Use of iTunes Music Store Up 247 Percent

I always thought the first imacs looked like the new volkswagens.

Aren't the files you download from iTunes a lesser quality than CDs? It's so sad that all these kids are burning all this cash on music that's mediocre quality. The saddest people are the ones who dumped all their cd's onto their iPod and consequently sold all their discs. Oops.
And then they listen to the bad quality music files on bad quality headphones.
Not a good era for purists.

Yeah, but the only drawback (as far as the functionality went) was that you couldn't seal-weld an acrylic set of panels together after ripping the guts out of the damn thing to put an aquarium inside. That damned teardrop shape just completely frustrated me no end.

Thing is, the iTunes is spot on the easiest marketing system, and the retro market for vinyl is something that just doesn't fly right now.

At the moment, I want to fight for my Mac Whoredom even as I see thirteen-year olds bopping head down the street with the little white things stuck in their ears. More than once in my little universe up here in the north, I've put out a hand and been THAT OLDER GUY to keep them from walking obliviously into traffic.

Sometimes I wish I COULD - then I'd get to be a Podling Person too. Well, as long as it didn't get smushed with the former poddee.

Note for Kremlee: Acoustically, unless you happen to be a virtuoso violinist or accoustic adjuster, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. And nine times out of ten, unless you have specifically high-end drivers the quality of the output matters little. It's like demanding to run Octane 98 gasoline in a 1999 Honda Accord LX, realistically.

iPods and MP3 players aren't designed for acoustically perfect sound reproduction. They're designed off of a format that let people shrink 700MB of data off a CD less than ten percent in size. No matter what level you rip your files at through iTunes or any other MP3 format, you are getting some loss, even at the highest rate of rip. But even an audiophile can't always tell the differences. Subjectively speaking, most can't tell the diff between a 160K and a 320K bitrate on an MP3 file except to look at the file size and gasp as one is half the size on the drive as the other.

Keep in mind, though, that most musicians that perform currently on the smaller circuits also cut their own music on home computers and burn their CDs from mastered MP3s.

If you want to kick Bitrates and MP3 conversions around in your head, MP3-Converter is a good place to start.

[Edited on Jan 23, 2006 7:55PM]

Does anyone else think that $.99 for a song is kind of a rip off?

Man, nothing makes me feel old like knowing that Wes from TNG is in his thirties.

Duuuuude, you aren't supposed to talk about that!

That's actually cheaper than singles used to be.

I think that's the genius of the ITunes Music Store; the resurrection of the single. Being able to just get that one song you like for 99 cents instead of having to pay $17.95 for the CD and getting that 1 song and 12 pieces of shit is a strong incentive to not download illegally.

Unfortunately, the shit-for-brains RIAA can't see this. They'd shut the ITunes Music Store the fuck down if they could.

Hardly. Not to mention the record labels are crying that they aren't making as much money because they are not manufacturing/selling as many CDs.

Hmm... let's think about this. I theory, they need to make ONE digital master copy of a song and electronically transfer it to Apple/Napster/etc, then collect royalties on each copy sold. Compare that to making a digital master, burn CDs, print artwork, package CD, store thousands of copies that MAY sell, ship to customers...

Yeah, the record industry is totally getting screwed.

I still don't own an ipod.

What zym said, plus let's face it, it's an exercise in futility to rip Neutral Milk Hotel at 192 kbps in the first place.

Grahf's right - who gives a shit about sound quality at 120 db at 2 AM?

The hard-core audiophile purist isn't going to own an iPod anyway - they'll have enough audiophilic wankery tucked away to keep them blissfully listening to Elton John's Greatest Hits, serene in suckery.

But hey, at least it'll be the cleanest reproduction of an Elton John record ever.

...I don't own an iPod.
...I don't own any Elton John either.

zymyrgy said:
Note for Kremlee: Acoustically, unless you happen to be a virtuoso violinist or accoustic adjuster, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.

Subjectively speaking, most can't tell the diff between a 160K and a 320K bitrate on an MP3 file except to look at the file size and gasp as one is half the size on the drive as the other.


I agree within reason, though I think you're wrong about having to be a virtuoso violinist - I can tell the difference quite easily between 160 and 320, and 128 is unlistenable.

Also try listening to a heavily distorted band (filter, etc) at anything less than 320.

But let's get back to this strange correlation between volkswagons and macs...

Word.

I love my iPod... never used the iTunes store... why? I love buying CDs, having that package, and being able to always have a solid 'backup' in case I lose my iTunes libarary somehow...

Hell, eventually I'd like to start getting records.