Gizmodo
Today is a big day for music downloaders, because iTunes is finally offering DRM-free music for your listening pleasure. To sweeten the deal, each also has a lighter AAC compression applied to it, 256kbps instead of iTunes' customary 128kbps.
Called iTunes Plus, it's available now, and all it asks is an extra 30 cents per song ($1.29 for each instead of $.99 for iTunes songs). Is there a big difference in sound quality between those 128kbps iTunes files and these 256kbps iTunes Plus songs? Let's dig into iTunes Plus, grab a few files and compare them to the old-style locked-up tunes.
To access the iTunes Plus songs, a limited selection with only EMI artists thus far, first you must upgrade your iTiunes software to version 7.2.0.34. Then, you simply tell iTunes you'd like for it to offer you iTunes Plus songs whenever they're available.
Then it offers (for thirty cents each) to convert any 128kbps tunes you already have into iTunes Plus files, if they are available that way. This was easier said than done. Our collection here only had five songs that qualified. We're still not sure why, but we got an error message on four of the five songs. Could it be that we had already stripped the DRM from those songs? Could be, could be.
We downloaded two more iTunes songs to see what would happen, and the same thing occurred. Errors (see graphic below). Throughout the day, we experienced numerous timeouts with the new iTunes Plus store, a situation we're thinking (hoping) is because of the intense interest in unchaining libraries of music held captive for the past few years. By the way, don't get too eager to spread those songs around, because there's still user info embedded in each "DRM free" file you download.
Moving beyond those little hitches, after lots of attempts we found a few songs we wanted to download in the iTunes Plus section, snagged those and then painstakingly changed our preferences to download the 128kbps versions of those same songs for comparison. Among a few others, we listened to Cold Play, and some complicated Salsa by Juan Luis Guerra to compare the quality of one compression rate to the other.
Comparing these two bitrates was tough, even when using a pair of state-of-the-art Ultrasone headphones. In our decidedly unscientific comparison, we listened to all the tunes at both bitrates in A/B comparisons with those phones, with iPod stock earbuds, on our kick-ass car stereo, and on our reference Dolby 5.1 home theater system.
The difference between the two types was subtle. Listening to a variety of songs, each encoded in 128kbps and then 256kbps, showed very little difference between the two, if any. Frankly, neither sounded as good as it could have to these trained musician's ears, but to discern the difference would take a professionally-trained audiophile's ears and perhaps a permanently-embedded oscilloscope in the brain.
Anyone who swears he or she can tell the difference, I would say have someone give you a double blind test and see if you can correctly guess more than 50% of the examples. Sure, you'll be able to spot a 64kbps file, but comparing 128 to 256 is more challenging. Good luck, golden ears. Even if you can tell the slight difference, it's not a big enough diff to start celebrating anything. Suffice to say that both sounded good enough to enjoy the music, if that's what you're after. For high fidelity, I'd suggest you abandon compression altogether and listen to vinyl. Better yet, go to a live concert.
The real jewel here is the lack of DRM, letting you play your music wherever you want. Hallelujah! Play them on a PSP, or on any music player that can handle AAC-encoded files. Play them here or there, play them anywhere. You can even abandon iTunes altogether if you want, well, with those limited songs that are available thus far, that is. The point is, for an extra $.30, you now own the rights to listen to your music wherever you want. And that is a joy that we should have had all along. Let's hope this is just the beginning.
Comments
you basically have to test these files other than a 2.0 setup. something along the lines at least 5.1 to where maybe extra unwanted bass may be picked up in the 128 than that of a cleaner 256k file.
If you're doing the headphones test, you're probably not going to hear a difference.
I can't speak for any other albums, but I upgraded my copy of the Good, The Bad, The Queen "Live in SoHo" and the sound is noticeably different. Granted, I have some nice speakers, but the drums in particularly are dramatically improved. Considering the undisputed awesomeness of the drummer in that band, it's worth the extra $1.35.
I may be cheap... but why not just get the 99cent version, burn it to a CD and then rip that CD? Voila! then you should have a DRM-free file.... right? $1.30 doesn't sound like much but that's a 30% increase in cost.
So its not YET DRM free... damn..
But i dont know.... i mean look at this, i want to buy Korn: Take a look in the Mirror, i got it for 10.99. I rip it at ANY bit-rate i want, ANY format i want.. ANY NUMBER OF TIMES.
