or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Can I burn a CD of "bought" music?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can I burn a CD of "bought" music? - Page 2

post #41 of 74
Well, the tracks sound the same. 128 aac and 192 vbr mp3 (not the best encoding, I know), but to my grado sr-60 covered ears, they sound pretty close. Surely my Pathfinder's creaky chassis will cover up any imperfections. So, I apologize for my ranting. But, for once and for all, I understand that lossy compression cannot be reversed! And that lossy to lossy means more lossy.
post #42 of 74
Hopefully they'll soon add an MP3 option to the store - along with Windows compatability. Right now it's nice for hardcore Mac users, but it's very limited because it can only play on Macs or on Macintosh iPods.
post #43 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Hopefully they'll soon add an MP3 option to the store - along with Windows compatability. Right now it's nice for hardcore Mac users, but it's very limited because it can only play on Macs or on Macintosh iPods.

That's not going to happen. The aac file format is protected so they can control it. There's no way record companies would allow Apple to distribute mp3s. And really, for mac users, the whole thing is seamless. I wouldn't know that it was an aac file unless I checked. It looks exactly the same to me.
post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Hopefully they'll soon add an MP3 option to the store - along with Windows compatability. Right now it's nice for hardcore Mac users, but it's very limited because it can only play on Macs or on Macintosh iPods.

well, Steve said the service would be available to Windoze before the end of the year, so that point is taken care of.

as for MP3... never ever gonna happen. one of the only reasons the store is able to exist in the first place is because the files are NOT MP3
post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by torifile
Ok, so I can't convert and .aac file directly to an mp3 through the menu:



Trying the converting the audio tracks now.... Stay tuned.

OH NOOOoooo! You're right!

Gad. I guess you can't convert to AIFF either, then. It's either burn to CD or nothing. That stinx. Try your original method of burning to CD then ripping back to MP3. Maybe the Fortune article was right! Sux for you, Torifile, if it's true. Better get that iPod and casette adapter for your car then...
post #46 of 74
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...
post #47 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...

The way I just did it. Burn a cd, then convert it to mp3. Other than that, I can't think of a way (or did you miss half this thread?? ).

SJ specifically said that the iPod was the only music player capable of playing these things back. But it's really the only player out in force on the mac side anyway. Maybe when they release this for windows, there will be more options.
post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...

um... Apple doesn't own AAC so they wouldn't be charging other companies to use it...

other companies will make their products AAC compatible if they're smart. if not, they'll be left in the dust.
post #49 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
OH NOOOoooo! You're right!

Gad. I guess you can't convert to AIFF either, then. It's either burn to CD or nothing. That stinx. Try your original method of burning to CD then ripping back to MP3. Maybe the Fortune article was right! Sux for you, Torifile, if it's true. Better get that iPod and casette adapter for your car then...

Well, the cd to mp3 conversion worked and it was a neglible difference in quality (as far as I could tell; see a couple posts up - you really should read what's posted before you ). Luckily for me, if I don't want to do this, my deck has an aux in jack so I just get a male/male 1/8" stereo jack and I'm set. Hell, maybe I'll leave my current 5g ipod in my car and get one of the new nifty ones. (Yeah right. My fiancee would kill me....)
post #50 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod?

Burn to Audio CD. Then you can play it on any CD player/DVD player that can read CD-R. Not sure if you can burn to Audio DVD.

Quote:
Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible?

Likely. Most players would simply require a firmware update.
Quote:
Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...

Does Apple own the AAC codec? I could see how they might charge a high licensing fee, then, but they'd still stand to make a few bucks by licensing it out to established players like Rio and Creative. They'll have to either license it to MMJB or perhaps (!) make iTunes for the PC!!!!
post #51 of 74
http://www.aac-audio.com/

Open Standard for anyone to license.

Quote:
What do you mean by per-channel pricing?
A "channel" in this context refers to an audio channel output. For example, stereo is a two-channel implementation (left and right), and monaural is a single-channel implementation. The AAC specification supports up to 48 full-frequency range audio channels. Per-channel pricing allows differentiation between simple mono or stereo products and multichannel home theater products.

