Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store

1235711

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 202
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 82 of 202
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 83 of 202
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 84 of 202
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    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!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 85 of 202
    csdgcsdg Posts: 11member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 86 of 202
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 87 of 202
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 88 of 202
    csdgcsdg Posts: 11member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 89 of 202
    csdgcsdg Posts: 11member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 90 of 202
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,080member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 91 of 202
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 92 of 202
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 93 of 202
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 94 of 202
    csdgcsdg Posts: 11member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 95 of 202
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 96 of 202
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 97 of 202
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 98 of 202
    technotechno Posts: 737member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 99 of 202
    aduzikaduzik Posts: 94member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 100 of 202
    porchlandporchland Posts: 478member
    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.



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



    Maybe it?s going to be a gradual conversion.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.