OR
I can buy a 9.99 iTunes Korn - Take a look in the mirror, but it has 13 tracks, so i gotta add 13*.3 which basically adds 4 dollars.. (assuming iTunes even offers Korn for EMI).. so i can get a 14 dollar CD which still has a USER-COPY embedded into it, OR i can get a 11 dollar CD that i can copy any number of times, and rip into any style.... Ill take the CD thankyou very much.
I dont know why people buy off iTunes.. I mean pay an extra dollar or 2 (Amazon.com is THE BEST for CDs, as well as a local Used retailer or Craigslist.org) and you get the CD artwork/lyrics, the case, and the physical CD, as well as ANY format, ANY bitrate, ANY number of times.
What happens if your Harddrive fails and you bought your 4,000 song collection all off iTunes... what do you do then? You cant just re-rip the CDs...
I dont think i will ever, ever consider downloading online. Just the other day i found 8 used CDs (on Craigslist) for 25 dollars... 25 dollars. And they werent shitty ones either, they were some good stuff. Used CDs, in my opinion, is THE best way to go, their prices average from 3-6 dollars a pop, sure you may have a scratch or 2, but with my experience a CD has to be pretty darn scratched up for it to be deemed "unreadable".
I dont want to nit pick, but Juan Luis Guerra does not sing salsa. He sticks to the Dominican Republics 3 main genres: Perico ripiao, Merengue and Bachata. I ordered the genres based on tempo from fast to slow.
Please dont lump all hispanic music into one category, like "Salsa", after all Rock is not the same as rap is not the same as pop is not the same as country music.
What about Variable Bitrate files?
@Mario: I stopped buying CD's a while ago, simply because of the amount of physical estate CD's take up (an entire wall/closet) vs. digital files (zero). In this way, if I run out of "space" all I need to do is buy another 250 million GB Hard-drive (approx. 2 X 2 inches, by that time) and I'll be set. :)
@dambo29
Burning a CD and ripping it back can potentially degrade the audio further. So you could go from 128 bit DRM to slightly less than 128 bit DRM Free. A true audiophile will not hesitate to spend a buck or two more for the increased quality because a true audiophile will have the speaker hardware to make it worth their while.
What it comes down to is personal preference. I'm an audio nut. I can tell the difference between an audio CD and a high quality rip from that same CD. If burn and rip works for you, that's wonderful but some of us want the higher quality regardless of the markup.
It's like the difference in getting a VHS movie for $1.99 or the DVD version for $9.99.
Whole albums are still $9.99, DRM'ed or not, right? It's only the pick-and-choosers that pay a premium, right?
Wait... I swear that was the way it was originally announced, but it is hardly ever talked about and now I see it's not mentioned in today's press release.
Did I hallucinate that?
Frankly I'd rather have 128kbps and no DRM, to save on storage. Given the choice, I think I'd buy the 128Kbps files and strip the DRM myself - which is what I do now.
@Mario: There is a flaw with your argument. That is the upgrade price. If you buy an album DRM free originally, it costs the same as is does with DRM.
You may still be right about price, but you are forgetting the whole convenience thing, not to mention the vastly increased selection over a real store. As for Amazon, no instant gratification. Thats the reason I buy music online. I want to listen to the music now. Not in a few days. But I also want to play it anywhere I want. I like the convenience, and I am willing to pay a very small amount more for that.
It can't be a huge difference, but at least there's the option. Too many of us just don't buy music by the album anymore, and this is another 'honest' option that will likely get them piles of new users.
But then again, all my Smiths and Cure tunes sound just as whiny as ever no matter what the bit rate...
I probably spend $20 a week on iTunes TV Shows, and purchased the Apple TV just for the TV Shows (and I don't care what anybody says, the Apple TV and iTunes TV Shows are excellent quality)... but anyway... when it comes to spending money, 99 cents or $1.29 per song, well, I'd rather head over to allofmp3.com for a fraction of the price. I've spent more than $1000 in the last year buying hundreds and hundreds of songs on the russian site. DRM free since Day One I might add.
Oh, forgot to mention... ALLOFMP3.COM also has some of the best Beatles and McCartney bootlegs you'll ever see/hear. That's right, Beatles and bootlegs...DRM-FREE. Most albums are $1.25-$1.50, songs are 10 cents to 15 cents... and in any format/bitrate you want.
Okay, done now...
Allofmp3 *WAS* awesome. I take it you don't live in the US/UK.
Let's just say word got out.
Whether you're going to hear any difference depends on the resolution of your system and how good you are at listening for small details. Headphones are NOT the way to tell the difference on source quality. Their frequency response is all over the place (20-20khz +\- 10db or more) even on the most expensive cans available. Headphones also have no real soundstage, no proper imaging, and no "air".