Interesting no? Multichannel AAC files are possible. Geegawd 48 channels...I'd love to see that Encoder and Decoder.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 74
Okay so AAC is an open standard, it would require only an effort by the companies that make MP3 players to add it... they wouldn't have to buy anything. That's good.

I suppose I was way off with my posts... I did read the previous ones but I must have misunderstood.
post #53 of 74
Overreacting seems to be the order of the day.
post #54 of 74
Luca ...no problem. Right now we have the cart and we're waiting for the Horse to arrive.

Digital Music for the foreseeable future is a 3 pony race.

1. MP3
2. WM
3. AAC

The rest are fringe contenders

WM and AAC have the advantage of Multichannel support. If I was the industry I'd be looking to take advantage of that feature. 5.1 systems can be had for next to nothing. Surround Sound Audio can be the thing that brings the masses back. Kazaa cannot compete in this arena.

Eventually I'd like to see Apple offer higher bitrates to appeas those who have to have that nth degree of accuracy. Simply offer a higher rez version for a wee bit more dosh. That will keep the natives bloody satisfied.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by mrmister
Overreacting seems to be the order of the day.

Can you blame people? The RIAA has everyone so jaded about "legit" digital music, that we can't quite believe anyone, even Apple, is doing it RIGHT. Being able to do AAC->AIFF->mp3 clinches it for me. It's the perfect balance between consumer and copyright holder. There's nothing wrong with the service except that the price could stand to come down a bit. And I'm sure it will. Apple rocks. Really. This. Is. Huge.
post #56 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by The General
what you will have to do, is convert the AAC files to MP3, but I think the reason they say they wont sound as good, is because the AAC codec sounds better than the MP3 codec, so you will lose some quality.

Could you also just use Audio Hijack and get an aiff file out and then use QT6.2 to convert that AIFF back into a DRM free M4A? It may sound a little tweaky but I think it is so lowtech it just might work.

A@ron
post #57 of 74
The iTunes 4 KnowledgeBase Article
Quote:
Note: Initializing the drive will not deauthorize the computer. If you will be initializing the drive, deauthorize the computer first, then initialize the drive.

And this is really interesting
Harness the power of Open Firmware?
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #58 of 74
All that the protection means is that apple and the music companies can pretend that they are doing something to stop the copying of the songs.

Anyone that really wants a copy of a song in mp3 format to use on their second computer (which just might be a PC), will just have to invest in a half decent sound card, and use a normal audio cable and re-record the sound on the second PC... Hell if your not using an iMac you can prolly get digital cards and use and optical cable - that should give as good a result as anyone needs.

My question is this, where are the list of authorised computers stored? In the file? If so what happens when "god forbid" my iMac bursts into flames and I have to restore my aac files from a DVD backup? Who has the authority to say that my new iMac is a trusted computer?
"Choice. The problem is choice."
-- Neo
Reply
"Choice. The problem is choice."
-- Neo
Reply
post #59 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Gargoyle
My question is this, where are the list of authorized computers stored? In the file? If so what happens when "god forbid" my iMac bursts into flames and I have to restore my aac files from a DVD backup? Who has the authority to say that my new iMac is a trusted computer?

as long as you have the songs... you "register" the new mac with the iTunes music store and all the music you bought will work...
BUT that is only if you have a backup...
Quote:
Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. If your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to reimport all your songs and buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library.

what would be killer is if apple would allow you to restore any track you have bought from them. but thats not how it works now...
if it worked this way now I'm sure noone would have a problem with prices as they currently stand...
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #60 of 74
What a funny thread...

First torifile goes (not bitching) on how inconvinient it is to go from AAC to mp3, most people don't understand and jump on the poor guy, then he concludes by saying that he's got aux in jack in his car audio... lol,

Then you start to worry about authorizing computers, etc and what will happen if your computer burns....

Guys, think, why should apple be responsible for making backups for you? and then lets say if you do have backup and your comp burns, don't you think that there must be a way to restore few grand worth of music to your comp?
I believe apple thought of that while designing iTunes 4.

And then issue of adding mp3 to itunes store....
I T W I L L N E V E R H A P P E N !

Apple will provide winblows users with some ability to play aac files either by adding functionality to jukebox soft, or perhaps releasing iTunes for win.
The whole idea is that you have an integrated system of downloading music , burning cd, and listening your music on portable device (iPod). It was designed with iPod in mind and it will stay this way. If your portable player does not support aac, your are out of luck, maybe when iTunes Store becomes popular enough you will get aac support.

