or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store - Page 3

post #81 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjoec123 View Post

Just wait until $1.29 becomes $1.49. And then $1.99. It'll happen.

Yes, inflation does that too.
post #82 of 203
ok since some people want to get technical here, let's go really in depth and get some facts.

let me start off by saying, i've been recording for about 10 years now, and i know the insides and outs of the process.

if you want to take the REAL definition of Lossless as a word only, there is not a medium out there that can produce true lossless playback. there are too many variables between the ADACs, the Amplifiers, Speakers, and format being used.

if you are talking about compression formats (which is what we are talking about here)... CDs are Lossless... no ifs ands or buts about it. there are three total recording formats in the industry, 2 are mostly used in movies and a very small number of HD-Audio while the other is the main format for music.
16-bit 44.1kHz is the main format for music, it is what almost all music is recorded in. 24-bit 96kHz/192kHz failed to get any sort of following even with the advent of SACD and DVD-A
24-bit 96kHz is the format for HD movies, which is only available with receivers that support the format.

90% of music is recorded and mastered in 16-bit 44.1kHz, which means it's being transported the CD the exact way it was recorded. now you can try bring up the limited musicians who actually record in 24-bit and then the even smaller number that release 24-bit recordings of their material... but the truth is unless you're sporting a $5000 stereo system (not a surround sound system, a stereo system!) you still probably couldn't tell the different. it takes an especially trained ear and a rediculously high end system to tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit in music recordings and even then the places where you might hear a difference is not the charts Top 100's. it's in classical music and other types of music with extremely subtle neuances.
post #83 of 203
On the other hand, a vast selection of App Store apps are still 99 cents or free and represent a far greater investment of the consumer's time and attention.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 203
I do hear a difference in sound quality between a CD and a lossless file. I have converted my CD collection to the AIFF format which has no compression from the original CD file. An average song in the AIFF format weighs about 50 megs, the lossless equivalent is about half of that. I don´t think that bandwith or hard disk space is the main reason uncompressed songs are not offered through iTunes or other vendors, since today large files (dvds, movies) are being regularly downloaded and hardware real state is getting cheaper. Your point about replacing cds is compelling though, but again record companies are missing the boat "again" since they could sell uncompressed material at premium prices.
post #85 of 203
If only Amazon had even a remotely useful search engine (and not sell songs in MP3 VBR format), I'd buy from them. That's the advantage that Apple still has, Amazon's Web x.0 interface sucks. Amazon also doesn't have a "Complete my album" feature that that's not a dealbreaker for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truntru View Post

Why don't more people use the zune pass? For $15/month (up to 3 zunes and 3 computers) you can download as much temporary music as you would like, and also keep in your collection forever 10 songs. You can't find a better deal anywhere.

So you are the one guy in the whole thread who still wants DRM'ed music? That goes away the day the license service gets shut down? You'd have to be a major league Ballmer fanboi to take that stance. Or be one of the two guys that bought a Zune. LOL!

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #86 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If CD audio isn't compressed then referring to it as lossless is incorrect as lossless and lossy refer to compression types.

Furthermore, ALAC files would increase the file size dramatically over the 256kbps AAC Apple currently uses without adding much additional quality for that size increase, and I'd wager that nearly all of their customers couldn't tell the difference with their ears, experience and equipment.

I know that even with professional equipment I cannot discern any difference between higher bitrate lossy audio from a CD, when compared to a lossless file from that CD and, of course, the CD in question. However, I did rip all my CDs to ALAC a long time ago for the simple reason that having a master backup of the actual audio from the source is a smart move, providing you have the storage space.

Apple switching to lossless would also make the audio unplayable outside any Apple device or software as I don't think anyone else supports Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC). I think there are many issues with other lossless codecs regarding patents, which I think also makes Ogg generally unsupported among the big players.