For casual listening, I rip my CDs with LAME to 256 VBR mp3. For serious listening, there is no substitute for CD period. Not even flac.
Man, as techie as I am, I look at how we buy music now and just wanna cry. I'm old fashioned in one regard: I REALLY prefer to buy music at a record store. That is to say, NOT a big box store like Best Buy or Fry's - that just sucks - rather good olde time record stores.
One of the saddest days of my life was when Tower Records closed its doors. I used to love to peruse the too narrow isles of the Tower on Sports Arena here in San Diego, or take in the veritable freakshow at the Tower in Westwood (LA) when I was a kid. As a consumer I'd spend more, too. I'd go in for a specific disc and almost invariably leave with one or two more purchased on impulse. If I buy online now (I buy discs and rip, BTW, almost never download), it's only the disc I was looking to buy.
Buying music today just isn't same. EVERY online option is a sterile, weak experience in comparison. Sure, there are still some cool mom'n'pops out there, like Lou's or Off the Record here, but there'll never be another Tower and that's just a damn shame.
@itchytooth: No, you were not hallucinating - no one talks about it, but I just bought Moon Safari, no DRM, for 10 bucks. Same price as yesterday when it was DRMed.
I, for one, am totally amped for this situation - the new tracks will be ever so slightly better on my nice headphones (let me take this moment to recommend Sennheiser 565s), I can buy the tracks for the same price, cause I like albums, I don't have to deal with this DRM crippleware and we all get to have a recording artists 10 years from now. I'm sorry, but ya'll who somehow think we can all steal music and people will still make good music have your heads in the sand. And, if you think those of us who follow the rules think you're cool for cheating, I hope you like it when people cut you in line, throw their trash in your park, buy up all the Wiis to resell them at markup...
I used to feel the same way. Until one night in 2003, I came home late from work, exhausted. Got ready for bed. Then I remembered, I was going to swing past Tower Records to pick up an album from one of my favorite groups that had been released that day. Damn, I forgot.
I wonder if it's on iTunes?
Ten minutes later I am LISTENING to the album on my iPod and thinking, "Wow, this is the future... I didn't have to get in the car... fight traffic... find a parking space... buy a piece a plastic that will end up in a landfill..."
In general, my experiences browsing and buying music in the iTunes store are MORE enjoyable. You can sample EVERYTHING in the store. You can pick-and-choose individual tracks. I've discovered an amazing amount of new music by browsing my favorite bands, and then looking at the top iMixes people have made that include those bands.
If I am feeling cheap, I can always find new podcasts for free. The number of video and audio podcasts is AMAZING.
Granted, the local Tower Records did have an awesome anime DVD section, and Ghost in the Shell hasn't made it to the iTunes Store yet.
The only thing I miss about browsing at Tower Records is browsing through vinyl LPs and coming across album art like this:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbu...
Doesn't have quite the same impact when it's the size of a postage stamp on your iPod. LOL
davekaybsc: Presumably the problem with FLAC is the playback devices available? The 'L' is for "lossless" innit?
I don't understand why people bother with this whole iTunes nonsense.
It has been said many times before. Buy a brand new CD ($12) and burn it at the highest quality you can stand. Take the same CD and sell it on eBay for $6-$8. The result is you only end up paying 1/3 the price of iTunes for a far superior product.
Wake up people cut out the middle man Steve Jobs!!!
@ Brian B
I used to hit the Off the Record on University pretty regularly, not the gay one in Hillcrest. I'd just ask what sounded good today. You can trust a recomendation like that, where Amazon seems to think I'd really like the latest Maroon 5, but no Costello to be seen... Wierd.
It's a good non-iPod-user tax. Because face it, the itunes music store rocks, I dont have an ipod, and now I will be using the service.
I have it on good authority that human ears (and brains) find it almost impossible to tell 160 kbps VBR from the Red Book CD Audio master.
As strider_mt2k perceptively asked, where is the VBR option. It turns out that VBR is what makes 160 kbps sound so good, using the extra bandwidth when needed. Beyond 160 kbps we can't really hear the difference.
Maybe Apple is trying to split the difference by having 256 kbps CBR.
