If you follow my post you will see that that was my point. The record labels gave Amazon an advantage just to force Apple into accepting their terms regarding DRM free music. Now they don't need Amazon anymore and can force them into accepting new terms and pricing.
I haven't read every post, but if that's what you said, than I say, "preach it brotha (or sista). Can I get an "Amen!"
Well, guess what? it already started. To be fair, I expected Amazon to raise the price within a year not today!!
Not just Amazon, Walmart's music store started their variable pricing with slightly better prices ranging from 64¢ to $1.24. To me, the most surprising part of all this is that Walmart still has an online music store. I thought that ended long ago.
Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.
I haven't found anything yet for $0.69 ... This reminds me of when you deal with a bank - takes you no time at all to take money out of the account, but when money gets credited back or deposited, it takes 5 - 10 business days. Took no time at all to roll out all of the $1.29 tracks, but shit, those $0.69 tracks will just have to wait awhile.
It should be a crime to charge $1.29 PER TRACK on a band's new album that has been irrelevant to music for nearly a decade ... yes, I'm looking at you, U2... I guess what they meant by "lowering the price of older tracks" meant they just wouldn't raise really old, popular songs by 30%. Thank you record labels - I bow in appreciation of your benevolence.
Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
I've had many people come over who were complete skeptics, only to leave complete believers.
Mind you, this is on an audiophile system:
Paradigm Studio 100's V.3 speakers
Bi-wired with 14/16 gauge Ultralink cables
Marantz CD player with SACD Grade Cirrus Logic CS4392 DAC
Yamaha high current HTR 5760 receiver
Airport express and gold plated connections on everything
And most importantly... walls covered with sound panels.
This is a low/mid range system as far as audiophile systems go. Sub $6000.
On a system this precise thou, nuances become mountains. And of the 15 - 20 people that have come and auditioned the system expecting to hear minute detail changes, were completely blown away from the first 5 seconds of listening. Literally, it's like taking off earmuffs.
I also have a $350 JVC micro system with exceptional sound. The difference between 320 AAC and CD is, well... nothing.
This whole argument is ridiculous. It's no different then someone with a standard TV watching a VHS cassette, looking at an HD 1080p Plasma playing a blue-ray movie and saying... "I don't see any difference... the human eye can only see so many colors, HD is a placebo".
The only difference I guess is that it's tougher to do a 'blind' comparison of TV resolution.
Dude... so your play your CD's on a high-end SACD-player with a super DAC, and then compare that to an MP3 you stream through your AirPort Express??? Correct me if I'm worng, but the Airport expres decodes the recieved binary data and then puts that analog signal on its line-out, which you then plug into your amp. Youexpect the DAC of your AirPort Express to be of the same level as your Marantz?
The only fair comparison would be if your CD player supported MP3 files, then the only true variable would be the file itself.
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).
My mistake... I said that backwards. You're absolutely right, my sample rate remains 44.1k so there is not conversion necessary there. As you say, I am converting bit depth.
Quote:
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.
I completely agree that youtube compression and some digital radio does sound rotten. Although, I still find iTunes Plus (256 kbps AAC) to be a very good compression format in terms of maintaining sonic fidelity while reducing its file size. IMO, it's the best size/quality ratio that Apple could've chosen.
Maybe I should revisit the idea. Trying new music with "an option to own" is a good idea. If they would allow you to choose any 10 songs OR any album, that would be better (maybe with a discount for any songs over 10 on an album if an album has more than 10 songs?think "best of").
One of the challenges I have, not being a teen ager with access to a world of like-minded people to learn about new music, is discovering new music that isn't the flash in the pan pop crap on the radio. I've found people as varied as Bon Iver to Rob Zombie that fit with music that I want to to keep.
However, I am tied to the Apple model (OS, computer, ipod, stereo equipment car and home that's compatible) unless itunes has a less artist specific plan for a "seasonal pass" then the one they're experimenting with now (as I understand it) it's doesn't appeal to me and zune has a very hard sell to get me to switch.
You should try out Pandora.com. By putting in an artist or group of artists you like, it automatically picks out other similar music. You can further define what music you're looking for by either giving each song a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' or by adding additional artists or songs to the station.
I just keep track of the songs I like and then download them with the Zune Pass. The zune pass also recommends songs each week based on what you listened to recently but the results aren't as good.