This is just one of those things that people like to say and would be great in a perfect situation, but where the reality of business makes it not likely to happen. I wouldn't expect Apple to offer this as an option as iTunes++ in the future until the HW in their players gets better -AND- bandwidth to consumers increases -AND- cost of bandwidth lowers drastically -AND- storage space increases more, -AND- Apple opens up ALAC to all -OR- a truly open, legally clean lossless codec emerges. Then there will still be an issue of the source file used. Ripping form a CD would be pointless so the source would have to be from a real master so the differences would be widely discernible, but can you see the music cartel putting the final nail in the CD coffin themselves? Online music sales was kicking butt at 128kbps I can't see them destroying a source of revenue from people who think that CDs are the last holdout of "good quality" music. I think they will try to hold onto that lie as long as possible.

iTunes plays AIFF and WAV files, the same type as found on a CD, just as well as any of the compressed formats. Why not offer those in the store, lose the DRM and force the labels to grow a pair and learn how to run a proper consumer based business? Oh, I know why. People who need immediate gratification and everything for nothing are looking towards lower quality files and/ or stealing.
post #87 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by csdg View Post

256 kbps AAC is a "lossy" compression scheme, only a better one than MP3. If Apple were allowed to do away with DRM ie. iTunes + they could offer the same quality download found on a store bought CD.

Uh, they have done away with DRM. iTunes Plus which is pretty good but it is lossy and does not match a CD.
post #88 of 203
I'll also be interested to see what effect this has on the >10 minute songs being Album-Only, and if the number of partial albums will finally decrease.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #89 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos View Post

I do hear a difference in sound quality between a CD and a lossless file. I have converted my CD collection to the AIFF format which has no compression from the original CD file. An average song in the AIFF format weighs about 50 megs, the lossless equivalent is about half of that. I don´t think that bandwith or hard disk space is the main reason uncompressed songs are not offered through iTunes or other vendors, since today large files (dvds, movies) are being regularly downloaded and hardware real state is getting cheaper. Your point about replacing cds is compelling though, but again record companies are missing the boat "again" since they could sell uncompressed material at premium prices.

As far as I know, there is no piracy protection available within AIFF or WAV formats. This would by why they aren't in the online stores.

The record companies need to learn how to cut costs in a different area to help offset the revenue loss of people copying (stealing) their CDs. It's the whole reason they fought consumer tape recorders in the LP days and consumer DAT in the CD days. They are slow to adapt and are forcing the consumer to pay more for less.
post #90 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Uh, they have done away with DRM. iTunes Plus which is pretty good but it is lossy and does not match a CD.

You are right. I should have said that iTunes could offer AIFF and WAV formats in the store. Maybe they could borrow some storage from Google.
post #91 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akac View Post

You just pointed it out. The fact that it was downsampled means CDs have a loss of quality compared to the master. Apple Lossless format would give you the original master quality. So the question is - why are you asking for lossless format (Apple Lossless) when you don't get it now (CD)?

That is incorrect. Apple lossless is not made from an original high-bitrate master. It is made from the CD-bitrate master with lossless compression applied.

Apple lossless is like a .ZIPped CD. The data is identical, the container is different. The compression doesn't alter the sound data as it is decompressed.

MP3s and AACs actually contain simplified sound data as well as a different container file. The simplification is how the compression is applied to these formats.

So, we get exactly the same sound data from a CD and Apple Lossless. Neither of which are the same as the studio master recording. We get simplified data due to lossy compression in MP3 & AAC. If you are into going the extra mile for the highest quality file, SACDs and DVD Audio discs can contain the full bitrate of the studio master, however those file formats are on serious lockdown and most consumer audio software isn't designed to manage them.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #92 of 203
One thing we all must do is not buy the $1.29 songs at iTunes. Once those songs start disappearing from the bestseller lists, the labels will start to get the message.