@domerdel
Suggesting that 5.1 is a better barometer than 2.0 for comparing music tells me that you don't know much about true high fidelity audio. Especially when the suggested audio file is 2.0 and not specifically encoded in high-def 5.1 channel like DVD-A or SACD formats. If you are conducting a listening test like this, it should be done with nothing other than 2.0. If the listener cannot test these files with a setup that is capable of reproducing audio signals relatively uncolored (remember, an audio system is only as good as the weakest link) it should be conducted with a good pair of cans like a Sennheiser HD580 or the like matched with a good headphone amp.
It is official Steve Jobs is brilliant! I know all the fan boys have been saying this for decades, but now it is truly official. He has devised the greatest business plan since the guy who bottled water and convinced people to buy it for a 1000% markup. Simply put, Steve is selling the consumer something they already own AND THEY ARE THANKING HIM FOR IT! It's like selling water to a well, amazing. Steve if you read this I will gladly become your apprentice, teach me!
I compared the preview files (don't have enough in my iTunes account to upgrade my library, and it won't let me update one song only) but I compared the preview segment of Karma Chameleon (PLUS) to the copy on my hard drive (Norm) and the vocal chords sounded cleaner. So, if you're itching to compare, I'd suggest using some Boy George, his music seems to use a larger frequency range. Also, I compared some the Dirty Harry/Gorillaz music video preview from plus to the normal version on my hard drive. Motion appeared smoother, contrast was better, and less compression artifacts (down from noticable around sharp edges to "I looked and couldn't find any). However, the music video sounded exactly the same. So I'd probably switch back and forth between iTunes and iTunes Plus with regular iTunes for music and Plus for videos (the new videos appear to be the same price as the old ones, only extra cost I've seen is to update ones you already have. I looked at a few Plus videos and they're still $1.99)
Points made, i do too hate the wait for Amazon.com shipping/delivery takes at least a week for me. and i guess it is more personal preference really, i have this shelf built specifically for CDs (good thing as i have over 120). And i like the look, and i have already ripped all my CDs in unprotected, DRM-Free, 128kbs MP3 format, i love it. but is personal preference. I just dont think the extra few bucks is worth it, that and i just HATE DRM, "only can be played on ipod" DAMNIT!!!, Props, the new DRM-Free can play on a Zune.. so im happy there, but not happy enough to buy it... Maybe if you could choose the format/bitrate, and if it were DRM Free 100%, with NO copy protection, and for 99 cents a song.. you might have me sold, but as of now, no such store exists... so i will have to wait :D in the meantime i will buy more CDs :D
@bunny rabid
Discountanimedvd.com, you name it, they've got it, and you can buy an entire series for the price that FYE charges for a single DVD of 5 episodes.
@Manboy
Just about every high end music server, whether its ReQuest, Escient, McIntosh, etc. has support for flac. It's supposed to be "identical" but it isn't.
@Windhawk
Depends on the CD player that Red Book master is being played on. There's no way mp3, ogg, m4a, or wma can compete with an Esoteric spinning a disc.
"For high fidelity, I'd suggest you abandon compression altogether and listen to vinyl. Better yet, go to a live concert."
A ) "For great voice quailty, put down your RAZR2 and drive over to your friend's place!" No shit, Sherlock.
B ) Way to name drop vinyl. I could never guess that you're a "trained musician". It's just a distribution format. Most of the vinyls you're going to buy from a modern artist were simply pressed from the digital masters. Way to toss a D/A in there that you have control over. If a label is eclectic enough to be pressing vinyl in the new millennium, chances are they aren't exactly a financial giant, and they're doing reproduction with some val-U company that probably has a shitty cutter anyways. Never mind all that though, because the gate fold sleeve says I've got archival-grade 200gram stock!
I'm all for higher grade distro formats. I would love to pay 2 bucks a track for the 24/96 stereo bounces of my favorite records. But vinyl? This is supposed to be Giz-fucking-modo, and you're supposed to believe in technology and progress. Who let the Luddite out?
@davekaybsc
Why spin it at all? 44.1/16 CD audio is a digital format, and there's no need for a transport. Rip the WAV, losslessly and with no conversion, to your HDD then spend all that money you saved by not having a transport on higher and higher end DACs.
Why I buy Online: Environment. Think of all the oil and money it takes to make and transport those cds just to rip it once, and never use it again... >.< Or i could just put it on my ex hdd, and save the earth the hassle.
ombligotron,
They say women have a wider range of hearing than men (can't say from personal experience, never having been a man) but I can tell you that I've heard CD's don't reproduce the upper range of frequencies as well as vinyl (I believe this is well documented as I've read it more than once) and that is the range women hear better. I love my vinyl, needless to say. CDs do not sound as good to me. Regardless, I have replaced some of my rarer vinyl with CDs of the same.
