iTMS Tops One Quarter Billion Songs Sold

[lem0nayde]

My understanding is that a track is converted to uncompressed AIFF when it is burned to CD-- however, the original song lost a lot of "bits" in being compressed to AAC-- and those original bits are not reinstated when the AAC is blown back up to AIFF. So the AIFF is like a swiss cheese copy. I think the re-burned track does retain the original quality of the DRM'd AAC, but that quality is not the quality of the real full uncompressed track.

That's correct. It's like saving a digital photo as a compressed jpeg - you can reopen the photo and save it as an uncompressed tiff, but all of the compression artifacts will remain. If you open the tiff and save it again as a jpeg you are doubling the compression artifacts. The rule pretty much applies to any digital media file - movie, sound, picture. If compression is applied, you aren't ever getting the original quality back.

 

[shawnce]

If compression is applied, you aren't ever getting the original quality back.

If _lossy_ compression is applied...

 

[johnnyjibbs]

That's correct. It's like saving an digital photo as a compressed jpeg - you can reopen the photo and save it as an uncompressed tiff, but all of the compression artifacts will remain. If you open the tiff and save it again as a jpeg you are doubling the compression artifacts. The rule pretty much applies to any digital media file - movie, sound, picture. If compression is applied, you aren't ever getting the original quality back.

Surely, therefore, you're going back on your original argument?

As Apple only provides compressed 128kbps AAC files, burning them to a CD and then reimporting gives you the option of either:

1) Storing an AIFF file (at around 10 times the original AAC size but the same quality as the DRM'd AAC file)

or

2) Reimporting as a normal (non-DRM) AAC file (or MP3) of the same or similar file size but drastically reduced quality (because it has been compressed twice).

Therefore, there is cause for concern regarding DRM files, although I personally am not bothered about it too much.

 

[jxyama]

the latest number from napster, according to their press room, on jan. 13 was that they have 270,000 subscribers. giving generous assumptions of 300,000 subscribers and all of them paying $10 a month, their revenue for a given month is $3 milion. let's also assume that each subscriber is buying $10 worth of songs per month on top of the subscription. that will bring their revenue to $6 million per month.

in comparison, iTMS sells $6 million worth of music in less than one week.

and this comparison doesn't even include associated hardware sales...

 

[JGowan]

yes but are they turning a profit?

Yeppers. They help sell iPods. Where have you been during all this "Music Stuff"?

 

[lem0nayde]

Surely, therefore, you're going back on your original argument?

As Apple only provides compressed 128kbps AAC files, burning them to a CD and then reimporting gives you the option of either:

1) Storing an AIFF file (at around 10 times the original AAC size but the same quality as the DRM'd AAC file)

or

2) Reimporting as a normal (non-DRM) AAC file (or MP3) of the same or similar file size but drastically reduced quality (because it has been compressed twice).

Therefore, there is cause for concern regarding DRM files, although I personally am not bothered about it too much.

Again, I wasn't considering the fact that people would reimport it in a re-compressed format. I would reimport it at a lower (or no) compression rate than the original (either AAC or AIFF) so as to retain maximum quality. I also forgot that Apples sells songs at such high compression - which is kind of annoying (even if they do sound good.)

Now I can understand the concern, though it doesn't affect me either.

 

[JGowan]

Well I hope Apple won't rest on their laurels for too long.

When, under "The Helm of Jobs" have you EVER seen Apple resting on their laurels? Whether it's hardware or software, these guys are perfecting and creating their butts off.

 

[fatfish]

Man, not to be a negative Nelly, but I am SO sick of hearing about the iPod and the digital music revolution.

I don't understand why anyone who is SO sick of hearing this stuff would read into page two of a forum with nothing other than ipod stuff on it.

I love my itunes. When I was young I had nearly a thousand albums (all on vinyl) but I got busy, too busy to go to a store and my interest dwindled. Now my interest is back and my library is growing. I've lost track of how much stuff I've got from iTMS (probably about 50 albums now plus lots o' singles, since UK launch)

I wouldn't buy a CD now, it would only end up in the car, being distorted by the sun, or someone would put a coffee cup on it, or it would simply get lost.

And another thing I love. You can compile a playlist of samples off itunes (yeah, like an imix) but instead of posting it to iTMS, you can all yer mates round on a Thursday night for a pop quiz.

 

[jeffbax]

Eh, way to go... I guess.

But 128 KBPS locked files just are not for me.

Its cheaper for me to get CDs for 4.99 free shipping at yourmusic.com than it would be to pay for an intangible download thats locked to a platform.

At least with the CD its mine in a hard copy, and I can rip at whatever quality I want.

 

[jxyama]

Eh, way to go... I guess.

But 128 KBPS locked files just are not for me.

Its cheaper for me to get CDs for 4.99 free shipping at yourmusic.com than it would be to pay for an intangible download thats locked to a platform.

At least with the CD its mine in a hard copy, and I can rip at whatever quality I want.

yep, that's your choice too. iPod supports both because it plays most formats... iTMS might not be for you, but it apparently is for a whole lotta people.

btw, it's $5.99 at yourmusic.com. and you have to buy at least one CD a month. and those are definitely not for me.

 

[dejo]

Man, not to be a negative Nelly, but I am SO sick of hearing about the iPod and the digital music revolution.

Yeah, I really wish Apple would concentrate on computers and release some new, cool products in that department.

 

[JGowan]

Man, not to be a negative Nelly, but I am SO sick of hearing about the iPod and the digital music revolution.

