I saw this on CNET ... sorry if it's already been posted here. Weird that it is time limited so drastically or is this BS?
"The digital content is exclusive to iTunes, a representative of The Beatles' record company, EMI, told CNET. The exact length of that deal is unknown, but it will expire some time next year."
I think what they're saying is limited isn't The Beatles being on iTunes, its the electronic files being exclusive to iTunes that's limited. ie you can't go to the Amazon mp3 store and buy The Beatles stuff.
Have you considered ripping as ALAC or FLAC as backup files? Drive space is cheap and having a lossless copy is the best option for backing up. Of course, if you plan to also keep your CDs, that makes keeping such a copy less important.
Believe me, I have thought of it. I recently moved to a new house and boxes 9 though 26 of my CDs are still waiting to be unpacked. BTW, have you ever used the feature in iTunes where it'll convert to 128k on the fly and copy those files to your iDevices? I've seen it but haven't tried it yet. Just curious. Perhaps I'll give it a shot this weekend.
That's not what I was saying. I obviously realize the iTMS is highly successful. I was just pointing out that the CD box set represents a compelling alternative in this particular instance.
But when ISN'T that true? If you're willing to go to the store, grab up a CD, come home, rip it, organize it, etc.; you can say that about anything.
OTOH, that seems like it is missing the point of iTMS.
Having The Beatles on Itunes is truly about everyone involved agreeing that Itunes is a major souce of music (of course we all new hat already) . Its more monumental showing Itunes as a structure that will survive going forward.
It's also about showint the Newspaper, Publication Industry and TV broadcasters that Itunes is a source that even The best Artists have adopted for their distribution.
BTW, have you ever used the feature in iTunes where it'll convert to 128k on the fly and copy those files to your iDevices? I've seen it but haven't tried it yet. Just curious. Perhaps I'll give it a shot this weekend.
It's nice, but it takes FOREVER, I did it once with my iPod and it took like 36 hours. It was an 80 gb iPod, but still.
Depends on your satisfied with files that are half the quality of a CD.
Have you ever blind tested yourself against 256 kbps AAC and a CD? I've NEVER seen anybody pass that and I work in studios. I know a guy who can hear the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries in his distortion pedal, but can't hear the difference in 256 kbps and CD.
Have you ever blind tested yourself against 256 kbps AAC and a CD? I've NEVER seen anybody pass that and I work in studios. I know a guy who can hear the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries in his distortion pedal, but can't hear the difference in 256 kbps and CD.
And certainly if there are people who can, they represent what percentage of the population?
With headphones on, I can't tell the difference. In my car with an Infinity sound system, I can completely tell the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon
Have you ever blind tested yourself against 256 kbps AAC and a CD? I've NEVER seen anybody pass that and I work in studios. I know a guy who can hear the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries in his distortion pedal, but can't hear the difference in 256 kbps and CD.
The free concert video is worth a watch. It's amazing to see the reactions of people (especially women) to rock and roll back when it was new.
I can't imagine such hysteria to even the biggest stars of today.
I think I agree with your last statement! I have a 14 3/4 year-old granddaughter -- loves music, but wouldn't react as in the past.
But, it (swooning) didn't start with the Beatles in the 1960s.
Rock and Roll started in the 1950s -- Bill Haley and the Comets recorded a song named "Rock around the Clock" that was used in a controversial movie "Blackboard Jungle"
The swooning women go back at least to the 1940's. The accepted male singers (by adults) were the likes of Bing Crosby, Frankie Laine, Vaughn Monroe, etc. The teen age girls of those years were called "Bobby Soxers" and swooned to the rebel Frank Sinatra.
... And through all these decades -- Willie Nelson, just singing' everything!
That is the big announcement? You can buy Beatles on iTunes? I recognize the contribution to music that the Beatles have made, but you have always been able to buy their music. I think the fact that you can now buy it on iTunes really is not worthy of a big announcement.
If we are missing something, when was the last time that Apple was able to introduce a music service to such an wide international audience at the same time?
For example, the USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, etc.
With headphones on, I can't tell the difference. In my car with an Infinity sound system, I can completely tell the difference.
This I don't understand. People complain about Sirius/XM sound quality. I understand on a home system. But in a car? The sound of the car itself I would think would render the argument moot. Most of us don't listen to music in our car when the car isn't running (let alone driving down the road or highway).
How loud do you play your music that you can tell the difference?
