MSNBC review of iTunes Store

I think he based his entire article after downloading just 1 album. We'll I also downloaded the album last night on two different macs and burned them. Then I downloaded 4 different MP3 copies off of limewire, acquisition and bearshare on my pc. Either this guy is smoking something or Apple needs to look into Microsofts tactics. Hands down the AAC copy from the itunes store sounds better then any MP3 version I downloaded played on my mac, pc or MP3 player. After listening to the AAC version and the original CD about 5 times you can tell that the AAC version does seem to tone down some of the ranges, but unless you are really listening and have nothing better to do I would take the Apple copy any day since I don't want to drive 40 minutes fight a crowd and then return home only to need to rip the cuts back into itunes anyway so that I can put them on my ipod. Time is money for me. I just wasted 3 hours of my time that I could be doing something way more productive.
 
Once again folks-see my other thread:
we are witnessing the whole nine yards campaign on every possible level now
M$ against APPLE

As simple as that!
 
I must confess that I have not downloaded any music, so I can't speak from a particular experience. But there is a couple of valid points in the article:
I can make as many legal copies (of the The Wallflowers CD) as I like [...] and those copies all sound great and play on any device[...] I can also rip the songs onto my MP3 players
Fair point - if I buy music (from any source) I should be able to do what I like (legally) with it. I have 2 laptops and a desktop. I RIP my music to MP3 on my G3 which is acts as my storage server, and I copy them to the laptop in use at the time as and when I want to listen to a particular set of music.

Apple will allow you to store the music on up to 3 computers and granted, that is probably enough, but I don't think much of the Orwellian control. If I have 5 houses around the world with a computer in each, I should be able to store the music I have bought on each of those machines in each of those houses as I jet around the world. How do they intend to stop you transferring files around without the process becoming a complete pain in the A? A software key? What happens if you need to back up your hard drive before a drive reformat or upgrade? You back up the files, and not the key, then what - do you have to download again?

He was also saying that the CD he burned would not play in his regular CD players so I don't know what he did, but he obviously did not burn an "audio CD".
 
The guy was right on the money about the quality of the music. I don't care whether you like AAC, MP3, or Ogg Vorbis, none of them match the quality of a CD. I also agree with the author in that why spend $9.99 for the album if you can purchase the CD for almost the same price?

I burned all of my Beatles CD's in AAC at 128. On my ibook. It didn't sound any better than when I burned the albums at 160 in MP3. I wasn't able to compare AAC with Ogg Vorbis although on my Linux box, I have compared MP3 at 160 with Ogg Vorbis at 160 and Ogg Vorbis is far superior. So I burned them again at 192 in AAC and it finally sounded better.

I did go ahead and download Elvis Presley's 30. I then made an audio CD from it. I have to say that the 128 AAC downloads sound better than the 128 AAC I burn myself. But the audio CD sounded somewhat lousy on my home stereo.

AAC might be good enough for the computer or iPod, but it falls way short in comparison with the CD.

Suggestion for Apple:
Offer a real CD of the albums that we can purchase for say $11.99 along with the download version for $9.99
 
Originally posted by jocknerd

AAC might be good enough for the computer or iPod, but it falls way short in comparison with the CD.

Suggestion for Apple:
Offer a real CD of the albums that we can purchase for say $11.99 along with the download version for $9.99

The shipping costs would be outrageous for apple, not to mention the man hours needed to fill such an order. it would be cost prohibitive.

Somebody will always complain about audio quality, regardless of how good (or bad) it sounds. I've seen people that have been completely happy with 64 kbps mp3's that made my ears bleed. To each his own...

The iTunes store was never meant to completely replace record stores. It was to provide easy, legal access to your favorite songs... If it's not your cup of tea, don't use it. Everybody already knew that apple was using 128kbps AAC's. It wasn't a surprise. Most people also know that AAC is still a lossy CODEC. You will have quality loss, regardless of bitrate.
 
Everybody already knew that apple was using 128kbps AAC's. It wasn't a surprise. Most people also know that AAC is still a lossy CODEC. You will have quality loss, regardless of bitrate.
On my TiBook, iTunes rips my CD albums @ 160 to MP3s and I can then mix and burn selected audio tracks to CD to play in my stereo without noticeable loss of quality.

So why have they decided to use a different codec?

I don't think I want to pay for audio that is of a significantly lower quality when for a not significantly greater amount of money, I can buy the CD and rip MP3s at whatever quality I want for the requirement at the time. And I can do it again and again at different qualities.

I stress that I have not downloaded any music from the store and cannot speak from experience of the qualities involved. But then, as a discerning buyer I can hypothesize! :D
 
My favorite part?

"Of course, the service only works on Apple computers right now, leaving more than 90 percent of its potential users out in the cold. And while sales were high in its first week, that?s typical of most Apple products: demand is high at the beginning, then sales taper off rapidly once the built-in Apple audience buys its fill."

Glad to know that 100% of computer users are behind apple all the way. Also glad to know that no one buys G4's anymore :)
 
Originally posted by lonny
Check out this TOTALLY biased review:

www.msnbc.com/news/909907.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

sure it's a MS site.. but please.. get real! :rolleyes:

Its from M$NBC... 'Nuff Said...

