[Sean H]

http://msnbc.com/news/913376.asp?0cv=CB20

EDIT: Sorry guys, I meant he looked kind of like an arse when it was verified that disc he burned before the first article he wrote that he could not play had an error and didn't verify that before writing a national article. Couldn't agree more about his claims to ACC sound and challenging Apple's lofty claims.

 

[grinch]

i don't think he looks like an idiot, i think most of the people who wrote in do.

the difference between a lossily compressed audio file and the original cd is completely apparent if you have a decent system and your head isn't in your ass. i do think aac files sound better than mp3, but the compression is still there.. especially at 128kbps. however, the idiotic population isn't going to realize or care about this.

personally, i don't think i'll ever pay money to download a song, it's just ridiculous. however, if there was a store where i could order the cd, and in turn download tracks from it while the cd is shipping to me.. that idea is a bit more useful to me.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

The author of the article isn't the idiot there. As the poster above me pointed out, it's the readers who wrote in about it that look like fools.

The author has valid points.

 

[wasifazim]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sol_Zhen The author of the article isn't the idiot there. As the poster above me pointed out, it's the readers who wrote in about it that look like fools. The author has valid points.

Certainly, and just like the author, I find that last comment from the "music professional" especially frightening...

- w

 

[Textual Intercou]

I agree with what he said...128kb isn't cd audio, I don't want to pay $10 for a bunch of poor quality computer files when $10 gets me a CD (which it does, although of course certain CDs cost more), etc. In fact, if I was he I might go one step further and criticize the lack of lossless audio compression for iTunes, the problem I have when I try to bring Nero/Psytel encoded AAC files into iTunes, etc.

I'm not sure what the deal is with iTunes not always playing well with other AAC encoders/decoders from the Windows side, I've tried to figure it out (some people tell me its Apple's DRM, others say its the MPEG2/MPEG4 audio formats) but it ended up being too much of a hassle.

Of course, the guy not realizing that burnt CD media can impact playback is somewhat questionable, has he never burned CDs before? Maybe he never needed to, and testing it out for the Apple store is the first time he did it?

I don't remember what Apple specifically said about the quality (CD? near CD?) but it's probably the same tripe that has led companies to label 128kb MP3 as CD Quality, and I guess Apple is closer to a real CD than any company encoding MP3. At any rate, the more complaints generated about low bitrate music, the more likely that higher quality music is distributed. After all, if I could get a lossless copy of the CD from Apple, burn it onto a regular CD, and have it cost $5 or so (pawn shop prices), I might be tempted. I can't see that happening, but I can always dream.

At any rate, I certainly wouldn't call him an idiot on these forums as all the issues he pointed out are valid criticisms of the Apple store: media issues, non-lossy compression...He doesn't sound like the most technologically knowledable person, but keep in mind he's writing for NBC, and he doesn't really have to be. I read the Rolling Stones article about the service and it wasn't tech savvy either, but it was interesting to get the opinion of the mainstream who before the Apple store wouldn't get near downloading music online.

I think the only real idiot is the person who called his work biased because of the MSNBC deal, without addressing the fact that the article was very valid. I suppose I'm biased, because it's very similar to the article I'd write about it (minus the CD burning snafu, eh?), and I'm certainly no Apple hater nor am I paid by Microsoft

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Textual Intercou Of course, the guy not realizing that burnt CD media can impact playback is somewhat questionable, has he never burned CDs before? Maybe he never needed to, and testing it out for the Apple store is the first time he did it?

i forgot to mention this, and i agree. not realizing that some media isn't totally compatible is a newbie mistake. however, i find this odd because i believe i've dealt with this media before and it always worked fine for me. i am a pc user though. i noticed once that itunes default burning method is track-at-once (tao) and that has been blamed much in the past for unreadable/unplayable cds. i wonder if this has to do with it as well.

of course, disc-at-once may not be possible with all the decoding that has to go on before each file can be burned: a compressed file (aac) has to be uncompressed to wav (or aiff) before it is burned. most burning programs do this on-the-fly. ahead's nero is one that does this for pc and disc-at-once operation is possible. not sure, but that's what it sounds like his problem was (to me). nice to see he corrected it though.