Apple had to compromise to make it work. IMO it worked out great!
It just needs time, music collection has to expand, and it will, win support has to be there and it will be there, give it time.

...my CDN$ 0.02
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
post #61 of 74
word!
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #62 of 74
The copy protection is posturing by Apple to appease the record companies, nothing more.

Consider the following...

1. It's simply laughable to put a 10 burn limit on unshuffled playlists when one can simply make a disc image of the resulting burnt CD then burn an endless number of copies in toast if their business is to sell pirated CDS.

2. If AAC can be burnt to AIFF then all that is required is a third party encoder that recognizes and accomodates the subtle sound quality compromises AAC produces in an AIFF file in order not to amplify them during a re-encode. In short, if the AIFF sounds good then a smart encoder can make the mp3 sound good.

3. Eventually the copy protection flags in the purchased AAC files will be identified and someone will come out with a "cleaner". I'm amazed one hasn't been produced already considering that you can rip unflagged AACs from your own CDs then compare the resulting files to the purchased ones (or just go purchased AAC -> AIF -> back to clean AAC).

Jobs isn't stupid enough to think DRM can work for long. He realizes that the only winning features of an online music service will be convenience, quality assurance, and savings on distribution costs.

99 cents a track will work for a little bit, then they will have to cut prices to something reasonable like 10-25 cents. The mental imange which comes to mind is when someone is playing music on the street and you toss a coin into their hat in appreciation. They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by piwozniak
Guys, think, why should apple be responsible for making backups for you? and then lets say if you do have backup and your comp burns, don't you think that there must be a way to restore few grand worth of music to your comp?
I believe apple thought of that while designing iTunes 4.

care to elaborate? you seem to be contradicting yourself, but I think I am just misunderstanding you... Do you agree that Apple should allow you to download the songs again?

Nord, while I agree with you... keep it down man! we don't want the fact that the DRM is bogus to get outside of Steve's RDF! Man! want to get Apple in trouble?

The record companies can choke on it, they probably entered into a contract with Apple...
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
99 cents a track will work for a little bit, then they will have to cut prices to something reasonable like 10-25 cents. The mental imange which comes to mind is when someone is playing music on the street and you toss a coin into their hat in appreciation. They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.

I agree. You know what would be really cool is if Apple allowed people to send them songs they recorded and then charged a quarter for them and gave 20 to the "artist." Or maybe allowed you to set your own price. In effect Apple could become a distributer for any band without a label. Since the I doubt even Eminem is making 20 cents per song on the CDs he sells, this might even catch on among people who do have labels. I just made up the prices here but I bet with the right pricing Apple could become Universal without having to buy them.
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
The copy protection is posturing by Apple to appease the record companies, nothing more.

That's overstating it a bit. All that copy protection has to do is keep honest people honest. It's not at all hard to figure out how to pick the average lock, and the information is out there for anyone willing to look, but locks are still widely used and effective.

If Apple succeeds in showing the industry that foolproof copy protection is unnecessary as well as infuriating and essentially impossible, they'll have scored a huge victory for everyone, including the labels (and movie studios).

Quote:
They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.



An artist who has a million-selling album is lucky to make $20,000 off of it with the standard contract, when all's said and done. Those artists that don't manage a million-seller, which is to say almost all of them, are lucky to be able to make a living doing what they're doing. All of the ones who do manage do so by touring constantly, selling merchandise, and selling CDs at live shows, where they get a much bigger cut. (Even there, the majors include as part of their contract a clause that requires artists to buy tour CDs at special, higher prices so that the cut isn't that much bigger. Still, $1 a CD is much better than the going rate.)

The labels are currently getting 65 cents per song from Apple. Almost none of that is going to the artist. You could sell songs for 25 cents each and still pay artists two or three times more than they're getting now just by cutting out the middleman. But that's probably not going to happen any time soon. The middlemen are big, and they do fill a role even if they do so inefficiently and greedily.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
An artist who has a million-selling album is lucky to make $20,000 off of it with the standard contract, when all's said and done. Those artists that don't manage a million-seller, which is to say almost all of them, are lucky to be able to make a living doing what they're doing. All of the ones who do manage do so by touring constantly, selling merchandise, and selling CDs at live shows, where they get a much bigger cut. (Even there, the majors include as part of their contract a clause that requires artists to buy tour CDs at special, higher prices so that the cut isn't that much bigger. Still, $1 a CD is much better than the going rate.)

