iTunes?

0.99 a song is not a lot of money.

If people are willing to pay a buck for a piece of crap sandwich from McDonalds. Then I don't see how .99 cents is a lot of money, for a quality recording of a song you like.

Say you don't like but two songs on the album, ok so pay 2 bucks, get the two songs you like, burn them to a cd. There you have a copy forever, you can ripp it back to whatever you want, and bam.

If you can't pay a buck for a song you like, then im sorry but I have no sympathy if the RIAA comes and knocks on your door, a buck is not a lot of money.

128kbps bitrate isn't worthwhile in any format.
Especially if you're being charged for it.

In all honesty, the only 'cool' thing that ever came of mp3's, IMO, was that you could get unreleased tracks.

I have a track from one of my favorite bands (hot water music) doing "Summer of '69" live.

I'm not sure if any of you are aware of the band, but this song/cover is impossible to find on any album.

It's of shitty quality, of course but it's still a novelty track that couldn't be found anywhere else.

I'd much rather use EAC+Lame or vorbis.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrawlingEye
128kbps bitrate isn't worthwhile in any format.
Especially if you're being charged for it.

In all honesty, the only 'cool' thing that ever came of mp3's, IMO, was that you could get unreleased tracks.

I have a track from one of my favorite bands (hot water music) doing "Summer of '69" live.

I'm not sure if any of you are aware of the band, but this song/cover is impossible to find on any album.

It's of shitty quality, of course but it's still a novelty track that couldn't be found anywhere else.

I'd much rather use EAC+Lame or vorbis.

---

I have the 50 Cent live Many Men song!! :D
Live in concert in LA! :eek: :D

Yea it is kinda shitty but like you said, can't be found anywhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrawlingEye
128kbps bitrate isn't worthwhile in any format.
Especially if you're being charged for it.

In all honesty, the only 'cool' thing that ever came of mp3's, IMO, was that you could get unreleased tracks.

I have a track from one of my favorite bands (hot water music) doing "Summer of '69" live.

I'm not sure if any of you are aware of the band, but this song/cover is impossible to find on any album.

It's of shitty quality, of course but it's still a novelty track that couldn't be found anywhere else.

I'd much rather use EAC+Lame or vorbis.

---

I disagree...

Like I said I encoded Dave Matthews Gravedigger using EAC+LAME at 320, and the same track using iTunes 128 AAC.

I cannot at all tell the difference.

Now I can see your point about propriatory formats such as AAC and MP3, but for a buck you can burn the song and have it on CD.

The only place a listen to CDs is my car, and if the 128ACC sounds as good as a 320 MP3 to my ears, then I will definatley not be complaining when it comes to listening in a car, which has engine noise etc. Also if you have, or are a getting an iPod, iTunes is excellent.

While I probably wont stop buying CDs anytime soon, It won't stop me from occasionally buying a song on iTunes.

THink about it though, it's 99cents for almot something 'abstract'. You're paying 99 cents for the file. If something happens to the file, you're screwed. With a CD, if something happens to it, you can atleast try and get a discount to get it replaced.
Also... It's 128 quality. It is extremely easy to tell the difference between a 128 file and the original CD file. Why are we going backwards in quality? Isn't quality suppose to improve with time?!?!
Downloading and paying for a file which I would have to burn and buy the CDRs to play on my CD just sounds too much like a rip-off. I'm also very bothered about the 'less sound quality.'

Quote:

---

Originally posted by coolqf
THink about it though, it's 99cents for almot something 'abstract'. You're paying 99 cents for the file. If something happens to the file, you're screwed. With a CD, if something happens to it, you can atleast try and get a discount to get it replaced.
Also... It's 128 quality. It is extremely easy to tell the difference between a 128 file and the original CD file. Why are we going backwards in quality? Isn't quality suppose to improve with time?!?!
Downloading and paying for a file which I would have to burn and buy the CDRs to play on my CD just sounds too much like a rip-off. I'm also very bothered about the 'less sound quality.'

---

Well I listen to all my music in MP3 format, I ripp my CDs the minute I buy them. I cannot tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and the CD.

The 128 quality isn't MP3, it's AAC a much better format. Like I said I encoded two of the same songs using 320 MP3 and 128 AAC, I cannot tell the difference.

