If you check out the iTMS the complete U2 is now the #1 selling album. before xmas it had dropped off of the top 10 completely! Must be all those new ipod owners cashing in their 50 bucks off coupon.
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.
Apple must have sold a lot of us ipods...
- Thread starter jholzner
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I still wonder what the numbers are like on album sales...I rarely have even the temptation to buy full albums from iTMS, although I've steadily bought individual songs....I wonder if there are a lot of people the opposite out there.
I don't see a reason to support the iTMS, considering the ass-quality encodes they offer...
I refuse to pay for downloads until they're encoded at 256vbr MP3.
Or, what would be really nice - is to be able to download the raw data files. 700mb CDs, mmmm...
They should (at the very least) allow you to choose what kind of files / bitrate you'd prefer. The standard is just far too low.
I refuse to pay for downloads until they're encoded at 256vbr MP3.
Or, what would be really nice - is to be able to download the raw data files. 700mb CDs, mmmm...
They should (at the very least) allow you to choose what kind of files / bitrate you'd prefer. The standard is just far too low.
crachoar said:I don't see a reason to support the iTMS, considering the ass-quality encodes they offer...
I refuse to pay for downloads until they're encoded at 256vbr MP3.
Or, what would be really nice - is to be able to download the raw data files. 700mb CDs, mmmm...
They should (at the very least) allow you to choose what kind of files / bitrate you'd prefer. The standard is just far too low.
Dont you think your being a bit unreasonable. Apple encodes all of their songs the same, to offer a customer a choice of bitrate/encoding would cost unknown amounts of money. I think the coding used now is just fine, much better than the competition.
daveway00 said:
There's nothing untold about it. It can be done for next to nothing. The Russian music site allofmp3.com does exactly this, and charges $.01 per megabyte of music.
Of course Apple couldn't compete with that rate, as they pay the RIAA fees whereas AllofMP3.com does not, but clearly the actual cost of encoding on the fly at multiple bitrates, and multiple formats, adds almost nothing to the cost of running a music download site.
Rob
i too refuse to pay for any itms tracks.
the 5 free ones i downloaded sounded as if i recorded them off a radio station onto a cassette tape. it was disgusting as a freebie and an insult if i had to pay for it.
and instead of offering a choice of br and quality, why not just start it at an acceptable level so there's no requests for something better?
the 5 free ones i downloaded sounded as if i recorded them off a radio station onto a cassette tape. it was disgusting as a freebie and an insult if i had to pay for it.
and instead of offering a choice of br and quality, why not just start it at an acceptable level so there's no requests for something better?
pdp said:
May I sujest you get some descent speakers, because if you think 128kbps AAC soundws tike that there is somthing wrong. I have my powerbook connected to my home cinema surround sound system, and I have more audio Definition on my AAC tracks & ITMS tracks than on any of my MP3 Tracks Some encoded at 320kbpsVBR Mp3.
another point: What were You refering to? DAB digital radio AND a DAT casette tape?
dont worry bout the speaks, they are more than adequate. headphones are also on the same page and through both of them the quality is funk.
and i was talking abot 1986 and i heard a song on the radio i liked so i'd hit record on the boombox type of playback quality.
and i was talking abot 1986 and i heard a song on the radio i liked so i'd hit record on the boombox type of playback quality.
pdp said:
The quality from iTMS isn't amazing, but it's not bad either. I've got almost everything ripped at 256 Kbps as mp3s so I can make CDs for the car easily because I dislike bad sound. I've got one free download and it really doesn't sound that bad and certainly not anything near your description.