It's also arguable that one should not buy those songs at Amazon either, even if its $.99, because it will lead to the demise of the dominance of the iTunes Store. Once no store is in control and able to be a bulwark against the labels, the labels will be in control and will eventually hike the prices across all stores. (Now if you don't trust Apple either, then go ahead and buy from Amazon.)

What I'd really like to know is how much the labels are charging Apple for the $1.29 song, and how much they're charging Amazon. Is Amazon getting a price discount from the labels, or are they a more efficient store, or are they just eating some expenses?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #93 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akac View Post

You just pointed it out. The fact that it was downsampled means CDs have a loss of quality compared to the master. Apple Lossless format would give you the original master quality. So the question is - why are you asking for lossless format (Apple Lossless) when you don't get it now (CD)?

That's not what the term "lossless" means, it refers to compression. A CD may be at lower resolution than the master, but that's just lower resolution, not "lossy". And while theoretically someone could release a download audio format that's higher than CD, I haven't heard of it happening yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

Agreed, go listen to a DVD-Audio disc and see if you still think CDs are lossless.

Again, CD's ARE lossless, since lossless means not using lossy compression. You're talking about CD's not being at the highest possible resolution - that's true, but they are still uncompressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.

Sorry, but you are still wrong. Audio is NOT compressed for CDs, it is an uncompressed format, so no compression loss. It may be downsampled from higher sample rate or bitrate, but that isn't compression, and that isn't "lossy". He's not "justifying his error", he's right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos View Post

I do hear a difference in sound quality between a CD and a lossless file.

Either you're imagining the difference (which isn't that uncommon, particularly if you're not doing a blind comparison), or there's something wrong with your system. CD and a lossless encode from it are bit for bit identical.
post #94 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I don't know the figures or the details, but this is totally wrong.

AAC is known to be a better sounding, higher quality file than an MP3 file at the same bitrate.

You are claiming here that a lower bitrate MP3 is better quality than a higher bitrate AAC?
That's just crazy talk.

AAC is the format the MP3 consortium slated to replace MP3. Why would it be lower quality than the older format?

There have been several tests, they all show MP3s to be severly worse at 128 kbps (a 128 kbps AAC is said to sound more or less identical to a 160kbps MP3), but the higher the bitrate, the more the two formats become indistinguishable. MP3 has not been "replaced", AAC/MP4 is an additional format and it was promoted for two reasons: 1. Better quality at low bitrates (no longer an issue with Amazon and Apple now both offering > 192 kbps standard) and 2. file size. Actually, the Amazon MP3s are encoded at variable bitrate, with demanding sections of songs going as high as 300 kbps... listening to the AAC and MP3 version side-by-side, the MP3 can even sound better (yes. I tried it). Just, this is not true if using iTunes to encode the MP3s, as the built-in MP3 encoder is abysmal using e.g. the LAME encoder to generate MP3s makes a world of difference.
post #95 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

One thing we all must do is not buy the $1.29 songs at iTunes. Once those songs start disappearing from the bestseller lists, the labels will start to get the message.

It's also arguable that one should not buy those songs at Amazon either, even if its $.99, because it will lead to the demise of the dominance of the iTunes Store. Once no store is in control and able to be a bulwark against the labels, the labels will be in control and will eventually hike the prices across all stores. (Now if you don't trust Apple either, then go ahead and buy from Amazon.)

What I'd really like to know is how much the labels are charging Apple for the $1.29 song, and how much they're charging Amazon. Is Amazon getting a price discount from the labels, or are they a more efficient store, or are they just eating some expenses?

I think Amazon is technically selling a different product in the MP3 than what iTunes is selling. This would allow the labels to sell to them at a different price.
post #96 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmon View Post

I think a lot of people are overreacting here. I did a cursory search of the iTunes Store and it seems that a lot of (if not most) popular tracks are still 99 cents. The certainly the vast majority of ALL of the songs are still 99 cents.