I can tell you from personal experience that a European record is pressed differently and with more fidelity than an American one (I have two copies of one Booomtown Rats record to prove it). So, vinyl is not 'just a distribution format' and quality even in vinyl is variable. CDs are cheaper to create, cheaper to ship, it's no wonder the labels forced the changed to CD.
Now, they will push for online downloading because the shipping costs are... You guessed it- $0!
@Ombligotron
I had the opportunity to test CD v. WAV v. FLAC at a dealer on a McIntosh MS300 music server. The rest of the system was a pair of Wilson WATT/Puppy 7s and Krell electronics - intensely revealing. I couldn't detect any difference betwen WAV and FLAC, but hdd vs. CD wasn't even close.
The treble from the hdd sounded dull and recessed, and there was a certain "hardness" to female vocals that was rather unpleasant, but most importantly, the ability of the speakers to "disappear" and to fool you into thinking that the musicians are playing in the room with you was lost.
My Aerial 10Ts and Parasound gear aren't near as brutally honest as the Wilson\Krell combo, but I'm not giving up my CD player. I have yet to hear a music server that can match it.
@rsquared
The editors at The Absolute Sound and Stereophile would agree with you. Well produced vinyl with a top notch player (Avid, VPI), tone arm, and cartridge will outperform CD.
@rsquared
Vinyl is unambiguously a distro format. No one records straight to vinyl these days. Waaaay back with horns it was also a recording format, but that hasn't been the case since the rise of tape after the war.
My point isn't to say that CD is "better", but that vinyl is not inherently superior to sampling in general. Anyone that says a 33.5rpm on 200gm is superior to 24/96 is just being contrarian.
The upper limit of the sickest vinyl cutter head is going to be "around" 50khz. The upper sampling limit of 24/96 is 48khz. The difference is that the reproduction ability of a vinyl has non-constant degradation characteristics once you start getting above 20khz and below 400hz. This means that the higher (or lower) you go, the more difficult it is on the format for the cutter and the playback stylus. With sampling, the medium has the exact same ability to reproduce a 40khz tone as it does a 4hz tone.
It's odd to hear someone say that vinyl is better at producing extended highs than a CD, since vinyl's "home turf" is midrange. Vinyl was designed for midrange information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization
Extremely low frequencies (god forbid stereo low frequency information) and extremely high frequencies are difficult for the format to reproduce. RIAA phono amplification was designed with a spec in mind: 20hz - 20khz. If that number looks familiar, it's because that is the general range of human hearing, and it's also what the CD spec was built on. 44.1khz sampling reproduces 2hz to 22.5khz. The RIAA EQ curve mandates that vinyls have to be cut with a preset EQ boost in the highs and a cut in the lows, then the reverse of that curve is applied in the amplifier on playback. This is no gentle sweep either; it's almost 40db from the top of the curve to the bottom. Seems like quite the workaround. Unfortunately it's necessary because of the physical limitations of scratching little nanometer-sized grooves into plastic. Read up here (this is by a pro-vinyl engineer, btw) on some more of these limitations:
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
I do not doubt that some of your vinyls sound better in your house than some of your equivalent CDs. For most audiophiles this is because they have spent their time and money into the vinyl playback and not the CD playback. It 's not surprising that the vinyl rig sounds better. The DAC in most DVD decks and CD turntables is pretty atrocious. It's comparable to hooking up a (gasp) belt drive turntable to you tricked out amplifier. Rip the CD, uncompressed to solid state or HDD, then play it back through a Benchmark Media DAC1, and it's going to sound pretty ridiculous. The low quality of the high end information you're hearing is most likely not a limitation of the medium, but of your converters. Shitty clocks on shitty converters will produce shitty transient detail and high-end smearing, harming separation. Your bad CD, however, will sound just the same after 100 plays of the music you love so much. The RIAA vinyl specification, on the other hand, has a built in statue of acceptable losses. Cutters and vinyl stock work under the *assumption* that high end information will be lost after certain amounts of plays: down to 20khz after the *first* play, 18khz after three plays, 17khz after five, etc. This is mitigated by high quality equipment and stock, but not resolved. You are, quite literally, harming your music every time you enjoy it. Not so with CDs.