I think the U2 offer is a GREAT idea. It's too bad that there are people like me who would never use the U2 offer or the iTMS because their idea of good music isn't what the iTMS offers, or any current download music store anywhere offers for that matter
It'll give Apple some much-needed business, and inflate their iPod sales figures, as if they weren't big enough already
It'll give Apple some much-needed business, and inflate their iPod sales figures, as if they weren't big enough already
Ok, All the songs on the iTMS Music store are not encoded in MP3 they are encoded in AAC. The standard for CD quality sound in MP3 format is 192kbs. 128kbs in AAC is the equilivant to 192kbs in MP3. I've encoded CD's at 192 as MP3's and downloaded songs from iTMS in 128 AAC and I really can't tell the difference. Offering different bitrates would actually hurt sales as most people using iTMS are not experts in MP3's or Encoding them. Most of their customer base does not know or care what a bitrate is all they want is to be able to easily download music.
wrldwzrd89 said:
You know that's interesting I got the info I posted from Steve Jobs Keynote when he originally introduced the AAC format. But here's a link with some info on CD quality bitrates which says 192 is the rate for CD quality, I guess it might not be an actuall set standard.
wrldwzrd89 said:
Paying too much attention to Apple will damage your brain.
I think 160 Kbps mp3 is far too low to be CD quality, especially when you consider that CD sound has no compression and therefore, no artifacts/artefacts. Even 320 Kbps mp3 files have artifacts but they're hardly noticeable.
You're right there - so what the heck is this "CD standard" Norouzi refers to? Given the information you posted and the link Norouzi mentioned in the post before yours, the information seems to conflict - so I don't know what to thinkbousozoku said:Paying too much attention to Apple will damage your brain.
I think 160 Kbps mp3 is far too low to be CD quality, especially when you consider that CD sound has no compression and therefore, no artifacts/artefacts. Even 320 Kbps mp3 files have artifacts but they're hardly noticeable.
wrldwzrd89 said:You're right there - so what the heck is this "CD standard" Norouzi refers to? Given the information you posted and the link Norouzi mentioned in the post before yours, the information seems to conflict - so I don't know what to think
I think 192 Kbps is the minimum bitrate at which more relentless listeners tend to find the music adequate. There have been many blind tests and that rate is probably more universally acceptable. I've found some difference between that and 256 Kbps but it depends on how good the playback equipment is and the material. After all, broadcast t.v. looked good until we got better televisions.
The more dynamic the sound--the range of volume--the more likely compression is to kill it. It could also cause the sound to lose the crispness somewhat, similar to what you've probably seen in a photograph stored in a 256 colour .gif file when you go too far down on the bitrate. (Yes, this is not technically accurate information. It's an interpretation. Just trying to make a point.) How anyone can find a 64 Kbps mp3 file acceptable is beyond me. "What's that Sony? I can't hear you through the static."
For some things, even 56 kbps sounds just fine. Personally, I won't go any lower than 96 kbps MP3/80 kbps AAC. Of course, when HE-AAC becomes available in iTunes, 40 kbps will be its lower limit.bousozoku said:I think 192 Kbps is the minimum bitrate at which more relentless listeners tend to find the music adequate. There have been many blind tests and that rate is probably more universally acceptable. I've found some difference between that and 256 Kbps but it depends on how good the playback equipment is and the material. After all, broadcast t.v. looked good until we got better televisions.
The more dynamic the sound--the range of volume--the more likely compression is to kill it. It could also cause the sound to lose the crispness somewhat, similar to what you've probably seen in a photograph stored in a 256 colour .gif file when you go too far down on the bitrate. (Yes, this is not technically accurate information. It's an interpretation. Just trying to make a point.) How anyone can find a 64 Kbps mp3 file acceptable is beyond me. "What's that Sony? I can't hear you through the static."
wrldwzrd89 said:You're right there - so what the heck is this "CD standard" Norouzi refers to? Given the information you posted and the link Norouzi mentioned in the post before yours, the information seems to conflict - so I don't know what to think
Where did it come from? Someone's marketing department and everyone else picked it up and ran w/it.
Lethal
Just about everyone I know (In high school) who didn't already have an ipod got one for christmas. I was at the mall at Filene's and both ladies at 2 different cash registers were talking about ipods, it was quite bizarre! It is amazing that iPods are still as huge as they are, Apple really hit a grand slam, and then some. It's a good thing they didn't go the way of the Razor scooter.
