Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and Amazon?

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
And I'll disagree with that.
But either way (Back on subject), a hook-up between Apple and Amazon
sounds like a smart way to keep the ball rolling until Windows version, and International get on board.....
Click to expand...

Looks like you're in for an argument then!! ;)
 
Originally posted by gotohamish
I believe you on your point, but am curious whether Apple state this anywhere on the store - I'm in the UK so haven't given it a great deal of look (that would be a tease).
Click to expand...

Yes, they do point out that they are full-quality previews if you look at the main graphic's first (top left) pullout.

I suspect one of the following things are more likely to have happenned:
  1. Apple may have multiple-quality files and the user's QuickTime settings is has a set bandwidth < 128kbps. QuickTime may then be streaming the lower quality version. Fix this by going into your QuickTime system preference pane and selecting a higher bandwidth.
  2. The user has a low-bandwidth or net-congested link. If that is the case, setting the "Play songs after downloading" option in iTunes should fix that.
  3. Something went wrong, users or QC noticed the problem and the song was reripped from masters, but nobody bothered doing so for the preview.
    [/list=1]

    Since anecdotal evidence is often taken as "rule of law" among Mac users, I'm more suspicious of a claim that the quality of the preview is substandard when Apple has no prima facia reason to have lower-quality previews and a many good reasons to make sure that the quality is the same.

    I can remember when we ripped their libraries at 64kbps MP3--a zone where most people can easily tell the loss in quality, even without a reference--because of the media limitations of solid state players. Now, all of a sudden, Apple is being all cheapo because the default setting of iTunes ripping is 160kbps MP3 (when most of the fileshares and radio streams are ~128kbps) instead of LAME --outrageously-large-file, FLAC, or AIFF ;). Now, everyone of us seems to have platinum ears that can tell the difference between 128kbps AAC (they must be platinum because "golden ears" can't tell the difference).

    Has anyone thought that, maybe their codec was set to 128kbps AAC on "FASTEST" or something worse when they compared samples? Or that we have some inherent placebo-effect bias when we do our comparison? Or that any difference at all may be because the AACs were digitized from the 24-bit masters instead of the 16-bit CDs?

    Then again, why do I bother ranting? I'm talking about an area where people buy power line cleaners and Monster Cable to improve sound quality and take green markers to their CDs to make them sound more natural... :confused:
 
Somewhat ontopic : Who was it that voted negative... its 64-1, thats the highest positive to negitive ratio I have seen on a thread (excluding when its very new and is 5-0 or 0-5 :p)
 
Originally posted by pkradd
Apple is already using Amazon.com's "one click" ordering system under license. I wouldn't think anything would happen until a Windows version of iTunes becomes available, even if then. Just speculation.
Click to expand...

Don't you think this entire rumor might have been started by some loser making a comment that apple was using amazon's one-click system in the IMS? And someone who doesn't know much about it ran with the idea?
 
Originally posted by tychay
Since anecdotal evidence is often taken as "rule of law" among Mac users, I'm more suspicious of a claim that the quality of the preview is substandard when Apple has no prima facia reason to have lower-quality previews and a many good reasons to make sure that the quality is the same.
Click to expand...

I can confirm that many, but not all, of the previews are indeed lower quality than the purchased tracks. I have a transparent http proxy on my home network, so all music store downloads (including previews) are logged in the proxy logs. I looked through the log and found the actual urls of the preview files, then downloaded a few separately. Opening them up in QuickTime Player and showing file details revealed that most previews I selected were 64kbps AAC. A few were 128kbps but not many of the ones I tried.

Apple really shouldn't have stated that the previews are full quality unless that was actually true.

Now, everyone of us seems to have platinum ears that can tell the difference between 128kbps AAC (they must be platinum because "golden ears" can't tell the difference).
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly that many people on many different forums I've read since the music store went live are making claims about quality that they can't substantiate. Most people, when taking a blind test would have trouble consistently identifying the original CD vs. a well encoded AAC or MP3. Instead, it's easier to spout off about how it's compressed and therefore the quality must suck. ;-) Either that or they don't setup a good blind test and like you say, biases creep in to invalidate the results.

However, under the right set of listening conditions (good equipment/speakers/headphones), with the right reference track, many people will be able to hear a difference at 128 kbps AAC, or even 160. Some even higher than that with really good equipment and good ears that know the material intimately (and knowing what to listen for). Sometimes having the right reference track which exposes particular flaws can make all the difference in the world.

But for 99.9% of music, 99.9% of listening environments (your computer, iPod, etc, even with good headphones), and 99.9% of listeners, this is a complete non-issue. I've been re-encoding my CD collection at 160 kbps AAC since I got my new 30 gig iPod (yay!) and I'm extremely pleased with the results. I couldn't reliably identify AIFF vs AAC rips at that bitrate and on my typical listening equipment, so it works for me, bottom line.
 
physical CD

Originally posted by soosy
I think (hope) this means that you'll have an option to buy the physical cd along with the digital downloads. That would rock!!!!!! I've seen several people suggest this already.
The joy of immediate downloading along with full cover art and option to rip at higher rates/different formats in the future.
Click to expand...

This is what I have been suggesting in several forums the last three weeks. However, I got the impression, that the demand was not that impressive... :-(

Apple - let's give us the choice to order the real cd, super audio cd or audio dvd directly via the iTunes Music Store: better audio quality than 128kBit/s AAC, great shopping experience through the excellent iTunes Music Store UI and no licensing issues in Europe - will say: I could order CD's from Amazon.de from Switzerland! Great!!!
 
Look, I didn't say that the tracks were horrible. It is difficult to hear the imperfections in the iPod headphones, and even moreso with computer speakers such as the creature speakers or the Apple pro's.
However, I had my iPod hooked up at a friend's house, playing a track from Earshot's album, and the cymbals and hats sounded like they were noticably slimy. Happened in my car sound system too. When the singer pronounces "S-" sounds, you can hear it as well. Its as if they encoded the AAC tracks from an MP3 or something.
As somebody else previously mentioned, the loss could be due to crappy studio recording, but I wouldn't know because I can't say I'm too fond of that particular CD to the point of going to the store and buying it.
The pros outweigh the cons with iTMS, and most all of the other tracks I've downloaded (close to 40), sound great. The Joshua Tree tracks are totally perfect, even against the CD tracks (my original cd is scratched and won't play half the tracks, but I compared the ones that worked).
I do think that you can tell the difference, however, between a 128 kbit AAC and a 160 kbit encoding. Guess I have "GOLDEN EARS" or something, but for 99 cents, another 40 kbits wouldn't kill Apple.
;)
 
Originally posted by Schlomo
I was thinking the same thing. As far as I know, there isnt a windows MP3 player that supports AAC, most importantly, WMP, which I assume 80% of windows users never graduate from.
Click to expand...

AAC has been available for Windows since last year, which is LONGER than for Mac... :rolleyes:

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/aac.html

As to mp3 or wmp for Windows people... stop trolling. Why do you think Kazaa is so busy? Napster before that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back