Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store - Page 3

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

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

Originally Posted by Truntru

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by csdg

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.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

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.

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

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

Originally Posted by Akac

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)?

Originally Posted by Akac

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)?

Originally Posted by Halvri

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

Originally Posted by Halvri

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.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

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

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

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?

Originally Posted by mark2005

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?

Originally Posted by dmon

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.

Originally Posted by dmon

Importantly, albums are still $9.99

Originally Posted by MJ Web

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.

Originally Posted by mark2005

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?

Originally Posted by Truntru

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.

Originally Posted by GMHut

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

Originally Posted by gabriel_bl

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.

Originally Posted by themoonisdown09

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.

Originally Posted by dreyfus2

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.

Originally Posted by Porchland

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.

Originally Posted by cassnate6259

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.

Originally Posted by cassnate6259

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MJ Web

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.

Originally Posted by John.B

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?

Originally Posted by GTL215

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.

Originally Posted by GMHut

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.

Originally Posted by csdg

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.

Originally Posted by csdg

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.

Originally Posted by ulfoaf

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.

Originally Posted by GordonComstock

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.

Originally Posted by minderbinder

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.

Originally Posted by SmilinGoat

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