iTunes match will upload the songs it can't match, right? So is that really a scam?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Cloud Player Upgraded with Scan and Match, 256 Kbps Audio
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iTunes match will upload the songs it can't match, right? So is that really a scam?
Does anyone know how Amazon's matching handles explicit content and tags? Does it use your tags or replace with their tags? These are the two gripes I have with iTunes Match and, as of now, the only thing holding me back.
Wait. What? Apple didn't invent the world. Don't...don't..say it ain't so. How...how shall I ever continue to live.
I'm with you. I'm sick and tired of this competitive BS on Apple vs Google vs Microsoft vs Amazon vs anything. I wish people just spoke facts and let readers draw their own conclusions.
Why? I have always been curious about why MP3 is better/worse than AAC.
Wait. What? Apple didn't invent the world. Don't...don't..say it ain't so. How...how shall I ever continue to live.
I'm with you. I'm sick and tired of this competitive BS on Apple vs Google vs Microsoft vs Amazon vs anything. I wish people just spoke facts and let readers draw their own conclusions.
Why? I have always been curious about why MP3 is better/worse than AAC.
Plus Amazon still sells physical product, CDs, DVDs, official merchandise, which the labels still like.... the old model.
You can't have explicit tags on an MP3. They are a part of Apple's proprietary AAC format and only apply to content purchased from the iTunes store. As for whether Amazon will replace explicit versions with clean ones like iTunes Match or vice versa, that has yet to be seen.
Why not FLAC or similar??
Why can't they use Flac or at least AIFF...??
I understand that they most likely wouldn't use ALAC but come on the other two should be a must... if Apple would offer that I would pay more (if it were to ever come to Denmark)
Great idea this in the cloud thing but at least give the option for better quality as-well.
Why can't they use Flac or at least AIFF...??
I understand that they most likely wouldn't use ALAC but come on the other two should be a must... if Apple would offer that I would pay more (if it were to ever come to Denmark)
Great idea this in the cloud thing but at least give the option for better quality as-well.
Are you freaking kidding? Apple PURCHASED lala.com, which developed the "matching" software and featured it as one of the most important parts of their free streaming service, and then Apple shut down lala and charged everyone $25 a year for a less-effective iteration of the same functionality that pulled from Apple's databases instead of lala's.
They didn't "develop" anything. They bought out a competitor and re-packaged their product with a new logo on it and charged a fee.
Yeah and have you seen how long MS supports operating systems with updates? 10 years
How long does Apple do it?
Competition is good. Your move Apple!
The more competition the better, we might get to where we should be already, which is 'lossless', truly CD-quality files. Then we can hope for the option of even better quality. After all, it's only been about 30 years since a mainstream quality upgrade, that's not long in technology is it?
iTunes has matched the vast majority of the music I would hope it would, but it can be quite fussy and when a CD track is a second or two longer (even just for silence between tracks on a CD rip) it can fail. You can sometimes do a quick and dirty edit with iTunes 'stop time' preference, then re-encode the track to shorten the resulting copy, then re-match, and it sometimes stop you from having to dig out an old CD for just one track to match. There is definitely room for improvement, but it's not as terrible for me as has been in your experiment.
With any of these services I can only advise everyone to always have a full backup of your existing music library before you start matching and replacing any files. Otherwise, if you have a large collection you might not realise that Apple replaced your ever-so-slightly-different recording version you got on a limited edition promo CD until it's too late. Though if you only ever listen to top 4o hits you will probably be ok.
To cut a long story short, AAC is a newer, better codec so can do better with the quality for our human ears than MP3 can at the same bitrate. Though at 256kbps, many would argue that most people won't really hear much difference between AAC and MP3, if any, unless they are using atypically good audio equipment. When everyone was selling 128kbps I think it did make an appreciable difference though, IMHO.
The more competition the better, we might get to where we should be already, which is 'lossless', truly CD-quality files. Then we can hope for the option of even better quality. After all, it's only been about 30 years since a mainstream quality upgrade, that's not long in technology is it?
iTunes has matched the vast majority of the music I would hope it would, but it can be quite fussy and when a CD track is a second or two longer (even just for silence between tracks on a CD rip) it can fail. You can sometimes do a quick and dirty edit with iTunes 'stop time' preference, then re-encode the track to shorten the resulting copy, then re-match, and it sometimes stop you from having to dig out an old CD for just one track to match. There is definitely room for improvement, but it's not as terrible for me as has been in your experiment.
With any of these services I can only advise everyone to always have a full backup of your existing music library before you start matching and replacing any files. Otherwise, if you have a large collection you might not realise that Apple replaced your ever-so-slightly-different recording version you got on a limited edition promo CD until it's too late. Though if you only ever listen to top 4o hits you will probably be ok.
To cut a long story short, AAC is a newer, better codec so can do better with the quality for our human ears than MP3 can at the same bitrate. Though at 256kbps, many would argue that most people won't really hear much difference between AAC and MP3, if any, unless they are using atypically good audio equipment. When everyone was selling 128kbps I think it did make an appreciable difference though, IMHO.
Sorry, I did not mean explicit tags but will they replace the tags matched songs with information they have or with what information I have?
They didn't develop or build. They bought out a finished product that was available for free and charged everyone $25 for the trouble.
Yeah, their would be less arrogant people who think they are superior for using Apple products.
iTunes Match has been working really well for me. My library is currently at 11144 songs and 98% are matched or purchased only 246 songs are uploaded.
I've always preferred AAC over MP3 especially in the way that song tags/metadata are stored into the files.
I will keep using iTunes Match but it's good to see someone competing with Apple in the music space; I think Amazon is really the only company who can do it. 250,000 songs is a big upgrade from the 25,000 we get with iTunes Match so I hope this competition will push Apple to offer more.
I've always preferred AAC over MP3 especially in the way that song tags/metadata are stored into the files.
I will keep using iTunes Match but it's good to see someone competing with Apple in the music space; I think Amazon is really the only company who can do it. 250,000 songs is a big upgrade from the 25,000 we get with iTunes Match so I hope this competition will push Apple to offer more.
You think Apple has in anyway shape or form added to the number of arrogant people? They meerely congregated them.
Hopefully we can STOP posting news about AMAZON on the FRONT page...
lame
YES. THAT WOULD BE NICE.
Thing is, Apple doesn't need to do it. By setting the OS price so low, a much larger percentage of people upgrade, compared to Windows (how many people are still on XP???
) And besides, I find OS X is generally much more stable than Windows, meaning less problems need to be fixed unlike Windows.
The 25k limit is the only thing stopping me trying out iTunes Match. Once thats raised I will gladly sign up to try it.
I'm curious about this too. I can verify that it unfortunately changes cover art, but I haven't noticed any changes to ID tags. Of course most of my ID tag editing was to make the albums work correctly on my iPod and were for things like Album artist and compilations that won't be readily apparent with the streaming player.