But Apple promised that way more songs would be at 69 than 1.29, which so far looks to be the opposite situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmon View Post

Importantly, albums are still $9.99

Take another look, I see albums at $12.99.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

Amazon's $1.99 daily specials (like Motown Number 1's) sell for $8-$10 on iTunes. I could never figure out for the life of me why anyone would purchase low bit rate DRM protected music for such an exorbitant price on iTune's.

At this point, nothing on iTunes has DRM, and every track is higher quality encoding than what Amazon has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

What I'd really like to know is how much the labels are charging Apple for the $1.29 song, and how much they're charging Amazon. Is Amazon getting a price discount from the labels, or are they a more efficient store, or are they just eating some expenses?

Now that Amazon has started raising prices to $1.29 too, I'd guess in most cases the labels are charging both the same cost.
post #97 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truntru View Post

Why don't more people use the zune pass? For $15/month (up to 3 zunes and 3 computers) you can download as much temporary music as you would like, and also keep in your collection forever 10 songs. You can't find a better deal anywhere.

ahem...

What's a zune?
post #98 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

When Apple went to DRM and 256
...
However, with the price increase and not being to upgrade all the music I bought from Apple to 256 DRM for a reasonable price

That would be NON-DRM, not DRM.
post #99 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabriel_bl View Post

I believe the .99$ was psychologically much smaller price than it really was. I bought some songs just because I liked them and never thought about the price. Yes I noticed the 5$, 10$ invoice, but when I bought the song I didn't care.

Now when I hear some song and I like it, from the same CD I usually buy 2-3 songs that could end up to be nearly 4$. I will question my decision and think if it is not better to buy a whole CD somewhere for 9$ and I will wait and look for a deal. While the time goes by and the radios play the same songs I will hear the song enough time to not want to buy it anymore. But I will like other song that and I will be in the same magic circle.

There will be less spontaneous shoppers. How many shoppers fall into that category, I cannot guess, but I belong to that category. When I start to think about if I need something I will end up changing my decision, as most of the stuff we don't need. And latest songs are one of those things - especially now when you can turn your internet radio on and listen to top 20 songs nonstop.

I absolutely fall into that same category. There is a reason that most things are priced in the .99 or 9.99 or $19.99 manner. It is because as obvious of a trick as it is, it works. the 99 cents price model worked for me and I imagine many others. I will certainly be more conservative in my spending. The days of whimsical buying in the iTunes store are over for me. I think some smaller less known bands may suffer as a result. There will be less $ left over to experiment.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #100 of 203
This is only going to drive formerly legitimate customers back into the arms of pirates. I predict this will backfire and that the labels will either abandon this idiotic idea, or they'll just start suing everyone and their dogs again.
post #101 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by themoonisdown09 View Post

Where are the $0.69 songs?

I don't buy from iTunes anyways. I'd rather buy the physical CD instead. Once iTunes offers all of the songs in a lossless format, I'll reconsider.

I call bullshit on the 69-cent tracks.

Ive gone through three pages in Complete My Album looking randomly at different albums and I havent seen A SINGLE ONE where the tracks are 69 cents including Nirvanas Never Mind, which came out in 1991 as is as catalog as it gets.

Maybe its going to be a gradual conversion.
post #102 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Actually, the Amazon MP3s are encoded at variable bitrate, with demanding sections of songs going as high as 300 kbps... listening to the AAC and MP3 version side-by-side, the MP3 can even sound better (yes. I tried it). Just, this is not true if using iTunes to encode the MP3s, as the built-in MP3 encoder is abysmal using e.g. the LAME encoder to generate MP3s makes a world of difference.

I have VBR MP3s from Amazon that go as low as 130 and 140 kbps. I have others that take as long as 8 seconds to start playing -- using everyday garden-variety MP3 players and iPods. They aren't empty at the beginning (at least not according to Audacity), they just take a while to start playing. So count me as not being sold on the Amazon download quality.

