iTunes Plus Expanded, Becomes Largest DRM-Free Catalog

[winterspan]

Lossless music on a good stereo is bliss

Do you hear dog whistles also? I can't tell the difference between 160 and 128 and that is with using noise cancelling in-ear buds. I wonder if your sense of 256 is psychosomatic, that you think you hear a difference.

I'm not calling you crazy, just that I would love to see if there is a research paper out there that determines what the human ear can really differeniate between.

It's kind of like when a new OS X update comes through the pipelines and people say they think Safari is snappier, at least those who aren't joking around now that that has become the catch phrase with "PowerBook G5's coming out this Tuesday".

Not everyone listens to their music through an Ipod and ear-buds on the school bus.
Have you compared 128 AAC iTunes download to a CDROM WAV/FLAC Rip on a decent stereo? Apparently not. Go try it, then you'll stop making these sorts of comments. (psychosomatic? please...)

 

[AlbinoPigeon]

Do you hear dog whistles also? I can't tell the difference between 160 and 128 and that is with using noise cancelling in-ear buds. I wonder if your sense of 256 is psychosomatic, that you think you hear a difference.

I'm not calling you crazy, just that I would love to see if there is a research paper out there that determines what the human ear can really differeniate between.

It's kind of like when a new OS X update comes through the pipelines and people say they think Safari is snappier, at least those who aren't joking around now that that has become the catch phrase with "PowerBook G5's coming out this Tuesday".

First of all, while I believe that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 256 and lossless when their music is playing off their ipod or in their cars, there still is a HUGE difference between 256 and 128. A big reason why you might not hear the difference may be because you have noise cancelling headphones. Noise cancelling produces a negative sound wave of what is outside and plays it inside to try and eliminate the outside noise. Only problem is that it isn't perfect and ALWAYS ends up distorting the music, even if only a little bit. The better play is to invest is buds that seal as tightly as possible like the line-up from Shure or invest in higher quality stereo headphones. Anyways, my point is just because you don’t hear the difference between 128 and 256 doesn't mean a lot of others don't as well. But when we start to demand lossless music from iTunes that may be a bit rich. Keep in mind if you are ripping CDs you've already started with lossy music. Just ask yourself where you'll be listening to your music. If it's from an ipod or similar, you don’t need lossless. If you are listening to it on a hifi, then just buy CDs...or better yet DVD-Audio or SACDs if you can. (Or...sigh...vinyl).

 

[jettredmont]

Losing cds is so ten years ago. With iTunes and iPod I can now import my entire catalog and safely store cds in my closet so that they cannot get lost or stolen easily, so they are only subject to a house fire. So technically importing my cds to iTunes is a form of backing them up, and is just as easy as backing up files, but with less hd space. Files are easier to lose than cds nowadays. If my hard drive crashes the music is the only thing I'll be concerned about. My computer doesn't contain any other files I really need need.

Exactly my point. Ripping your CDs to disk is backing them up. You back up your CDs. Why are you against backing up your digital music? Why, if you fail to do this simple thing and tragedy strikes, do you expect the retailer to replace your lost music?

Burning your AACs to CDs would be just as effective (and less space-consuming) a backup of your digital music. In the same time as ripping 5 or 6 CDs, instead you burn them all to a CD-R or two and keep the CD-Rs in two separate locations (home and office, for instance). Takes less time (even if your burn time is twice the read time, which is exceedingly rare on modern drives, you're well ahead), costs less, and you're more secure (not even subject to a house fire). Add to that the time you saved buying those disks in the first place, and it's a silly comparison.

Backing up digitally is just as easy, faster, cheaper, and more secure than what you're already doing.

 

[mkrishnan]

K, I'll bite, where is this setting exactly? I looked around and haven't come across it.

Actually, that's a good question. I don't see it either. There used to be a setting in the accounts page that asked you whether you would like to preferentially buy iTunes+ content when you can.

