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.
Discounted Legal Music
- Thread starter liamkp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More audio information is retained. Lets say both formats compress the audio file 60%, AAC is less destructive to the original audio information than MP3. Which is why AACs sound a bit better. AAC is newer than MP3 so as you would expect with newer technology its more efficient. Since both are done at 256kps its not as noticeable as if they were encoded at 128kps, but I like to have the higher res files even if I end up paying a little more. FWIW I rip my CDs at 320kps AAC.
Hmmm...not sure "higher res" is the correct term, but I guess I get what you're saying.
Here in the UK iTunes songs are 79p which is $1.20, think yourself lucky eh?
Also being in the music industry I really strongly advise against downloading illegally
I guess.
I guess im stuck with iTunes
. Thanks for your help.Thats the whole point of this thread, to find discounted LEGAL music.
Higher bitrate.
Not necessarily.
A 128k MP2 format file was lower quality than a 128k MP3 format file, and 256kps mp3 is approximately equal to 192kps AAC as far as the amount of audio information retained. Bit rate as a measurement of audio quality only works when discussing the same format.
That's why I said higher resolution. While its not the most accurate term it gets the point across that there is more information in the file compared to a lower resolution audio file.
Oh boo hoo, cry us a river. So 'Rippity Rapper G' can only buy 2 Bentleys instead of 4, we all feel so sad for him.
If music was priced at a reasonable level people would pay the price. $16-$20 for a CD where you want maybe 2 of the songs from it?
So you don't care if a band you really like can no longer afford to release music? Or tour? Not sure why you think that the only artists releasing music are rappers with expensive cars. The cost of CDs is irrelevant as we are specifically talking about $1 songs that you can buy individually.
I will agree that downloading music is illegal but I don't agree with your comparison. Many times people download music illegally and would have never purchased said songs so the artist is not really loosing any money. Now if the person would have normally bought it but they now have the option of downloading it illegally, then yes, you would be loosing money.
That is why it is absolutely ridiculous when record labels give reports on how much money they have lost because they assume that everybody that downloaded said song would have paid for it. When record labels sue individuals for $650,000 because of "lost profits" it is absolutely ridiculous and than goodness that some judges can see that and adjust the amount the individual must pay back (which they usually still can not afford).
No I am not saying that it is right for them to download it illegally. What they did was wrong and they are breaking the law, but most illegal downloads is not the same as reaching into the persons pocket and taking their money.
Reminds of the time over 20 years ago when I copied some high end 3D graphics software that was $4,000 when I was only 14 years old. What I did was illegal but the software company did not loose a cent from my actions because there is no way I could afford to buy it even if I wanted to. I admit that I did break the law though but I was willing to risk it (which was very low) because I wanted it.
Anyway 99cents a song I think is a very fair price and I have purchased many songs and albums legally online because I can pay for it.
There are many russian based mp3 sites where albums are typically 60 cents to a dollar or so. I don't use them so idk any off of the top my head though.
FAIL
As if all artists are that successful.
Illegal. You're paying for nothing.
Frostwire is the bomb. That's what I use. Except for the occasional song that I can't get in good quality, then I turn to iTunes!