't hold it, it doesn't exist, does it?

Besides, most people in charge are so far from reality that nothing could make them side with real people.

supergod
Apr 22, 2006, 08:08 PM
I hate to keep having to recommend it but...

www.allofmp3.com

They have a large catologue of music that is sold by the size of the file. It works out that 320kbps AAC (although it's actually 311) costs about $2.50 per album.

!

It's more convenient than searching for an album online or buying it and ripping it, although I would still like for the artists to be making some money, rather than just a bunch of people who have abused the Russian legal system. Still the quality is great and the price can't be beat.

Then for album artwork, there is another solution. If you don't want to have to use one of those buggy programs that fetches art, go to http://tpemble.urfbownd.net/itunes/itunes-art.php

To get album art, go into the iTunes music store and right click the image of an album and select copy URL or something, and then paste it into the website I just linked.

Kingsly
Apr 22, 2006, 09:06 PM
CD quality is 44.1kHz 16bit. It looks like (and I am likely reading this wrong) iTms music is 44.1kHz, 128bit. i.e. more quantizations per second than CD. [even I don't know what, exactly, that means]

Then again, it was most likely recorded originally in 44.1kHz, 16bit... so yeah. Not gonna get much better than that.

bousozoku
Apr 22, 2006, 09:27 PM
CD quality is 44.1kHz 16bit. It looks like (and I am likely reading this wrong) iTms music is 44.1kHz, 128bit. i.e. more quantizations per second than CD. [even I don't know what, exactly, that means]

Then again, it was most likely recorded originally in 44.1kHz, 16bit... so yeah. Not gonna get much better than that.

While the 44.1 KHz is the same, the 16 bit resolution and the 128 Kbps are incompatible.

AAC and mp3 encoding are lossy formats. That means that the original (AIFF) sounds better than those ripped into either format. Apple Lossless, of course, isn't a lossy format.

Counterfit
Apr 22, 2006, 09:56 PM
I hate to keep having to recommend it but...
That site can exist because of Russian copyright law. Personally, I wouldn't want a site in eastern Europe having my CC information.
and I am likely reading this wrong
Yes, you are. :D
iTMS music is 44.1kHz, and I believe still 16-bit, however, I think it's encoded from master tapes/recordings in some cases, so it could sound better than the same encoding from a CD, but the difference would probably be negligible.

Demon Hunter
Apr 23, 2006, 06:45 PM
So are you guys saying that it's somehow higher quality than say, a normal AAC file?