Comments
I saw this on CNET ... sorry if it's already been posted here. Weird that it is time limited so drastically or is this BS?
"The digital content is exclusive to iTunes, a representative of The Beatles' record company, EMI, told CNET. The exact length of that deal is unknown, but it will expire some time next year."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20...#ixzz15SxMRfHt
I think what they're saying is limited isn't The Beatles being on iTunes, its the electronic files being exclusive to iTunes that's limited. ie you can't go to the Amazon mp3 store and buy The Beatles stuff.
Have you considered ripping as ALAC or FLAC as backup files? Drive space is cheap and having a lossless copy is the best option for backing up. Of course, if you plan to also keep your CDs, that makes keeping such a copy less important.
Believe me, I have thought of it. I recently moved to a new house and boxes 9 though 26 of my CDs are still waiting to be unpacked. BTW, have you ever used the feature in iTunes where it'll convert to 128k on the fly and copy those files to your iDevices? I've seen it but haven't tried it yet. Just curious. Perhaps I'll give it a shot this weekend.
That's not what I was saying. I obviously realize the iTMS is highly successful. I was just pointing out that the CD box set represents a compelling alternative in this particular instance.
But when ISN'T that true? If you're willing to go to the store, grab up a CD, come home, rip it, organize it, etc.; you can say that about anything.
OTOH, that seems like it is missing the point of iTMS.
It's also about showint the Newspaper, Publication Industry and TV broadcasters that Itunes is a source that even The best Artists have adopted for their distribution.
BEATLES = Yesterday & Today
TV Shows, Magazines. Newspapers = Tomorrow
BTW, have you ever used the feature in iTunes where it'll convert to 128k on the fly and copy those files to your iDevices? I've seen it but haven't tried it yet. Just curious. Perhaps I'll give it a shot this weekend.
It's nice, but it takes FOREVER, I did it once with my iPod and it took like 36 hours. It was an 80 gb iPod, but still.
Best
I'm done with apple. I want live stream. People can buy a cd god bloody fools at
You're done with Apple because they have offered you an option that you don't have to take?
Waited 7 years for this. And yes, I have the music on vinyl, on CD, but having it on iTunes is different. Enjoying the LP version is delightful.
4 days of ripping and organizing or a simple purchase?
saw this in the comments at giz
Depends on your satisfied with files that are half the quality of a CD.
Have you ever blind tested yourself against 256 kbps AAC and a CD? I've NEVER seen anybody pass that and I work in studios. I know a guy who can hear the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries in his distortion pedal, but can't hear the difference in 256 kbps and CD.
Have you ever blind tested yourself against 256 kbps AAC and a CD? I've NEVER seen anybody pass that and I work in studios. I know a guy who can hear the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries in his distortion pedal, but can't hear the difference in 256 kbps and CD.
And certainly if there are people who can, they represent what percentage of the population?
Have you ever blind tested yourself against 256 kbps AAC and a CD? I've NEVER seen anybody pass that and I work in studios. I know a guy who can hear the difference between lithium and alkaline batteries in his distortion pedal, but can't hear the difference in 256 kbps and CD.
The free concert video is worth a watch. It's amazing to see the reactions of people (especially women) to rock and roll back when it was new.
I can't imagine such hysteria to even the biggest stars of today.
I think I agree with your last statement! I have a 14 3/4 year-old granddaughter -- loves music, but wouldn't react as in the past.
But, it (swooning) didn't start with the Beatles in the 1960s.
Rock and Roll started in the 1950s -- Bill Haley and the Comets recorded a song named "Rock around the Clock" that was used in a controversial movie "Blackboard Jungle"
The swooning women go back at least to the 1940's. The accepted male singers (by adults) were the likes of Bing Crosby, Frankie Laine, Vaughn Monroe, etc. The teen age girls of those years were called "Bobby Soxers" and swooned to the rebel Frank Sinatra.
... And through all these decades -- Willie Nelson, just singing' everything!
...Everything Old is New Again.
For example, the USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, etc.
With headphones on, I can't tell the difference. In my car with an Infinity sound system, I can completely tell the difference.
This I don't understand. People complain about Sirius/XM sound quality. I understand on a home system. But in a car? The sound of the car itself I would think would render the argument moot. Most of us don't listen to music in our car when the car isn't running (let alone driving down the road or highway).
How loud do you play your music that you can tell the difference?