The labels are currently getting 65 cents per song from Apple. Almost none of that is going to the artist. You could sell songs for 25 cents each and still pay artists two or three times more than they're getting now just by cutting out the middleman. But that's probably not going to happen any time soon. The middlemen are big, and they do fill a role even if they do so inefficiently and greedily.

I knew I'd touch a nerve here, but really I was just trying to be brief by lumping the artists in with the labels. I'm all for cutting out the labels and giving the lionshare to the artist.

Ultimately, I think the copyright thing is out of control for all artists. When copyright was started it was 14 yrs with a possible 14 yr extension. Now it's, what? 200 yrs. I just don't think any of Britney Spears works deserve such protection. Given that the market for all art has so drastically increased since the inception of copyright the protections should have if anything decreased.

I don't think we would see any decline in the amount or quality of art if we broadened fair use rights and reduced the term of protection to as little as 3 years.

Edit-

Regarding keeping honest people honest. I don't think the guy wanting to play his music in his mp3 car deck is being dishonest. Also, an argument can be made that music trading is in some respects a very righteous technical antidote to a corrupt political system's disregard for the public's will in pandering to big money special interests.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I knew I'd touch a nerve here, but really I was just trying to be brief by lumping the artists in with the labels. I'm all for cutting out the labels and giving the lionshare to the artist.

Ultimately, I think the copyright thing is out of control for all artists.

You're conflating artists and publishers again. Stop that.

Copyright protects publishers. That's what its original intention was, and that's what the current implementation increasingly does. It's only been enlightened enough to serve the publicl interest briefly, and we're entering the other side of that era.

You can rest assured that if copyright is being used to screw consumers, it's also being used to screw artists. At the dawn of copyright, publishers pushed hard for a lifelong, inherent copyright, and they trotted out the image of a creator earning a living from his work. But here's the trick: If a creator has a lifelong copyright, and she wants to be published, she has to sign a contract with a publisher. Guess what the terms are: Transfer of copyright. So the artist had the choice of a lifelong copyright that earned nothing, or giving the publisher a lifelong copyright that earned the artist whatever the publisher deigned, and the publisher a lifetime of income. That was the real ruse, and it's the ruse behind every subsequent move to extend the reach and duration of copyright. It's never about the artists, although publishers will never fail to trot out an image of a poor, starving artist when their motives are questioned.

I'm 100% in agreement that a shorter copyright would spure creativity (and I'd abolish the idea of derivative works while I was at it). But the reason it would so is by shutting off guaranteed revenue streams after a period of time, and that's anti-business, so we can't have that! And if the Constitution is trampled and the culture impoverished, so what? What matters, of course, is that vested interests have steady and guaranteed revenue streams.

Quote:
Regarding keeping honest people honest. I don't think the guy wanting to play his music in his mp3 car deck is being dishonest. Also, an argument can be made that music trading is in some respects a very righteous technical antidote to a corrupt political system's disregard for the public's will in pandering to big money special interests.

Absolutely. But since copyright law is going the other way, Apple is having to make more pragmatic arrangements. They had to make some compromises with the RIAA to get even this far. We can hope, and push, for legislation that restores some sanity to IP law, but in the meantime this service has the real potential to show corporate America that the old, trusting way really is better. It's not ideal, but it's a step in the right direction, and a big step away from the worst-case appeasement strategies of Microsoft and Real Networks.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul
care to elaborate? you seem to be contradicting yourself, but I think I am just misunderstanding you... Do you agree that Apple should allow you to download the songs again?

Heh, what i was trying to say.., if you have a dvd or whatever back-up of your purchased music, i'm sure there is a way to restore it to a new computer. But you have to do your own backups.