Well, you are probably on top of Apple and Technology News in general. With 295,160,302+ U.S. citizens and only 6M+ iPods sold, there is a lot of people who have not only NOT BOUGHT an ipod, but HAVE NOT HEARD of an ipod. So, you better prepare yourself for a whole lot more news on this little music device from Cupertino.

- JGowan

For the nitpickers...

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/003161.html

 

[Lacero]

Eh, way to go... I guess.

But 128 KBPS locked files just are not for me.

Its cheaper for me to get CDs for 4.99 free shipping at yourmusic.com than it would be to pay for an intangible download thats locked to a platform.

At least with the CD its mine in a hard copy, and I can rip at whatever quality I want.

Wouldn't make sense to pay $5 for an album, and there's only 1-2 songs on it that you like, when you could go to the iTMS and just buy the songs you like. Since you'll be ripping from CD to play in your iPod, why not just skip that step and go directly to AAC. The fact that the AACs from iTMS are ripped from studio masters, would mean the quality would be higher than if you ripped it yourself at the same bitrate. Sure you can rip to 320 KBps, but don't expect to fit the same number of songs on an iPod for what would be almost an indiscernible difference in quality.

 

[pgwalsh]

I have bought a lot more music downloads than I ever anticipated. 85% has been from the Apple store. The other 15% has been from European download sites that offer small label songs; that Apple may never offer. I have bought only a couple CD's and mostly from overseas. Apple offers very little in the European Goa and Psychedellic Trance.

ITMS has a long way to go. My neighbor is a Pacific Islander and she downloads music, but never heard of iTunes. When I showed her that application and store, she got all excited. The word still needs to get out.

One Compliant: If they could lengthen the listening period, that would be great. Maybe make is have or 3/4 of the song.. Now we're talking.

 

[JGowan]

I think the loss of quality comes from converting it to AIFF file and then back to an AAC file.

Just a thought.

/asif

Right. If you brought it back in as a APPLE LOSSLESS file, you'd be stuck with a pretty hefty file, but it would sound the same as the original DRM'd song. And you could put it wherever you wanted from here on out. With a moderate amount of songs (and HD space getting cheaper all the time, this isn't necessarily a bad way to go.

 

[fatfish]

DRM>AIFF>MP3

Not really convinced by this double compression arguement leading to really poor quality. I can appreciate a certain amount of loss, but why should it be all that much.

Does this make sense.

When the original file is encoded, the codec rips out information to leave a compressed file, I would imagine the codec is fairly selective about the info that it removes, otherwise you'll end up with something of no use. Converting to AIFF won't add any quality back into the file, but must add something to increase the file size. So when encoding the file for the second time I would have thought that the codecs are smart enough to simply remove the stuff that affects quality the least, ie the fluff added by the convertion to AIFF. I doubt very much that the codecs just remove information on a random basis.

 

[min_t]

Here you go:

Ahhhaha!

 

[macnews]

Hey, could you call those "inside Apple" folks and ask then when the new powerbooks are coming out?

I have about 30 itunes purchases in my 3000 song library-- its a great way to pick up singles. I have to say, however, that I'm a little uncomfortable about then, given the DRM, and that I prefer to buy CDs (generally used) and rip them.

I wish! My "inside" info is limited strictly to the iTMS - I even rarely hear about anything new in terms of iPod stuff. Not to say I don't ask but the answer is always the some vague response which could be taken many different ways.

 

[wdlove]

Congratulations to Apple and Steve on this momentous event. May sales continue to increase. The increase in world wide sales is really paying off. Hopefully the profits will go into R&D.

 

[AppleFoussa]

Here you go:

Like your graph.

It's amazing, I wish people that work at the apple store could be as knowledgable as the peopes in this forum. I've been trying to get a job there and it makes me sick to see people don't know much about Apple. Just a thought.

 

[Apple!Freak]

I am in charge for 300 of those legally purchased songs and proud of it!

 

[lem0nayde]

I don't understand why anyone who is SO sick of hearing this stuff would read into page two of a forum with nothing other than ipod stuff on it.

I was interested in the discussion about quality retention of converted DRM files.

 

[dotdotdot]

I am in charge of 100 of these songs and listen to almost all of them every day!!

It is true that iTunes is helping Apple sell iPods - I got iTunes the first week it came out for Windows, and purchased an iPod about 3 months later...

 

[swissmann]

these guys just keep selling songs faster and faster. But this is probably just a "fad" to the Dell guys.

Exactly what I was thinking. If it is a fad it is a pretty big one. I'd like to see Apple stomp out the competition some more.

 

[Misplaced Mage]

Not really convinced by this double compression arguement leading to really poor quality. I can appreciate a certain amount of loss, but why should it be all that much.

Does this make sense.

When the original file is encoded, the codec rips out information to leave a compressed file, I would imagine the codec is fairly selective about the info that it removes, otherwise you'll end up with something of no use. Converting to AIFF won't add any quality back into the file, but must add something to increase the file size. So when encoding the file for the second time I would have thought that the codecs are smart enough to simply remove the stuff that affects quality the least, ie the fluff added by the convertion to AIFF. I doubt very much that the codecs just remove information on a random basis.

Lossy codecs inevitably introduce some distortion in playback or AIFF conversion precisely because they are lossy; they throw out the finest details as part of the tradeoff for smaller file size. Precisely how much gets thrown out (and the resulting amount of distortion introduced) depends on the audio being encoded because MP3 and AAC are based on models of how human beings perceive audio, and the degree of compression desired. When you then go to re-encode using even the same lossy codec as before, that codec is now trying to encode the distortions introduced in the first generation copy, introducing even more distortion into the second generation copy. It's the digital equivalent of making an analog copy of an analog copy of an analog original.