Dude... so your play your CD's on a high-end SACD-player with a super DAC, and then compare that to an MP3 you stream through your AirPort Express??? Correct me if I'm worng, but the Airport expres decodes the recieved binary data and then puts that analog signal on its line-out, which you then plug into your amp. Youexpect the DAC of your AirPort Express to be of the same level as your Marantz?
The only fair comparison would be if your CD player supported MP3 files, then the only true variable would be the file itself.
He could do a great comparison with exactly the equipment he has. RIP a CD into iTunes with no Compression (Apple Lossless or AIFF), then convert a copy into any other formats you are interested in comparing it to. Burn these files to a CD formatted CDR and pop them in the CD player. All the compression artifacts will have been faithfully reproduced in the LOSSLESS CD. He could sit around all day pondering the subtleties of his equipment and how it exposes the nastiness of compression.
Personally, I don't have time for that kind of bullshit. Its springtime and I'd rather take a bikeride or just listen to some music and rock out!
Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.
Yeah, that's why Amazon is where they are today: they prowl random bulletin boards for ideas and immediately turn them into action. I assume you were joking.
Anyway, now 60% of the messages here are irrelevant since the "Curse you Apple, I'm going to Amazon!" option to save 30c was never really an option.
Could someone, at the Q2 2009 financial results conference call, ask them what has happened to this statement from SJ:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"[B]ased on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points -- 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29 -- with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29," said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.
Unfortunately I don't hold any stock in Apple, but it would be interesting to hear their explanation for this statement, that is not reflected by their own iTS.
Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.
You haven't gotten something from the record companies with artwork and real packaging for $1.29 since before I was born, and I'm not that young! I mean, I don't like paying more either, but what exactly do you expect for $1.29? And you do get a picture.
Get a grip, dude. If you really want the packaging, used CDs are the way to go.
$15.00 a month buys 1 CD with 15 tracks (being generous)
This is 9000 songs purchased over 50 years (600 CDs)
This is what you would get buying the music.
$15.00 to rent (and keep 10 a month). This doesn't have to Zune.
UNLIMITED music to listen to as long as you have the HDD space for 50 years.
Also, you get to keep 6000 songs (400 CDs).
Please explain how this is a bad idea? Unless you are overly concerned about willing your CDs to your kids, how is renting music a bad idea? You rent movies and TV via cable.
You are missing the point that the day ZuneStore goes the way of all the other subscriptions services, you have nothing. When Microsoft kills off the ZuneStore like they did PlaysForSure, you have nothing. When you buy a new PMP, you have nothing. Well, not nothing but you did get those 10 or 15 tracks Papa Ballmer gave you for your "allowance". Assuming you wanted what they were peddling...
If you like subscription music, you'll probably love the new Sansa slotRadio, you don't even need to bother downloading the songs, as Sansa and Billboard have convieniently picked your music for you.
99 cent songs on iTunes arrived three years ago, so that would be 10% annually, not 30%. And what makes you think we currently have deflation?
Maybe it depends on the country. The US store opened six years ago this month, so that would be a 5% without figuring in any compounding.
And that's not counting the savings from not having to buy the whole album to buy just the songs you want, which was the model before there were internet media sales. The $1.29 rate for the most popular tracks really isn't a bad price, and I recall iTune's album pricing is still the same. I don't buy much music, so I'm not going to complain about the extra $0.30.
Yeah, I realize a lot of people are hurting lately, but whether the price is $0.99 or $1.29 shouldn't matter much because they probably won't be spending a lot on what is really a luxury rather than necessities such as food and housing.
I don't mind paying more for higher quality music and no DRM. I remember when iTunes Plus first came to the UK and prices were higher. I certainly paid the price then just to make a statement on how I wanted my music.
And when I feel the price is too high? I go onto Spotify and stream tracks for free.
Yes, but still using MP3 @ 256. While Apple is AAC @ 256. From what I understand, AAC is a superior codec to MP3. Is that correct?
AAC is generally superior, but at high bit rates, the difference is pretty small with modern encoders, because MP3 encoders have been improving too. Also, every time I check, iTunes is constant bit rate, for every unit in time, a certain number of bits is used, regardless of whether it's a simple or complex part of the track. Amazon uses variable bit rate, allocating the bits in the part of the track it is most needed. That closes most of the remaining gap.
I should add that I'd go for a Zune Pass-style subscription in an instant if it was available via iTunes. Unlimited music on the go plus 10 tracks for life is a sensational deal.