I can't stand people complaining about everything...
(i'm not saying that you are)

We are looking at something new, give it time to mature, and see how it goes.
RIAA will always push some kind of copy protection on anyone trying to distribute music on-line. But IMO apple has a good thing going, personally i really don't care about 10 times playlist->CD limit. i always burn one cd, maybe 2.
And aac fits me perfectly, at the same filesize i got better quality, i will use the service when it becomes avail. in Canada (hope it will be soon). But then again i really don't steal music, other than honestly believing i'm screwing artists by doing that, it's pain in the ass :-), to find it, download it, just to find out that quality sucks :-)

To me, $.99 is worth it. If it will get cheaper, great!.
Like i said, Apple really has a good thing going there, let's support it.

have fun
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
You're conflating artists and publishers again. Stop that.

Copyright protects publishers. That's what its original intention was, and that's what the current implementation increasingly does. It's only been enlightened enough to serve the publicl interest briefly, and we're entering the other side of that era....
...
But since copyright law is going the other way, Apple is having to make more pragmatic arrangements. They had to make some compromises with the RIAA to get even this far. We can hope, and push, for legislation that restores some sanity to IP law, but in the meantime this service has the real potential to show corporate America that the old, trusting way really is better. It's not ideal, but it's a step in the right direction, and a big step away from the worst-case appeasement strategies of Microsoft and Real Networks.

Well said, Amorph. I think we are largely in agreement. The few exceptions of spoiled, self-righteous pop stars I could bother to point out (Madonna, etc) would detract from the truely evil copyright cartels, so I won't labor the point. Suffice it to say that I am confident that Jobs is just doing the necessary things to get this to work right now, knowing full well that things must change substantially more.

I hope it works for Apple's sake, but I still invest my confidence in the power of technology to free us against the efforts of the powers that be to use it to enslave us. With that dramatic note I'm now going to invade the deathstar.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #70 of 74
Quote:
but I still invest my confidence in the power of technology to free us against the efforts of the powers that be to use it to enslave us.

$20000 to the right politician can make all your technology illegal. DMCA and state super-DMCAs pretty much make you a defacto criminal anyway. You can't beat policy with technology.

So, if they're going to assume that I'm a criminal i might as well start behaving like one.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by torifile
np, tonton.

The only reason I would go through an audio cd would be if I wasn't allowed to make an mp3 directly from the .aac file. I'm an audible.com user and you can't convert audible files to mp3s and I'm thinking that Apple took a page from their book for this one. I guess I overreacted to the speculation from the Forbes quote earlier. I will just try it out and see. As pesi said, it is only $.99.

Why don't you rip one of your own CDs to .aac and convert to mp3 (either direct if iTunes lets you or via an iTunes burnt Audio CD) and do a comparison yourself.

Personally I won't be buying many tracks from the store - the economics just aren't right for a 14 track CD I can buy 14 compressed tracks @ 99c or buy the full audio quality CD for around $14. I'd pay a premium and buy the CD everytime and cut my own .AACs.

That said I'd love to know how they will charge for an album like Amarok 1x45min track....

Cheers
Owen
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Owen
Personally I won't be buying many tracks from the store - the economics just aren't right for a 14 track CD I can buy 14 compressed tracks @ 99c or buy the full audio quality CD for around $14. I'd pay a premium and buy the CD everytime and cut my own .AACs.

That said I'd love to know how they will charge for an album like Amarok 1x45min track....

Cheers
Owen

um... have you not been paying attention at all?

you can download most full albums for $9.99.
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by pesi
um... have you not been paying attention at all?

you can download most full albums for $9.99.

No I haven't been paying attention - so you and Apple are saying that you can download a whole album for $9.99?

Fair enough but it's still not at full cd quality....
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally posted by Owen
No I haven't been paying attention - so you and Apple are saying that you can download a whole album for $9.99?

Fair enough but it's still not at full cd quality....

I think the point is that the quality is fine for most people.

After all, this is designed tempt the people who used to download songs in MP3 format. So Apple isn't saying that it's replacing conventional stores. Just that it wants to provide a way for people who want good quality downloads (compared to what they can get online) easily at a fair price.

If you want full perfect CD quality then you aren't Apples target audience. Me, I'll be buying CDs stiill as I'm in the UK. But when/if it comes to britain, I'll use it for stuff I don't mind the minor sound degredation on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Can I burn a CD of "bought" music?