On a related note: Whatever happened to the LAME encoder for iTunes? Did they finally give up trying to keep up with the iTunes versions or what?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #103 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

I call bullshit on the 69-cent tracks.

Ive gone through three pages in Complete My Album looking randomly at different albums and I havent seen A SINGLE ONE where the tracks are 69 cents including Nirvanas Never Mind, which came out in 1991 as is as catalog as it gets.

Maybe its going to be a gradual conversion.

They are there, just in miniscule numbers. Looks like a handful of artists have ONE track each at 69 just so Apple can say they exist.

At this point, there's no question that Apple's promise of ten at 69 for every one at 1.29 is completely bogus so far. If that's what the labels promised Apple, they should have gotten a commitment on it before taking the deal.
post #104 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassnate6259 View Post

The term "lossless" seems to complicate matters. I think that a better approach may be to compare "compressed" vs "uncompressed".

For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with.
Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD. This is a somewhat different process from "compressing" a file to put it in a smaller format more suitable for sharing (MP3, AAC, etc).

To make a long story short, a CD is an uncompressed PCM (pulse code modulation) format, even though it may be converted from the original format, either to a lower bitrate or sample rate. Since there is not a compression algorithm introduced, it is not considered a compressed format.

That being said, we live in a world where the convenience of compressed audio is overwhelming the need for ultra high-fidelity audio.

Also take this into consideration: The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.

It is ironic to me that many of us carry around iPods with $10 earbuds and worry about whether our music is in 192 or 256k compression.

Good to see someone with some background on this. I've done just a bit of recording with pro gear several years ago. I do, however, run into a similar issue everyday in my actual job as a graphic artist. Perhaps some of the more visual thinkers might get it better this way, since I feel there are a lot of parallels between music engineering and photo manipulation:

RAW photo file = Music Studio Master = Best possible quality

.PSD or .TIFF files = AIFF, WAV or Apple Lossless = best quality for distribution, interchangeable

.JPEG = MP3 or AAC = 'convienent' file sizes, quality is variable and optimized for specific purposes

For many editing reasons it is best to work with high-resolution images in both mediums, and as an image or sound file is prepared for distribution it becomes more acceptable to dial back the resolution. Editing can emphasize lack of fidelity, but once editing is complete, ultra-high fidelity is no longer necessary.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #105 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassnate6259 View Post

For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with. Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD.

Um.... your not converting the sample rate; you're reducing the bit depth from 24 to 16 (and I hope you're dithering while you're at it).

Quote:
The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.

Type of music has a lot to do with discerning the quality of MP3 or AAC compression versus an uncompressed master. Cymbals generally sound like $h!t on pop & rock records; squashed into mere bursts of noise. A delicate ride cymbal on a modern jazz release OTOH can reveal weaknesses in a codec rather easily. Isolated transients can be tricky as well. If you put MP3 files through a frequency analyzer (Waves PAZ will work) you can easily see the HF rolloffs created by various MP3 rates AND you can hear them on a decent set of speakers that get out to 16k or better in their response.

Listen to YouTube with a good pair of full sized, cup around the ear, headphones. A lot will be revealed. On another note: I've rented cars with satellite radio and can't believe how bad that sounds. Lower bit rate compression is the bane of good audio.

gc
post #106 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

Amazon's $1.99 daily specials (like Motown Number 1's) sell for $8-$10 on iTunes. I could never figure out for the life of me why anyone would purchase low bit rate DRM protected music for such an exorbitant price on iTune's.

wait till if/when amazon gains some market share and the labels no longer need them to fight apple. They'll force amazon to raise prices just like apple. Amazon is merely a puppet for the labels to use as a tool to fight apple's dominance.
post #107 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

I have VBR MP3s from Amazon that go as low as 130 and 140 kbps. I have others that take as long as 8 seconds to start playing -- using everyday garden-variety MP3 players and iPods. They aren't empty at the beginning (at least not according to Audacity), they just take a while to start playing. So count me as not being sold on the Amazon download quality.