Comments
If you follow my post you will see that that was my point. The record labels gave Amazon an advantage just to force Apple into accepting their terms regarding DRM free music. Now they don't need Amazon anymore and can force them into accepting new terms and pricing.
I haven't read every post, but if that's what you said, than I say, "preach it brotha (or sista). Can I get an "Amen!"
Well, guess what? it already started. To be fair, I expected Amazon to raise the price within a year not today!!
Not just Amazon, Walmart's music store started their variable pricing with slightly better prices ranging from 64¢ to $1.24. To me, the most surprising part of all this is that Walmart still has an online music store. I thought that ended long ago.
Well, guess what? it already started. To be fair, I expected Amazon to raise the price within a year not today!!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13526_3-10214556-27.html
Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.
It should be a crime to charge $1.29 PER TRACK on a band's new album that has been irrelevant to music for nearly a decade ... yes, I'm looking at you, U2... I guess what they meant by "lowering the price of older tracks" meant they just wouldn't raise really old, popular songs by 30%. Thank you record labels - I bow in appreciation of your benevolence.
Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
I've had many people come over who were complete skeptics, only to leave complete believers.
Mind you, this is on an audiophile system:
Paradigm Studio 100's V.3 speakers
Bi-wired with 14/16 gauge Ultralink cables
Marantz CD player with SACD Grade Cirrus Logic CS4392 DAC
Yamaha high current HTR 5760 receiver
Airport express and gold plated connections on everything
And most importantly... walls covered with sound panels.
This is a low/mid range system as far as audiophile systems go. Sub $6000.
On a system this precise thou, nuances become mountains. And of the 15 - 20 people that have come and auditioned the system expecting to hear minute detail changes, were completely blown away from the first 5 seconds of listening. Literally, it's like taking off earmuffs.
I also have a $350 JVC micro system with exceptional sound. The difference between 320 AAC and CD is, well... nothing.
This whole argument is ridiculous. It's no different then someone with a standard TV watching a VHS cassette, looking at an HD 1080p Plasma playing a blue-ray movie and saying... "I don't see any difference... the human eye can only see so many colors, HD is a placebo".
The only difference I guess is that it's tougher to do a 'blind' comparison of TV resolution.
Dude... so your play your CD's on a high-end SACD-player with a super DAC, and then compare that to an MP3 you stream through your AirPort Express??? Correct me if I'm worng, but the Airport expres decodes the recieved binary data and then puts that analog signal on its line-out, which you then plug into your amp. Youexpect the DAC of your AirPort Express to be of the same level as your Marantz?
The only fair comparison would be if your CD player supported MP3 files, then the only true variable would be the file itself.
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).
My mistake... I said that backwards. You're absolutely right, my sample rate remains 44.1k so there is not conversion necessary there. As you say, I am converting bit depth.
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.
I completely agree that youtube compression and some digital radio does sound rotten. Although, I still find iTunes Plus (256 kbps AAC) to be a very good compression format in terms of maintaining sonic fidelity while reducing its file size. IMO, it's the best size/quality ratio that Apple could've chosen.
Maybe I should revisit the idea. Trying new music with "an option to own" is a good idea. If they would allow you to choose any 10 songs OR any album, that would be better (maybe with a discount for any songs over 10 on an album if an album has more than 10 songs?think "best of").
One of the challenges I have, not being a teen ager with access to a world of like-minded people to learn about new music, is discovering new music that isn't the flash in the pan pop crap on the radio. I've found people as varied as Bon Iver to Rob Zombie that fit with music that I want to to keep.
However, I am tied to the Apple model (OS, computer, ipod, stereo equipment car and home that's compatible) unless itunes has a less artist specific plan for a "seasonal pass" then the one they're experimenting with now (as I understand it) it's doesn't appeal to me and zune has a very hard sell to get me to switch.
You should try out Pandora.com. By putting in an artist or group of artists you like, it automatically picks out other similar music. You can further define what music you're looking for by either giving each song a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' or by adding additional artists or songs to the station.
I just keep track of the songs I like and then download them with the Zune Pass. The zune pass also recommends songs each week based on what you listened to recently but the results aren't as good.
However, Pandora + Zune Pass = Happiness.
this is why i'll be using Amazon.com from here on out.
Amazon's doing the same thing now. WHOOPS!
http://www.electronista.com/articles...raises.prices/
While not as "bad" as iTunes, who knows what'll happen down the line.