However, it looks like the feature is now gone -- my account was set up to purchase the DRM versions of the songs (since few songs at the time were even available sans DRM, and having one or two no-DRM songs didn't sound that useful to me). But now, when I look up a song that is available in iTunes+ (such as this excellent song) I automatically see the "+" version only anyways.

So it looks like Apple is making this a no-brainer. (Although, of all the songs I had stewing in my shopping cart, that I was thinking about buying, only 10-15% are available in iTunes+ format).

 

[Padriac]

Not everyone listens to their music through an Ipod and ear-buds on the school bus.
Have you compared 128 AAC iTunes download to a CDROM WAV/FLAC Rip on a decent stereo? Apparently not. Go try it, then you'll stop making these sorts of comments. (psychosomatic? please...)

First of all, while I believe that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 256 and lossless when their music is playing off their ipod or in their cars, there still is a HUGE difference between 256 and 128. A big reason why you might not hear the difference may be because you have noise cancelling headphones. Noise cancelling produces a negative sound wave of what is outside and plays it inside to try and eliminate the outside noise. Only problem is that it isn't perfect and ALWAYS ends up distorting the music, even if only a little bit. The better play is to invest is buds that seal as tightly as possible like the line-up from Shure or invest in higher quality stereo headphones. Anyways, my point is just because you don’t hear the difference between 128 and 256 doesn't mean a lot of others don't as well. But when we start to demand lossless music from iTunes that may be a bit rich. Keep in mind if you are ripping CDs you've already started with lossy music. Just ask yourself where you'll be listening to your music. If it's from an ipod or similar, you don’t need lossless. If you are listening to it on a hifi, then just buy CDs...or better yet DVD-Audio or SACDs if you can. (Or...sigh...vinyl).

No, it seriously doesn't matter where or how you are listening to it. In blind comparisions you WILL not be able to spot the 256Kbps from the lossless. It's been tested by Maximum PC, and more thoroughly by some audio web site (forget which one).

The key points on the "high quality lossy vs. lossless debate"
1) their is virtually no perceptible difference.
2) Your equipment and the type of music you listen to does matter, but only slightly. If you are not in a silent room with high quality gear, it automatically doesn't matter either way. Even with the gear, it's only going to matter for certain types of sound characteristics.
3) If you are convinced you do hear a difference, and you already knew beforehand which was which, it is likely a *placebo effect*.
4) The lossy proponents are taking a ideological stance, not a perceptual one. They don't like the *idea* of lossy compression despte the fact that it's making no perceptual difference. It's about *potential* information loss to them, not sound quality.

And the biggie:
5) Jumping from lossy to lossless represents the absolute worst jump from a business angle. The quality gain is pretty much *nothing* yet the bandwidth costs more than *triple*. Compare with jumping from 128 to 256 kbps: there the quality gains were fairly noticable and the additional costs were minimal.

Business don't like paying triple for no reason. It's not like Apple could even advertise it as "better sound quality" because, strictly speaking, they would be lying.

 

[Diatribe]

Geez people. Can we stop with this self-righteous bull that just because you cannot hear a difference that other people can't either.
There is no scientific proof out there that you can't tell the difference. If you give people Apple earbuds no one is able to hear a difference but with normal speakers you most definitely can. Just tried this a month ago with Lossless and 256AAC and yes it was a blind test before anyone asks.

If you can't, be happy and enjoy the space you save.

No, but iTunes can convert on the fly to a compatible format when syncing the shuffle.

Which it should for all iPods not just the Shuffle.

 

[asrai]

Actually, that's a good question. I don't see it either. There used to be a setting in the accounts page that asked you whether you would like to preferentially buy iTunes+ content when you can.

However, it looks like the feature is now gone -- my account was set up to purchase the DRM versions of the songs (since few songs at the time were even available sans DRM, and having one or two no-DRM songs didn't sound that useful to me). But now, when I look up a song that is available in iTunes+ (such as this excellent song) I automatically see the "+" version only anyways.