On a related note: Whatever happened to the LAME encoder for iTunes? Did they finally give up trying to keep up with the iTunes versions or what?

Hm, I have not bought a lot from Amazon (as iTunes is more comfortable), but I did buy the same record (Goodnight Oslo by Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus 3 to be precise) from both shops, just for doing the comparison. I compared tracks using all kinds of constellations (from using the iPhone with stock earbuds and Etymotic ER-4Ps to my high end pre-amp and my Stax headphones)... there was no difference worth talking about. They both sounded clearly worse than the CD though...

I think Blacktree has not been updating anything (except for the Google Quick Search Box thing) lately...
post #108 of 203
post #109 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post

wait till if/when amazon gains some market share and the labels no longer need them to fight apple. They'll force amazon to raise prices just like apple. Amazon is merely a puppet for the labels to use as a tool to fight apple's dominance.

We're headed that way already since Amazon has ALREADY started to increase prices to 1.29.
post #110 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

For all intents and purposes, CDs are loss-less. I know, I know, some audiophiles will claim they can hear EVERYTHING on the original recording. In reality, the human ear won't perceive the amount of data "lost" due to digitalization. Most (if any) won't hear the difference between 256 and anything above. Anyone who thinks they can is either the first human/canine hybrid or has delusions of grandeur.

And of course there are the folks that say CDs are not as good as vinyl. I can live with out the hiss and pops just fine. Someone could have better ears than mine, but I don't believe there are so many with superhuman hearing out there, either.
post #111 of 203
It seems that the higher pricing is completely arbitrary, especially when viewing the top 100. Roughly 1/5 of them are at the $1.29 price. Personally speaking, some songs that I expected to jump to $1.29 stayed at $.99, while other songs that I expected to stay at $.99 received the price hike. With tiered pricing there will come confusion and frustration. Consumers are now more likely to ask themselves, "Why is #100 on the chart priced at $1.29, but #4 is $.99? Why is a single by Lady GaGa offered at $1.29, but a single by The Fray being sold at $.99, and both are in the top 10?" Both questions are true scenarios, as of this being posted. Truth is, consumers judge a song's worth based on their own taste in music. At a flat price tier, all consumers can acquire what they want equally. What we have now is the Major Labels telling us what they feel the worth of a song is, what price we should pay, and punishing us with (arbitrary) higher prices. Furthermore, for price conscious consumers, how are they supposed to know the duration of time that a song will be sold at $1.29? Are they supposed to wait around indefinitely for it to be lowered to $.99? If the duration of time is not known, I forsee people becoming miffed at the mere thought of paying $1.29 for a song only to possibly have its price lowered to $.99 the next week. Sure, $.30 isn't much in and of its own right, but it adds up over the long haul. I'm surprised Apple did not work out a deal/system whereby, say, the top 15 or 20 songs within the top 100 would be automatically adjusted to $1.29 (heck, they could make them $2 for all I care), with the lower 75 being priced at $.99. That would seem a more logical method based on newness/popularity rather than by what seems to be a completely arbitrary and indefinite way of pricing. That makes me uneasy, and I suspect it will make others as well.


My $.02
post #112 of 203
Glad I hate the popular stuff. Haven't seen a song yet I'd want to buy that went up in price.

Seems to me this greed grab by the big companies will do nothing other than drive the market towards illegal downloads. This segmentation won't make sense to most consumers, who will view it as an attempt to rip them off. They will respond by ripping off the companies and artists. Everyone loses.
post #113 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by csdg View Post

iTunes plays AIFF and WAV files, the same type as found on a CD, just as well as any of the compressed formats. Why not offer those in the store, lose the DRM and force the labels to grow a pair and learn how to run a proper consumer based business? Oh, I know why. People who need immediate gratification and everything for nothing are looking towards lower quality files and/ or stealing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csdg View Post

As far as I know, there is no piracy protection available within AIFF or WAV formats. This would by why they aren't in the online stores.

