Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 15:23 UTC
This morning, Apple and EMI announced the availabilty of DRM-free music in the iTunes Music Store. DRM-free songs will feature a higher audio quality (256kbps), and will cost USD/EUR 1.29 per song. They also announced that they are working on getting The Beatles' music in the iTMS.
Thread beginning with comment 226903
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-26
You've overlooked my point that the sites offering uncompressed files for download were /specialist/ stores (ie different from the average online music shop).
I wouldn't expect the average user to download WAV files, but then I wouldn't expect the average user to be DJing in front of 2000 people on a 40k sound system either ;-)
Granted they maybe ignorant, but then at least with uncompressed files you know /exactly/ what you are getting and you know it's 100% compatable with all of your set up (for example, most sequencers don't support FLAC)
Edited 2007-04-03 16:28
Member since:2005-11-16
I wouldn't expect the average user to download WAV files, but then I wouldn't expect the average user to be DJing in front of 2000 people on a 40k sound system either ;-)
I'd have thought that a club full of 2000 people would be just about the last place where virtually nonexistent differences in sound quality would be perceptible...
Granted they maybe ignorant, but then at least with uncompressed files you know /exactly/ what you are getting and you know it's 100% compatable with all of your set up (for example, most sequencers don't support FLAC)
Actually they don't know exactly what they're getting if they don't know the the source used for the WAV files. I know of commercial audio CDs that were mastered from low bitrate compressed files, and I've known people transcode files to higher bitrates thinking that it'll somehow improve the quality. With a lossless format like FLAC you're getting exactly the same content as the source WAV that was compressed, so it isn't really any different.
Of course they can decompress the FLAC files back into WAV if they need to play them on a device that doesn't support the format. Just putting up the WAVs seems as silly as hosting large applications that aren't compressed.
I suppose I'm making a big deal about nothing, after all the consumers of these files obviously aren't bothered, but the pointlessness and wastefulness of it just bugs me.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-16
I guess that depends on the quantity of music you're talking about, and the internet connection that's available in your area.
I use FLAC, yet I've filled three 500Gb hard drives with my music collection, with a stack of older 200/250Gb drives for backup. I wouldn't say that virtually doubling the amount of storage required would 'cost nothing'. If nothing else it adds inconvenience by requiring multiple drives.
Where I live 2Mb connections are still very common, in a lot of areas faster speeds simply aren't available for an affordable price. Downloading full uncompressed CDs would take quite a while even over an 8-16Mb connection. Also, a lot of ISPs have 'acceptable usage limits', where they'll restrict your connection if you use too much bandwidth (often as little as 20Gb per month). You'd hit a limit like that much more quickly when downloading uncompressed audio.
Amazing that people in the music business would be so ignorant about file formats that they'd stick to WAV.