So it looks like Apple is making this a no-brainer. (Although, of all the songs I had stewing in my shopping cart, that I was thinking about buying, only 10-15% are available in iTunes+ format).

Yeah, now that you mention it, I do remember seeing something about this when they announced the iTunes+, but now, I think you're correct, Apple has made this "option" obsolete. As it were.

Thanks for the re:

Cheers

 

[HTrig]

If i search for music I know to be iTunes plus it comes up at 99p like you say. However, if you click on the iTunes Plus link on the store home, it says cannot connect, busy. I hope this means they haven't finish sorting it for the UK - it would be pretty bizzarre not to have the same pricing here.

Id just like to point out that the UK will not be getting the same price as the US even if the pricing is all 79p. At the current exchange rate (as found here) 99 cents would be about 49p so we are really paying $1.61 per track about 60% more than the US

EDIT: as most of the tracks in iTunes plus are still 99p we are actually paying twice as much per track

 

[WildCowboy]

I'm kind of disappointed that they're still charging for the "Upgrade My Library" feature. I thought yesterday that maybe they just hadn't gotten around to changing it, but they've updated the iTunes Plus FAQ to reflect the new pricing, but they still have the section about charges for upgrading.

 

[thomasp]

I haven't read all of this thread, but how come on the UK store the vast majority of iTunes+ tracks are 99p, when only a few are 79p (iTunes+ tracks, that is)?

Will they all be gradually coming down to 79p?

 

[mooty]

I haven't read all of this thread, but how come on the UK store the vast majority of iTunes+ tracks are 99p, when only a few are 79p (iTunes+ tracks, that is)?

Will they all be gradually coming down to 79p?

Exactly my question - Apple have lowered a few tracks to 79p, but the majority are still 99p... C'mon Apple!!! There are other customers out there other than the U.S.

 

[thomasp]

Exactly my question - Apple have lowered a few tracks to 79p, but the majority are still 99p... C'mon Apple!!! There are other customers out there other than the U.S.

Most of them now seem to be 79p - or at least the ones I looked at today that were 99p when I made my previous post.


Can anyone (worldwide) confirm if the "20p to upgrade" existing tracks from iTunes 'standard' to iTunes+ will be staying or going?

 

[mooty]

Most of them now seem to be 79p - or at least the ones I looked at today that were 99p when I made my previous post.


Can anyone (worldwide) confirm if the "20p to upgrade" existing tracks from iTunes 'standard' to iTunes+ will be staying or going?

You're right, they've changed this weekend...

 

[bkea]

Kc

If you didn't back up your CDs and they got stolen, you don't get a replacement disk from Best Buy.

If you don't back up materials which you buy online, you are treading on very thin ice. I backup everything I create, and I back up everything I purchase. The latter takes much less effort and backup media than the former.

eMusic will allow you to re-download songs you've purchased online; they are one of the very few with this policy. It's great. Still, if you're relying on that ability instead of backing it up yourself, what happens when eMusic changes its business model or gets bought or just plain fails? Do you really want the security of your purchased music tied forever to the solvency of a particular business (the same argument which is made against DRMed music purchases, although I'm a bit more confident in Apple's continued solvency than in eMusic's!)

In any case, it costs close to nothing to back up your data. You should be backing up your data anyway, or you have much more major concerns than if you'll be able to listen to last year's Kelly Clarkson single after your drive crashes. Adding purchased music to any reasonably organized backup system should cost you no more than 15 minutes. Apple's own Backup even has a preconfigured option just for this, which takes about thirty seconds to open, activate, and verify that it's set up correctly.

All that having been said, Apple has a non-public policy of allowing redownloads of purchased music. However, moreso than eMusic's public policy, this could change at any time, and is quite specifically not a part of the agreement you make when buying music from them. Don't rely on it. But, Apple's bent over backwards to help people out after a crash in the past.

Yay Kelly Clarkson lol

 

[RRutter]

Good
That's smart of Apple since they already have a DOLLAR each song, they wanted to add 25 cents more just for songs that may sound bettter?