I can't say that iTunes is perfect, but it is the best legit way to download music.

Deleting files really isn't a problem for me, so I see iTunes as a great thing, exspecially when using it with an iPod.

.99 cents a tune is a great bargain. I have thousands of cds, tapes and albums and only a few where I like to listen to the entire album. I usually like one or two songs on the album but seldom bother listening to it just to listen to one song. So actually I've been paying 15 bucks for 'one tune'.
Every time I've went to the trouble of making a compilation of my favorite songs I've worn that tape/cd completely out. I haven't checked out itune yet but if they have what I like, count me in!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ignitionator
Well then SCREW IT :D

---

lmao, exactly how I feel.:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idiot356
Well I listen to all my music in MP3 format, I ripp my CDs the minute I buy them. I cannot tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and the CD.

The 128 quality isn't MP3, it's AAC a much better format. Like I said I encoded two of the same songs using 320 MP3 and 128 AAC, I cannot tell the difference.

I can't say that iTunes is perfect, but it is the best legit way to download music.

Deleting files really isn't a problem for me, so I see iTunes as a great thing, exspecially when using it with an iPod.

---

I don't think you really quite understand what's being said. Different formats have different compressions- yes.
However, the bitrate shows how much information passes through at a given time.

If you're only running at 128kbps, there's no way that it has the soundquality of a 320kbps track, regardless of format. The fact remains that it has less information passing through at a given time.

I disagree, 128kbs simply means that each second of data of the compressed file will take up 128kb correct? Obviously different forms of compression compress a song differently or there wouldnt be different kinds (like mp3, wave, ape, etc). If you just think about it I don't see why one format couldn't fit x amount of data into 128kb while another format could fit xx amount of data into 128kb. Mp3 is becoming an old format, I wouldn't be surprised if a newer format could do as much in 128kb as a typical Mp3 could do in 320kb.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DAoC
I disagree, 128kbs simply means that each second of data of the compressed file will take up 128kb correct? Obviously different forms of compression compress a song differently or there wouldnt be different kinds (like mp3, wave, ape, etc). If you just think about it I don't see why one format couldn't fit x amount of data into 128kb while another format could fit xx amount of data into 128kb. Mp3 is becoming an old format, I wouldn't be surprised if a newer format could do as much in 128kb as a typical Mp3 could do in 320kb.

---

Formats like that actually exist. One option is MP3Pro. same quality in half the size. So a 128kpbs would play with the quality of 320kbps. the AAC in itunes is ever so slightly better than MP3.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they were only offering 128kbs equiv songs, it saves on bandwith and more people are willing to download smaller files without realizing there is a distinct quality loss. They are a business, they are going to take shortcuts to make extra money, which sucks because I won't even think about paying for downloading music until you can get CD quality.

I have a friend who is real fussy about sound quality-fancies himself a fidelity afficionado. The thing is I don't think he really likes music as much as he likes stereo equipment. Never once have I heard a song all the way through over at his place or in his car without him dickin' with the EQ and pushing buttons.
Of course I want a good quality cut but I've never been able to tell much of a difference from an MP3 and one straight off the CD-not enough to matter anyway.

I actually never cared about the bitrate or really noticed a difference till you guys started talking about it then I encoded some of my CDs in 320kbs and its like woah huge difference from 128 :P Now I'll need a new HD cause of you guys bah~

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrawlingEye
I don't think you really quite understand what's being said. Different formats have different compressions- yes.
However, the bitrate shows how much information passes through at a given time.

If you're only running at 128kbps, there's no way that it has the soundquality of a 320kbps track, regardless of format. The fact remains that it has less information passing through at a given time.

---

Well, I just no what my ears tell me, and I cannot here the difference, it's extremely obvious that AAC is a higher quality format than MP3.

I am also a musician, and I know what to listen to as far as range of sound, exspecially for instruments such as bass guitar and drums.


Do me a favor, download iTunes, and encode a song off of a CD in AAC format at 128, do the same at 320 using EAC+LAME.

If you can tell the difference, then your ears are better than mine.

I know what your saying as far as raw data, but thats technical crap, the important thing is what you here.