There's a bigger, more noble point to sampling though, beyond all of it's inherent advantages over vinyl. I love music. I love making it, I love recording it, and I love listening to it. I am a recording engineer that specializes in recording young/poor bands on the cheap because I truly believe that local and economically disadvantaged bands have amazing music that needs a broader audience. Magnetic tape recording and vinyl distribution and playback are *directly* contrary to this mindset. Miniaturization is the key to letting more people listen to more music, as the Walkman, CD, and iPod have proven. There is no future in miniaturization of non-sampling technologies. Sampling is also the key to the recording revolution. There has been an explosion of local and independent music since the mid-90's because of one thing: recording is getting cheaper. This is possible because of sampling. Admittedly, some of those early digi masters sounded pretty raw. Fortunately, someone is always driving technology forward, and there no longer *needs* to be a compromise between digital and reproduction. The future of more people enjoying more music is digital, straight up.
@davekaybsc
Let me preface this by saying I've never heard a McIntosh, but I work in the field and the specs on it's DAC aren't too hot. They're decent, sure, but I'm sure your Parasounds stomp it in clocking. This is in no way due to any inherent fault in HDD technology though, it's all due to varying levels of quality in conversion. CD is a digital sampling format, and Red Book even contains an error-correcting spec. Those 1's and 0's are absolutely the same whether they are on the underside of a CD or they are stored magnetically on a hard drive. There is no delta. Where the differences come in are when we start converting that same information using different converters, clocked by different clocks. If you have access to a good dealer, do the following:
Separate the conversion from the source. Get a nice transport with a SPIDF, toslink, or AES out.
Do the same with the HDD: Use a computer and a mastering soundcard like an Apogee, RME, or hell even Digidesign. Again use an unconverted out like SPIDF/AES.
Run them into the *same* DAC. Use an Apogee DA16X or a Benchmark DAC1 or a Lavry. Run the DAC into the amplification of your choosing. They will sound exactly the same. The reason is because CD and HDD are both digital storage formats, and the digital information piping out of the laser or out of the HDD's read head are, literally, exactly the same. The differences you hear are due to differences in conversion. A dell ntoebook with some cheesy SPIDF out on the back will, given proper error correction in the SPIDF bus, sound exactly the same as the sickest CD transport with a digital out. This is the same reason why spending money on high end cables *before* DA conversion is folly. A 300 dollar monster HDMI cable *will* sound the same as some clunker from monoprice as long as there is error correction on either end, which there always is, because it's built into the spec.
The problem I see here is that people are assuming that these iTunes Plus files are supposed to sound better on your iPod, in iTunes or on a PSP just because there's a higher bit rate. The amount of extra audio data within the audible range just isn't that significant between a 128 and a 256 bit AAC encoding.
Then again, making the music sound better on your iPod or in iTunes wasn't the problem that Apple was trying to solve.
The challenge for Apple wasn't the small percentage of audiophiles - there's not a large enough market if that was the focus.
The challenge is that the majority of new cars (and aftermarket car stereos) have CD players with integrated MP3 players - either a memory card slot or the ability to read MP3 files off of a CD. This, in comparison, is a massive market.
Re-encoding 256-bit AAC into an MP3 file sounds significantly better (at least to my ears) in the high ranges than a 128-bit AAC file. Once there is a significant amount of DRM-Free music available on iTMS, I would expect a new button available in iTunes to "Burn MP3 CD" and to set a default to load external (non iPod) memory cards and music devices in MP3 ONLY, converting audio on the fly before processing.
@kibets
>> It has been said many times before. Buy a brand
>> new CD ($12) and burn it at the highest quality
>> you can stand. Take the same CD and sell it on
>> eBay for $6-$8. The result is you only end up
>> paying 1/3 the price of iTunes for a far superior
>> product.
And in doing so you commit copyright infringement, numbskull. Fair use allows you to make archival backups, which is what you are effectively doing when you rip a CD. When you sell that CD, the right to make copies disappears as if you never had it, so you should actually delete all your mp3s, etc. made from that CD. Doing otherwise is outside fair use.
-p-
As someone already mentioned albums usually cost $9.99, regardless of DRM or not, so i think it's a great deal.
Only the people who buy one or two songs will pay 30cents more, but that's not really a big deal.
Why would you buy stuff from iTunes? I usually buy individual songs that i can't need right now and that i can't find elsewhere. Also if i need an album right NOW, i can get it from iTunes. Amazon would probably take a couple of days.
Personally i think iTunes is pretty sweet. I just wish i there would be even more music on there.
"Then it offers (for thirty cents each) to convert any 128kbps tunes you already have into iTunes Plus files, if they are available that way."
I wasn't offered this option when I upgraded to the new software. Is there a way to go back and get this done?