Dude... so your play your CD's on a high-end SACD-player with a super DAC, and then compare that to an MP3 you stream through your AirPort Express??? Correct me if I'm worng, but the Airport expres decodes the recieved binary data and then puts that analog signal on its line-out, which you then plug into your amp. Youexpect the DAC of your AirPort Express to be of the same level as your Marantz?
The only fair comparison would be if your CD player supported MP3 files, then the only true variable would be the file itself.
He could do a great comparison with exactly the equipment he has. RIP a CD into iTunes with no Compression (Apple Lossless or AIFF), then convert a copy into any other formats you are interested in comparing it to. Burn these files to a CD formatted CDR and pop them in the CD player. All the compression artifacts will have been faithfully reproduced in the LOSSLESS
Personally, I don't have time for that kind of bullshit. Its springtime and I'd rather take a bikeride or just listen to some music and rock out!
Amazon's doing the same thing now. WHOOPS!
http://www.electronista.com/articles...raises.prices/
While not as "bad" as iTunes, who knows what'll happen down the line.
Yes, but still using MP3 @ 256. While Apple is AAC @ 256. From what I understand, AAC is a superior codec to MP3. Is that correct?
Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.
Yeah, that's why Amazon is where they are today: they prowl random bulletin boards for ideas and immediately turn them into action. I assume you were joking.
Anyway, now 60% of the messages here are irrelevant since the "Curse you Apple, I'm going to Amazon!" option to save 30c was never really an option.
"[B]ased on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points -- 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29 -- with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29," said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.
Unfortunately I don't hold any stock in Apple, but it would be interesting to hear their explanation for this statement, that is not reflected by their own iTS.
Anyone there on the 22nd?
Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.
You haven't gotten something from the record companies with artwork and real packaging for $1.29 since before I was born, and I'm not that young! I mean, I don't like paying more either, but what exactly do you expect for $1.29? And you do get a picture.
Get a grip, dude. If you really want the packaging, used CDs are the way to go.
Do the math.
$15.00 a month buys 1 CD with 15 tracks (being generous)
This is 9000 songs purchased over 50 years (600 CDs)
This is what you would get buying the music.
$15.00 to rent (and keep 10 a month). This doesn't have to Zune.
UNLIMITED music to listen to as long as you have the HDD space for 50 years.
Also, you get to keep 6000 songs (400 CDs).
Please explain how this is a bad idea? Unless you are overly concerned about willing your CDs to your kids, how is renting music a bad idea? You rent movies and TV via cable.
You are missing the point that the day ZuneStore goes the way of all the other subscriptions services, you have nothing. When Microsoft kills off the ZuneStore like they did PlaysForSure, you have nothing. When you buy a new PMP, you have nothing. Well, not nothing but you did get those 10 or 15 tracks Papa Ballmer gave you for your "allowance". Assuming you wanted what they were peddling...
If you like subscription music, you'll probably love the new Sansa slotRadio, you don't even need to bother downloading the songs, as Sansa and Billboard have convieniently picked your music for you.
99 cent songs on iTunes arrived three years ago, so that would be 10% annually, not 30%. And what makes you think we currently have deflation?
Maybe it depends on the country. The US store opened six years ago this month, so that would be a 5% without figuring in any compounding.
And that's not counting the savings from not having to buy the whole album to buy just the songs you want, which was the model before there were internet media sales. The $1.29 rate for the most popular tracks really isn't a bad price, and I recall iTune's album pricing is still the same. I don't buy much music, so I'm not going to complain about the extra $0.30.
Yeah, I realize a lot of people are hurting lately, but whether the price is $0.99 or $1.29 shouldn't matter much because they probably won't be spending a lot on what is really a luxury rather than necessities such as food and housing.
And when I feel the price is too high? I go onto Spotify and stream tracks for free.
Yes, but still using MP3 @ 256. While Apple is AAC @ 256. From what I understand, AAC is a superior codec to MP3. Is that correct?
AAC is generally superior, but at high bit rates, the difference is pretty small with modern encoders, because MP3 encoders have been improving too. Also, every time I check, iTunes is constant bit rate, for every unit in time, a certain number of bits is used, regardless of whether it's a simple or complex part of the track. Amazon uses variable bit rate, allocating the bits in the part of the track it is most needed. That closes most of the remaining gap.