About the sound quality that people posting here and even that M$ guy:

Personally, 128 AAC sounds to me like 192 MP3 and above with my Sony 5.1 600 RMS WATT sound system... The above part goes with "it depends" on what kind of music I convert from an original Audio CD... 128 AAC = Audio CD quality?
Not, in my sound system but then again in my country we pay more than 20 euros for Audio CDs (1 CD albums) and if ever Apple will make available the iTunes Music Store I will download LOADS of music... I will trade a bit of quality for LOADS of money :D

Still, $.99 128 AAC beats ANY pirated song "out there" including those cheap pirated Audio CDs from "unknown" people...
 
Originally posted by Jabberwocky
On my TiBook, iTunes rips my CD albums @ 160 to MP3s and I can then mix and burn selected audio tracks to CD to play in my stereo without noticeable loss of quality.

So why have they decided to use a different codec?

I don't think I want to pay for audio that is of a significantly lower quality when for a not significantly greater amount of money, I can buy the CD and rip MP3s at whatever quality I want for the requirement at the time. And I can do it again and again at different qualities.

I stress that I have not downloaded any music from the store and cannot speak from experience of the qualities involved. But then, as a discerning buyer I can hypothesize! :D

I feel the reasoning behind the codec switch.

1.) for DRM to work properly it has to be used by apps that support the DRM standard. MP3 would be hard to use since it already has an extremely large market share with a wide variety of apps that support it. There would definately be the possibility that specific mp3 players could more easily get around the DRM management.

2.) Apple feels that the MPG4 audio layer has better compression than that of MPG 1 (the basis for mp3's) And touts the fact that at a given bitrate an AAC should sound better than a MP3
 
Once again, people are not reading the real information.

Apple allows you to STREAM the songs to 3 machines.

You CAN burn as many CD's as you want/ The limit of 10 per playlist is to prevent mass duplication. Just trash the old playlist and create a new one.

AAC is a better codec, that's why the switch.

Taking any information from MSnbc with a heaping helping of salt is counter-productive.
 
Originally posted by Anim8r
Once again, people are not reading the real information.

Apple allows you to STREAM the songs to 3 machines.

You CAN burn as many CD's as you want/ The limit of 10 per playlist is to prevent mass duplication. Just trash the old playlist and create a new one.

AAC is a better codec, that's why the switch.

Taking any information from MSnbc with a heaping helping of salt is counter-productive.

There is no such thing as a "better" codec, there are codecs that are better suited for a specific task. One that may have better compression for voice may not sound as good in an environment of heavy beats and constaint background noise such as guitars and such.
This can be demonstrated with the differences in .gif and .jpg.
They both have been around for ages due to they are better in specific areas than others. gifs normaly have a smaller file size and less artifacting while jpgs are better at keeping true colors, while adding artifacts to images at the same time.

absolutely nothing prevents me from copying this AAC to a different computer (via burning AAC's to CD, swaping hard drives, network share, p2p clients, FTP, etc... ) and trying to play them on other machines. this completely circumvents your stream.

People can produce MP3 (or AAC for that matter) players that would be able to conveniently "forget" to check that it's a DRM managed file. ANY copy prevention can be cracked. I don't imagine this will be any different. Give me enough CPU time and I'll do it myself.

This prevents casual copying, but it will eventualy be compromised.

My main point is that AAC is a newer technology. People aren't as familiar with it and as a side effect of this DRM cracked AAC players are further down the line than a DRM cracked MP3 player.
 
i find it curious that when i tried to rank this article as "not helpful at all" i got this message
Sorry. Your vote was not registered.


The MSNBC Readers? Top10 voting depends on your browser having a valid MSNBC cookie. If your browser accepts cookies, but you've gotten this message, please contact our Technical Support staff.

Why dosent it say "sorry unprivledged mac user -your opinion is not valid - piss off!"
 
I don't get it. I've downloaded quite a bit from the Apple music store, as have some of my friends and we all love the sound quality. I'm a huge sound nut too. It sounded good on my laptop and desktops, but the tracks rocked on my car system and my digital home theater system. No complaints at all.

In fact, one of the CD's I downloaded was 50 Cent. I'm huge on bass...I need it to be clear, crisp and with no distortion at all. I compared the In Da Club cut I got from Apple to 10 I got off of Limewire (I own the track now and all ;) ). The Apple track destroyed it each time...on all systems. I even did a blind taste test of the Apple track and the track from the CD and people actually seemed to prefer my Apple track...seems insane, but true.

I'm extremely pleased. I never thought I would say this, but I actually know people who are shopping for their first Apples because of this service. I knew this would finally push some people over the edge! ;)
 
Originally posted by Jabberwocky
On my TiBook, iTunes rips my CD albums @ 160 to MP3s and I can then mix and burn selected audio tracks to CD to play in my stereo without noticeable loss of quality.

Just not true, it is possible to hear the difference with 256 kbps MP3s. Possible with any compression, that the nature of it, it removes pitches that we don't (usually) need to make the file smaller, and only takes a certain number of samples. The effects are loss lifeand lengthening or shortening of sounds.

Apparently (macosrumors.com article (or link) (i don't know this)) AAC does that less (as distinguishable from CD at 128 as MP3 is at 256). Downloading CD quality audio is just not practical, we're talking several hundred megs for an album!

Complaining about AAC is not really fair, its better than MP3, and most p2p downloads are only 128 MP3. Of course its not a CD, but its easier to get and instant gratification, thats the point.

And anyway CD is a lossy format :) Lets complain about Amazon only selling that low quality CD shall we. Return to analogue vinyl.........

ohdear ;)
 
Back
Top