While we're here, wouldone "type" of recording sound better than another, and would one codec do a better job at compressing one over the other? It's a dumb question, but I mean I've heard some poor rock and some good "acoustic"-ish (not really acoustic), and I'm wondering if one is more suited to the AAC compression they used. Shows my ignorance, but I had to ask.
These reviews are never as bad as they sound at first, but they of course sort of damn Apple with faint praise too.
Then again, I'm not planning on ditching Cds for the stuff I really want in high-quality sound. I doubt that twise the bitrate would have changed my mind on the issue. I'm basically buying singles that weren't worth a whole album, a bunch of back catalog stuff, some stuff I had on tape but weren't worth the CD upgrade, or the stuff I would never buy in public anyway. So my standards are a bit lower. I think I mentioned this idea before, but it would be nice if you could choose a preset quality in preferences sort of like QT movies.
I do think though that this is as much a request/demand of the big 5 so that it wouldn't directly compete with CD sales, to help temper piracy to some degree, and to test to see what the market will allow. Just a gut feeling becuase everywhere else, Apple likes to assume that all users have broadband.
I don't get the "it costs the same as the real CD thing." Considering most CDs now have 10 tracks and often include one segue/interlude in there and cost $15-18 US, I'd say that the downloaded albums are cheaper. Most of what I listen to has a low intro price then their price goes up after a few weeks. Except for some "super-saver" (i.e., they printed way too many) CDs at Sam Goody's (typical music chain), most are well over the $10 or $14 pirce I see at the iTunes Store.