And he should also share his thoughts why he's still keeping his customers in the past with lossy compression.
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.
Beatles on iTunes Still Hung Up on 'Business Hassles'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you really tell the difference? Seriously? Get real! Background noise is statistically far greater than the compression induced noise. Jeezum, people just look for something to whine about. Hear that whine? It's the sound of compression down to 0 bits.
That's what I was about to say...
But MJ's music WAS already on iTunes when he died...
The FLAC files are better than the compressed files. But you don't hear the difference all the time. What happens is the compressed versions will have artefacts maybe in every third song for a few seconds. The FLAC files are bit per bit identical the CD.
He did not say he wanted 96kHz 24-bit versions of the current re-mastered material. He said "re-mixed". It's possible that a re-mix could improve the sound. But I doubt it. Back in those days they used 4 track equipment and mixed as they went. They'd bounce four down to two tracks and that would free up two more tracks on the tape. So it was not like later years with 24 track tape machines. "Re-mix" make sense with a 24 track tape but but not four track.
That said there might be very slight improvement by going to 96K 24bits. For one thing they not have to "dither" but the new CDs are very good
I would actually be quite interested to read that if Steve Jobs were to write a letter about that. I suspect one of the main arguments would be about download bandwidths.
I come from the PC world as a former Linux user. One of the issues I take with the Apple community is that everybody justifies buying Apple's hardware and software on the basis of purchasing the best quality product available, which is fine and I don't see any problem with that logic. The part that annoys me is that whenever the issue of lossless audio comes up or these days particularly, the issue of lack of Blu-Ray support on Macs, the same people who justified buying Macs etc. on the basis of quality defend the downloaded content's quality as 'good enough for them' to justify Apple's status quo. The search for the highest quality conveniently ends for most of them with buying Apple products and those of us who want the highest quality audio (in the digital domain, lossless PCM formats) or highest quality video (at present Blu-Ray disc) get come down on like a load of bricks for dissenting from the party line.
I'm not saying the Apple community should consider foregoing the iTunes store, the Apple community should respect the decisions of those people who decide not to use it for their own reasons, including the reason of technical quality.
You are missing my point. People are throwing around CD's as if they solve all of the problems at issue here. My point is that they do not.
Not if I wanted to get individual tracks - nor does that address the fact that I would still have to wait for it. You cannot deny that iTunes has something that no other service that sells physical products offers - convince.
People are making an appeal to old technology when that is not what we want. You might was well suggest getting a horse and carriage when a car maker refuses to sell their latest model to you. Yes, you could do that, but that's not the point. The whole point of having iTunes is so that you don't have to worry about buying CD's so that they just collect dust.
I just bought the Digital Remastered CDs last year and ripped them onto iTunes. I have no need for it anymore. I really can't imagine somebody still waiting for this to happen. Let's be honest. It's more of a statement than an offering.
If you like the Beatles, chances are, you already have plenty of recordings.
The way I have always seen it is, if I can't find the CD online or it isn't on iTunes, I can acquire it by any means necessary.
You and me both!
Exactly.
When it is available on iTunes there will be a small flurry of people caught up in the hype, though given you can buy most Beatles CD's on special for a few bucks why would you pay 2-3 times that on iTunes, given that most Beatles fans already own the vinyl or CD's anyway.
I want them, but don't have them. The box-set/separate cds are around 230-250..and that is kinda expensive for me. If i could get them from iTunes: 50% cheaper.
Maybe some happy day i have them on cd or as .m4a
Which one is that?
Hmm, I haven't looked in a couple years, but The Beatles have always held higher prices in my observation. I have most of their CDs prior to the big remasters, and I did not get any of them at "bargain bins".
Are those better than the stereo for the remasters? Is there a consensus? (I'm sure I could google and find millions of comments) I am thinking about upgrading for the improved sound. But mono will take out some of their funkier stuff, which is part of the artistic side of it all.
It's the 24 bit length that improves the sound dramatically, not so much the sample rate. I mean, in general, I haven't compared the Beatles releases. Snobs like their tape hiss to be pristine and clear.
But 44/24 is better than CD, so I'm not sure why you would think it comparable to 256k AAC.
It's getting a bit like the rumors that floated around in the 70's about a Beatles reunion. Much talked about, never happened.
I haven't observed this. Those "throwing around" CDs as a solution in this thread are saying it is a solution to a problem, not every problem. Because these problems are subjective, not everyone agrees about them.
Also, that analogy is really bad, it makes no sense. "Old technology"?? MP3 is a derivative of the exact same technology as CD audio. A crappier derivative. You just don't like the storage mechanism, which has nothing to do with music. MP3s can also be on a CD.
Well, I'd hate to get involved in the endless discussions about technicalities that are so common around here, but "Physical Storage vs. Internet Delivery" counts as two competing technologies if you ask me. Not only the codecs.
And wav may be superior in terms of audio quality, but as you all know raw spec is not the only parameter. Convenience, Ease of use, World-wide instant access are a plus for me. It is not so outrageous to say iTunes is "more advanced" than CDs.
I get your point. But as an artist sometimes you don't want those singles sold separately. Pink Floyd just won a legal case against their record company. They don't want single songs sold as most of their albums are meant to be digested in their entirety. Sgt Pepper and the White album never had released singles the time they were originally released so if the artist (not label) doesn't want this, I support the artists. Hits collections are a different animal.
I suppose. But the music ought to be a fairly high-ranking parameter. (which is why I've bought more SACD discs than iTMS songs) Doesn't seem to be with some people, which is counter-intuitive. Listening to their iTMS purchases is about #12 on the list of things to do with them.
I'm 45, and as a youngster I never really listened to there music, but as I got older, and listened to my brothers cd's i realised what great music they created . I for one can't wait for them to be on iTunes so I can download.
Message to Steve Jobs: The Beatles will sell more iPads
If only the Beatles were on iTunes then -- and only then -- would I rush out to purchase an iPad so I could view the glorious cover art on that beautiful screen and listen to them all day.
Or maybe I don't really care if the Beatles are on iTunes. Yeah that's right -- I don't. This story lost interest for me last year when I thought an interesting first release for iTunes LP would be the Beatles, but that never came to fruition.
I'm surprised that Apple and EMI are still bothering to talk about this.
If only the Beatles were on iTunes then -- and only then -- would I rush out to purchase an iPad so I could view the glorious cover art on that beautiful screen and listen to them all day.
Or maybe I don't really care if the Beatles are on iTunes. Yeah that's right -- I don't. This story lost interest for me last year when I thought an interesting first release for iTunes LP would be the Beatles, but that never came to fruition.
I'm surprised that Apple and EMI are still bothering to talk about this.
To me, it's like the Blu-Ray thing. Back when I bought a DVD player, I went out nearly every weekend and tried to replace my video tapes because of the convenience and higher quality. Now that I am old enough to realize the formats are probably going to change every decade or sooner, I don't replace DVDs with Blu-Ray unless I really want to see the higher quality on my home theatre. Most of the time it looks good enough unless it's in 4:3.
The convenience of iTunes has been it's greatest marketing tool. People like to buy things on impulse and if that means it costs me $9.99 rather than hunting for a CD, they may have just earned my business.
I agree with you 100%. EMI has missed out of some serious money. At this point, it seems like they are just holding out in spite.