Hell I dislike most of the Top 20 songs which undoubtedly will be the more expensive songs.
I'm going to make a killing on .69 cent songs that are actually good.
Besides I'm a realist here there are songs I have that I would have spent 3 bucks
on because they are that good. In business it's about "what the product can command" when it comes to pricing. We're lucky the top end is only $1.29. I was thinking it was going to $1.99.
If you honestly believe that the price should be dictated by the number of bits that you're getting, I'll sell you a CD with white noise for $20. Also, it's not the music industry that pushed this, they got dragged into it because they would rather sell you the CD. It's the customers that wanted convenient file media and the ability to select tracks a-la-carte.
You can be dragged into the water but then it is your choice what you do once in it. Obviously the best option is to stand on the heads of those around you so they can make a little drowned mountain for you to survive on. ; p
If it isn't about data then i'll sell you a book with 9 out of 10 pages ripped out for a few bucks cheaper. Or better yet Photohop CS4 with only 1/10 the features for a few dollars less than full price. I'll also make sure you get no manual, not even a digital one. If it isn't about the data then why isn't full uncompressed audio available for the same price online, cause where it is available it ain't 0.99 a song.
It is about the bits. Even your white noise CD if it had 9/10's missing would not be much good, it would be more bleeps than white noise. White noise is rather soothing, you might find a market for it and claim it to be "ocean sounds".
This current trend seems to be an extension of "our" drive for less and less quality. I expect we will all have impressionist media in the next 10 years. Perhaps Jack Black's "Tribute" song is the way of the future. Joke
You can be dragged into the water but then it is your choice what you do once in it. Obviously the best option is to stand on the heads of those around you so they can make a little drowned mountain for you to survive on. ; p
Is that supposed to make sense? That's a silly, illogical metaphor that doesn't even fit the situation. If you don't like the download, you can support the CD medium for as long as it's available. I think people didn't want to be restricted to buying the entire album to get certain songs, and downloading lossless wasn't that practical, and it's still a lot of data to download now.
Quote:
If it isn't about data then i'll sell you a book with 9 out of 10 pages ripped out for a few bucks cheaper. Or better yet Photohop CS4 with only 1/10 the features for a few dollars less than full price. I'll also make sure you get no manual, not even a digital one. If it isn't about the data then why isn't full uncompressed audio available for the same price online, cause where it is available it ain't 0.99 a song.
It is about the bits. Even your white noise CD if it had 9/10's missing would not be much good, it would be more bleeps than white noise. White noise is rather soothing, you might find a market for it and claim it to be "ocean sounds".
That's just silly hyperbole, and an argument that's of little value. It doesn't work that way, because compression technology is there to "fill in the blanks" because it's higher math, not elementary school math. Text on a page isn't like a waveform. A waveform is easy to describe as amplitude and phase, greatly reducing the storage needs to represent the waveform again. Using only 10% of the bits doesn't mean that it's only 10% of the sound quality. If it was actually that way, then the music generally wouldn't be accepted. If it was about bits, then maybe DVD-Audio or SACD would have taken off. You're getting something that replicates the sound better than 99% of the original, but in a much more convenient file size. That's because the math isn't simple addition, subtraction or division as your hyperbole says, but about various forms of higher math such as Fourier Transforms and psycho acoustical modeling.
Comments
I'm going to make a killing on .69 cent songs that are actually good.
Besides I'm a realist here there are songs I have that I would have spent 3 bucks
on because they are that good. In business it's about "what the product can command" when it comes to pricing. We're lucky the top end is only $1.29. I was thinking it was going to $1.99.
256mbps AAC is cool tool.
If you honestly believe that the price should be dictated by the number of bits that you're getting, I'll sell you a CD with white noise for $20. Also, it's not the music industry that pushed this, they got dragged into it because they would rather sell you the CD. It's the customers that wanted convenient file media and the ability to select tracks a-la-carte.
You can be dragged into the water but then it is your choice what you do once in it. Obviously the best option is to stand on the heads of those around you so they can make a little drowned mountain for you to survive on. ; p
If it isn't about data then i'll sell you a book with 9 out of 10 pages ripped out for a few bucks cheaper. Or better yet Photohop CS4 with only 1/10 the features for a few dollars less than full price. I'll also make sure you get no manual, not even a digital one. If it isn't about the data then why isn't full uncompressed audio available for the same price online, cause where it is available it ain't 0.99 a song.
It is about the bits. Even your white noise CD if it had 9/10's missing would not be much good, it would be more bleeps than white noise. White noise is rather soothing, you might find a market for it and claim it to be "ocean sounds".
This current trend seems to be an extension of "our" drive for less and less quality. I expect we will all have impressionist media in the next 10 years. Perhaps Jack Black's "Tribute" song is the way of the future. Joke
You can be dragged into the water but then it is your choice what you do once in it. Obviously the best option is to stand on the heads of those around you so they can make a little drowned mountain for you to survive on. ; p
Is that supposed to make sense? That's a silly, illogical metaphor that doesn't even fit the situation. If you don't like the download, you can support the CD medium for as long as it's available. I think people didn't want to be restricted to buying the entire album to get certain songs, and downloading lossless wasn't that practical, and it's still a lot of data to download now.
If it isn't about data then i'll sell you a book with 9 out of 10 pages ripped out for a few bucks cheaper. Or better yet Photohop CS4 with only 1/10 the features for a few dollars less than full price. I'll also make sure you get no manual, not even a digital one. If it isn't about the data then why isn't full uncompressed audio available for the same price online, cause where it is available it ain't 0.99 a song.
It is about the bits. Even your white noise CD if it had 9/10's missing would not be much good, it would be more bleeps than white noise. White noise is rather soothing, you might find a market for it and claim it to be "ocean sounds".
That's just silly hyperbole, and an argument that's of little value. It doesn't work that way, because compression technology is there to "fill in the blanks" because it's higher math, not elementary school math. Text on a page isn't like a waveform. A waveform is easy to describe as amplitude and phase, greatly reducing the storage needs to represent the waveform again. Using only 10% of the bits doesn't mean that it's only 10% of the sound quality. If it was actually that way, then the music generally wouldn't be accepted. If it was about bits, then maybe DVD-Audio or SACD would have taken off. You're getting something that replicates the sound better than 99% of the original, but in a much more convenient file size. That's because the math isn't simple addition, subtraction or division as your hyperbole says, but about various forms of higher math such as Fourier Transforms and psycho acoustical modeling.