 

[Sean H]

Quote:

Originally posted by Textual Intercou Of course, the guy not realizing that burnt CD media can impact playback is somewhat questionable, has he never burned CDs before? Maybe he never needed to, and testing it out for the Apple store is the first time he did it?

Sorry guys! I should have been more clear. I agree 100% about the discussion regarding the sonics and Apple's dumb claim to say ACC soudns as good or better than CD. It's what Textual Intercou has said, that I quoted above, that had me laughing. Have to admit, the guy kind of looked like an arse there. I mean, come on, wouldn't you figure you'd make sure there wasn't a problem with burning the disc before writing a national story? I have to wonder if he even knew what an AIFF file was before ths first article.

 

[MacDEF]

Personally, I don't think his follow-up made him OR those who wrote in look like "idiots." I thought his response was fair (MUCH better than the crap that was his original article), and I thought all but one of the letters he printed made good points.

As for the guy who accused him of being a Microsoft shill, that was overboard but not really an illogical conclusion if you read the piece of junk that was the original article

 

[Sean H]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Personally, I don't think his follow-up made him OR those who wrote in look like "idiots." I thought his response was fair (MUCH better than the crap that was his original article), and I thought all but one of the letters he printed made good points. As for the guy who accused him of being a Microsoft shill, that was overboard but not really an illogical conclusion if you read the piece of junk that was the original article

I agree. And again, as I've edited my intial post to clarify, it's not the case he's making about Apple's ridiculous claims about ACC that I called him an idiot, it's the "OOPS!" of not verifying the disc he burned before his first article that he couldn't get to play had an error before actually mentioning that in a national article.

 

[Guardian]

I don't think he looks like an idiot, but basically he's a pretty poor writer. The primary article fails to make it very clear as to what exactly he is criticizing. He should have more directly stated his point that Apple is charging too much for a necessarily lossy music format rather than meandering as much as he did. I generally dislike his tone, as well. He is a pretty amateurish writer and journalist. That thing with the cd-r failing is ridiculous; I can't believe he didn't try again or at least do some kind of checking--communicating with Apple, looking up online opinions to see if others had similar problems--when Apple makes it clear that you should be able to burn the files and play them without any problem.

 

[Textual Intercou]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Personally, I don't think his follow-up made him OR those who wrote in look like "idiots." I thought his response was fair (MUCH better than the crap that was his original article), and I thought all but one of the letters he printed made good points. As for the guy who accused him of being a Microsoft shill, that was overboard but not really an illogical conclusion if you read the piece of junk that was the original article

Now wait a second, I don't even think you can say that. I reread the original article, and I think it's pretty fair, acknowledging its really superior ease of use, and all the other stuff.

MP3s don't have any better quality than Apple's AAC encoder which he disses, but when he's comparing them to CDs (as opposed to other audio services) I think what he's saying is perfectly valid.

Of course, I have to wonder that he didn't find out the CD media issue, and he should have mentioned that other online music stores have little better quality. But, I still don't think that's horrible...

 

[Guardian]

I have to wonder if Apple's prices aren't in part fixed or at least influenced by the recording industry's mandates.

 

[Lando]

I agree that his first article was amatuerish (due to lack of details), but his follow-up makes it look like he was just having a bad day. As for the people who wrote in.....well, half of them sounded idiotic. I will say this, though: having read untold numbers of tech-related articles and reviews, I have come to expect less from paid journalists and more from unpaid enthusiasts. It's just a day job for the journalists, after all.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Textual Intercou Now wait a second, I don't even think you can say that. I reread the original article, and I think it's pretty fair, acknowledging its really superior ease of use, and all the other stuff.

Pretty fair? It was poorly written, its conclusions weren't supported by any facts, and it was filled with mistakes (the CD issue) and poor methodology (his comparison methods) that a writer for a college paper shouldn't make, let alone the lead tech writer for MSNBC.

 

[aos]

Quote:

I think the only real idiot is the person who called his work biased because of the MSNBC deal, without addressing the fact that the article was very valid.

I think that ANYBODY who doesn't look FIRST at the affiliation of the publisher, REGARDLESS of any quality or apparent validity of claims in an article, is INCREDIBLY naive given the realities of today's world. Do you SERIOUSLY believe editors allow articles to be published without following the official guideline? Days of free press are long over. Don't mock people who have decided not to wear pink glasses anymore.