Featured Sponsor Listings

EMI and Apple sign deal to provide higher quality, non-DRM downloads

Apr 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM Post #4 of 28
smily_headphones1.gif


I'm sure your thread won't be the last!
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 3:38 PM Post #5 of 28
wonderful....the new iTunes format might be 256kps
rolleyes.gif
Step in the right direction?
confused.gif
It's still not lossless and we'll see if their premium bitrate costs more then a higher quality, regular CD
plainface.gif
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 4:00 PM Post #7 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif
wonderful....the new iTunes format might be 256kps
rolleyes.gif
Step in the right direction?
confused.gif
It's still not lossless and we'll see if their premium bitrate costs more then a higher quality, regular CD
plainface.gif



It's going to be the same price, and those who have purchased the songs that will be in 256kbps in 128kbps, can get the 256kbps version for free.
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 4:05 PM Post #8 of 28
That's not what the EMI press release said. 256kbs songs will be $1.29, as opposed to $.99 for 128kbps songs. Prices for entire albums, however, will apparently be the same.
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 4:19 PM Post #9 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's not what the EMI press release said. 256kbs songs will be $1.29, as opposed to $.99 for 128kbps songs. Prices for entire albums, however, will apparently be the same.


Ah yes, I was thinking about the albums, not the individual tracks
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 4:35 PM Post #10 of 28
Whatever it might be.....I'm still getting lossless for $7 an album.
tongue.gif
Yourmusic.com baby!!! The only thing about them is their selection is limited
frown.gif
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 4:57 PM Post #11 of 28
Nice...? But still not lossless. I'd rather buy a real cd wich I can rip in highest qual.
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 5:34 PM Post #12 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Nice...? But still not lossless. I'd rather buy a real cd wich I can rip in highest qual.


Of course, but its a step in the right direction. 256 AAC (it is AAC, right?) is pretty decent. But rather than start a debate about lossy/lossless, the positive development I see here is that consumers will begin to become educated that there exists much higher fidelity than 128, and that companies are more than capable of delivering this higher quality.
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 6:18 PM Post #14 of 28
256kbps AAC is equivalent to 320kbps MP3 (since AAC is a superior codec, using a better filterbank and about a decade more psychoacoustic research). It's basically as good as lossless music gets. Plus it's an open standard. Absolutely nothing to complain about here. It's a major step forward. Not lossless yet, but at least they're finally doing lossy right. Offering quality upgrades is also a classy touch. Steve deserves a hand for pushing the industry in the right direction. Maybe in a year or two we'll see lossless.

As it stands right now, this is probably a decent solution versus buying CDs if you only want one song off an album.
 
Apr 2, 2007 at 8:43 PM Post #15 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Of course, but its a step in the right direction. 256 AAC (it is AAC, right?) is pretty decent. But rather than start a debate about lossy/lossless, the positive development I see here is that consumers will begin to become educated that there exists much higher fidelity than 128, and that companies are more than capable of delivering this higher quality.


Sorry, It was not my intention to start a debate about lossless vs lossy.
And costumers are not getting educated..they just buy what they are being offered imo.
But it is nice to see that they have started with upgrading the qual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top