The record companies need to learn how to cut costs in a different area to help offset the revenue loss of people copying (stealing) their CDs. It's the whole reason they fought consumer tape recorders in the LP days and consumer DAT in the CD days. They are slow to adapt and are forcing the consumer to pay more for less.

You seriously have no idea why an online store that sells DRM-free audio would choose a compressed file that is 5MB over a file that 50MB and sounds the same to most people on most players? You really don't understand how using 10x the bandwidth is more costly to the online retailer so they will have to charge more to turn the same profit? Some days I'm just amazed!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #114 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfoaf View Post

And of course there are the folks that say CDs are not as good as vinyl. I can live with out the hiss and pops just fine. Someone could have better ears than mine, but I don't believe there are so many with superhuman hearing out there, either.

I went for many, many years without listening to any vinyl and then one day had to get out a turntable for a client. After they left I put a few LPs on. You'd hear it. It would surprise you. I put the turntable away and have not listened to an LP for a very long time. Most CDs these days sound appalling bad on a good studio system. Mastering has become a destructive process. Part of what makes vinyl so appealing is the dynamic range compared to CDs. I don't mean signal to noise, I mean the greater dynamic range of the music; transients that are transients instead of over squashed mush.

gc
post #115 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonComstock View Post

I went for many, many years without listening to any vinyl and then one day had to get out a turntable for a client. After they left I put a few LPs on. You'd hear it. It would surprise you. I put the turntable away and have not listened to an LP for a very long time. Most CDs these days sound appalling bad on a good studio system. Mastering has become a destructive process. Part of what makes vinyl so appealing is the dynamic range compared to CDs. I don't mean signal to noise, I mean the greater dynamic range of the music; transients that are transients instead of over squashed mush.

I agree with you about most mastering and over-compression these days. But that is a creative choice on the part of those doing the mastering, not something inherent to the CD format.
post #116 of 203
Did Apple get kiss after being in bed with the record labels? Or were they left crying wondering why they let them get victimized.

I did a search of old songs too and have not found a single 69 cent song... I was sorta looking forward to the different prices, I held off on buying some music hoping for cheaper prices.. Looks like thats not happening.

Wow, what a ripoff
post #117 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

I agree with you about most mastering and over-compression these days. But that is a creative choice on the part of those doing the mastering, not something inherent to the CD format.

It is not a creative choice. It's about the psychoacoustic effect of things that are louder being perceived as better. It's also about record industry people not wanting to adjust the volume when listening to a collection of music from different sources. It's about radio stations getting compilation discs/previews and wanting your music to stand out by being louder. This has been discussed many times in professional settings by the industry's top mastering engineers. It's also been demonstrated that highly compressed/limited music sounds WORSE after passing through radio station processing (multi-band compression, phase flipping, limiting, etc.) than music that is less compressed/limited. The godfather of on-air processing, Mr. Orban has written about this and it's available online. Some FM pop stations simply sound horrid in their efforts to be the loudest station on the air --we're back to the psychoacoustic effect we started with.

It's rather inherent to digital formats because they can be pushed to a clearly defined limit: 0 dBFS.

gc
post #118 of 203
Catalog CD titles sell for $4.99 - $8.99 on Amazon, yet the greedy record companies insist that we pay $9.99 for lower-quality digital files?
post #119 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

this is why i'll be using Amazon.com from here on out.

Not me. I will not pay money for music encoded in the legacy mp3 format.
post #120 of 203
Did a quick comparison...

The Black Eyed Peas' song, "Boom Boom Pow" is $1.29 on iTunes, and still $.99 on Amazon.

Where do you think people are going to go for music from now on?... AND, at this point the labels are cannibalizing their own profits with the variable pricing in effect on iTunes. What a bunch of mindless strategizing.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store