follow this link to some interesting info -

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/05/12.14.shtml

Maybe a little off topic, but if and when the iTunes Music Store comes to windows, Im not too sure how keen I'll be on using it.

From what I've heard, songs that are bought are limited to 128kbps AAC? (please correct me if Im wrong).
Now I've never compared AAC to MP3, but if Im paying for a song, I'd want at least 320kbps mp3... or something as close to CD quality as possible.

If it's the case that the max bitrate that you can purchase from the iTunes Music Store is only a mere 128kbps, I think apple might have a problem down the road.

On the contrary, Kenny! As a fellow iMS sceptic, I can see their logic... Limit the quality now, so you can demonstrate appreciably better sound in iTunes Music Store version 2.0, which will no doubt support the Super-Dooper Future Audio Codec. In my view, they're providing a quality leap over 128k MP3 right now, and saving some headroom to play with later. They can talk about recent advances in bandwidth and so on when the 2005 iMS launches with better quality.

Fair play. But given Apple's track record of dumping old product lines in a less-than-graceful way and failing to provide any kind of backwards compatibility, I'll steer clear of iMS. It could be a way to get yourself lumbered with thousands of obsolete tracks - thousands of dollars' worth of obsolete tracks.

I get your point, but I see 2major flaws in what apple is doing here:

1. They really limit out any 'audiophiles' by providing only mediocre quality audio.

2. The major thing I see is that Apple didnt release the music store on both platforms (Mac and Windows) at the same time. This is giving Gates sometime to see how successful the music store idea is. And let's face it, if Gates wanted to create a music store like iMS, he'd do it...

What apple really should do is make several bitrates available for downloading instead of just 128.

according to the article I linked - the record companies are holding up the Windows IMusic store more than Apple or Gates

Here, read this article.

Now obviously this guy is a bit peeved at his broken powerbook, but he does make a couple of good arguements.

I agree with previously-expressed sentiment... 128kbps AAC is just not good enough to pay for. First, I can download better on freakin' KaZaA. (Not that I would, but it's the principle of the thing.) Second, I've done my own ABX (= blind, basically) listening tests and found I can (on certain types of music) tell the difference between even 320kbps MP3 and the original -- which makes it difficult for me to justify coughing up cash for anything short of lossless compression (like FLAC, APE, or similar.)

The only two reasons I buy music are (1) It's difficult to find original-quality rips of albums, and (2) For certain groups, I feel like I should support them (example: Were perfect-quality music available for free, I would still buy an album from Loudermilk, who are not rich, but I would not buy an album from Metallica, who are jerks and have as much money as they will ever need, or The Beatles, since two are dead and the rest are doing quite well.)

Of course, I realize that I am in the minority who actually cares what music sounds like. You have to figure that the average person on the street (of course not the average iPod owner!) thinks more bass is always better, 128kbps MP3 is "CD-quality", and headphones can never sound as good as even the worst set of speakers. Most people are ignorant and music has to only sound specifically "not bad" to be considered enough. This probably provides what they want, which is why it's meeting with smashing success so far.

Rob,

a little OT, but my 2.5 cents . . .

I agree with most of your points. If I'm going to pay for music downloads, it would be fantastic if we had a choice to download the version of our choice (i.e. 128 kbps MP3, 128 kbps AAC, or one loseless version). This way the customer could make the trade-off between quality and download time.

When I'm at home listening to my home stereo, I agree that I want the absolute best quality. I spent enough on this equipment where I can clearly hear the difference between MP3 and .wav.

But when I'm in my car or listening to my iPod with earbuds, I don't need max quality since neither of these environments is very conducive to high quality listening. This is why I compress my music on my iPod at 192kbps or 224kpbs. For me this works just fine, but everybody has different hearing, so this is why I think the idea of having a choice would be great.

The thing I dont get is if you can hear the difference between 320 bitrate and a normal CD, than you would never pay foran mp3 and would be limited to CDs as they would be the only way to satisfy your ear. So there is really no point in Apple or anyone on increasing the bit rate of all their songs to please a small minority of music listeners. meh

cyder: I dont think you're quite understanding what we're saying.

The point is this:
The iPod is a great player, and probably the best portable out there. But unfortunately (or fortunately), Im guessing that the majority of people who listen to music listen to it from other sources. I know for myself, I only use the iPod when Im on the go. When Im at home, it's either my computer, or stereo system that's playing the audio.

So unless the purpose of iTMS is buying music JUST for the iPod (which would be stupid), Im not sure if that the 128kbps bitrate is enough. As a customer I'd like the highest bit rate possible (at least as close to CD quality) if Im going to purchase something.

Quote: Originally posted by Kenny
So unless the purpose of iTMS is buying music JUST for the iPod (which would be stupid), Im not sure if that the 128kbps bitrate is enough. As a customer I'd like the highest bit rate possible (at least as close to CD quality) if Im going to purchase something.

This has been my concern about all online digital music purchases. 128KB was fine for my Rio 500, but it just doesn't cut it on an iPod. I'd prefer to purchase the .wav file, and convert it as I see fit (VBR, in my case).

Craig

Quote: Originally posted by clovell
This has been my concern about all online digital music purchases. 128KB was fine for my Rio 500, but it just doesn't cut it on an iPod. I'd prefer to purchase the .wav file, and convert it as I see fit (VBR, in my case).

Well I think Apple went to great lengths to devise a DRM (digital rights management) scheme for AAC that was user-friendly, while at the same time pleasing the recording industry. Although no DRM is truely secure and infalable to copying, the idea is if a large selection of music is made widely available at a *reasonable* price, people won't bother with pirating (either defeating DRM or using peer-peer services such as Kazaa, Limewire,etc). See this link for some speculative discussions on Apple's AAC DRM.

Supporting uncompressed CD audio from an on-line music service would likely not fly with the music industry without some DRM (which could be done). Also keep in mind that in addition to requiring 10x more bandwidth and storage, the higher quality the audio, the more incentive by *some* to circumvent any anti-piracy mechanisms. How many of you would buy a CD if you could get the *same* quality, quite easily over the internet for free (i.e. pirating)? Perhaps not many here (as you can all afford ipods ) but just look at the file sharing statistics of peer-peer networks such a Kazaa

Where are the tradeoffs?
- please the music industry with DRM schemes?
- provide convenience to the mass (users) by using lower bitrates (faster dowloads) that can be directly stored on target devices (PCs/ipods,etc) without re-encoding (a hassle)?
- offer better/best quality audio for those who would probably go buy the CD anyway (rather than pirate sub-standard mp3s)?
- what is the target market...folks who would only purchase if they could listen in an audiophile setting (i.e. home stereo) or folks who usually listen to music on PCs and portables?

If 128 kbps AAC with DRM does not provide similar audio quality as say 192 kbps VBR (i.e. LAME encoder), then perhaps 160 kbps AAC would be a better compromise. Also, what is a fair price, considering the convenience (one or two click shopping) for a less than CD quality encoding? An average CD track costs at least $1 (and you have to purchase the entire CD--most cases). I personally would prefer buying CDs for most of my music as I usually want the entire CD and enjoy the flexibility in having the best audio quality encoding. However, I might be more interested if the price was a little lower, say 50 cents a song for a *good* quality encoding (as I do 95% of my listening away from my stereo). However, being a PC based user and using many mp3 based players, I'd also like the choice of mp3 (standard Lame preset quality--but I that is just *my* personal preference).

Anyhow, I think Apple has made leaps and bounds getting the music industry aboard and offering the first wide scale music service on a pay per song basis....just wait for Microsoft and others to react..