Cheeseball pricing on 'music download' services
John Bailo
iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
music acquisition.
Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
don't know if they charge tax or what ).
But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99 (
CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS media
rate so that tacks on $2.50.
That means I can have the real CD, with cover art, for $7.50 from Amazon
Marketplace, or a bunch of DRM'd files from Rhapsody for almost twice as
much!
I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know what?
I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody -- they
make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason,
like letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://texeme.com
John Bailo
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>>I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know what?
>> I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody -- they
>>make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason, like
>>letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about downloading
>>your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
>
>
> Period. You want one (Apple/iTunes Music Store) you need the other ...
> iTunes. Deal with it.
>
I just wanted to check selection and see a price.
It's called basic customer service.
Appiots don't get it.
John Bailo
> ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
> for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
> listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
>
Or I can torrent it from isohunt, and be tracked and killed by orbit
satellite lasers.
Sandman
John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
> music acquisition.
>
> Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
>
> It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
> don't know if they charge tax or what ).
>
> But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99 (
> CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
> Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS media
> rate so that tacks on $2.50.
Which means it's actually $8.49
> That means I can have the real CD, with cover art, for $7.50 from Amazon
> Marketplace, or a bunch of DRM'd files from Rhapsody for almost twice as
> much!
Yes, bargains can be had in the used market. That's really unique. :)
> I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know what?
> I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody -- they
> make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason,
> like letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
> downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
Yeah, bad move. That iTunes Music Store thing will never take off... Or wait a
minute! :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Rick
>
(snip)
> I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know what?
> I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody -- they
> make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason, like
> letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about downloading
> your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
It is a package deal. You access the Apple Music store using iTunes.
Period. You want one (Apple/iTunes Music Store) you need the other ...
iTunes. Deal with it.
--
Rick
Chad Irby
> iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
> music acquisition.
>
> Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
Came out last year. A couple of good songs on it. That one song "Lady"
was popular for a while.
> It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
> don't know if they charge tax or what ).
>
> But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99 (
> CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
> Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS media
> rate so that tacks on $2.50.
...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Warchild
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
Never mind that iTunes is just a re-purposed web browser application... So
where does that leave the original complaint about having to user iTunes?
>
> --
> Rick
>
Jim Polaski
John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
> > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
> > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
> >
>
> Or I can torrent it from isohunt, and be tracked and killed by orbit
> satellite lasers.
You need some black helicopters too, piloted by....
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Chad Irby
John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
> > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
> > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
>
> Or I can torrent it from isohunt, and be tracked and killed by orbit
> satellite lasers.
In other words, the best cheap way to get songs is iTunes.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know what?
>>> I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody -- they
>>>make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason,
>>>like letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
>>>downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
>>
>>
>> It is a package deal. You access the Apple Music store using iTunes.
>> Period. You want one (Apple/iTunes Music Store) you need the other ...
>> iTunes. Deal with it.
>>
>>
> I just wanted to check selection and see a price.
Then install iTunes and check you selections.
>
> It's called basic customer service.
>
> Appiots don't get it.
No, you don't get it. And it's .99 a song.
And wth is an appiot?
--
Rick
Rick
Where does it leave it? If you want to access the iTunes Music Store, you
use iTunes.
Just like AOL, EarthLink or any other service that has a proprietary
gateway.
--
Rick
George Graves
John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
I can't imagine why anybody would want lousy, compressed, lossy music
from a service like iTunes or Rhapsody when the CD sounds better (as
sonically compromised as standard Redbook CD format generally is, it's
still far better than any lossy compression scheme), often costs less
and in the case of some 'albums' is more complete.
--
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.
George Graves
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
compressed audio and you listen to the kind of music where only part of
the entire album is any good and the rest is just filler, maybe your
scenario works. I listen almost exclusively to classical music, jazz,
and symphonic film music, for me the audio quality is as important as
the performance, and the whole 'album' is important because it generally
contains a single work (like the entire score to "Ben Hur" or
Beethoven's 9th Symphony) or perhaps several related works (Like "Miles
Davis at Carnegie Hall").
George Graves
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
Sony has one too for their MiniDisk format music download service called
"Connect". I don't see what the big deal is. If you want to buy the
crappy quality of most compression schemes from a music download
service, you need their front end. End of story.
John Bailo
And you have to buy a $500 'cd player' ( oh, sorry, personal audio
device ) to play these things.
Lisa Horton
George Graves wrote:
>
> In article <cirby-5CDE8F....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <X9-dnVnVV5s...@speakeasy.net>,
> > John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
> > > music acquisition.
> > >
> > > Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
> >
> > Came out last year. A couple of good songs on it. That one song "Lady"
> > was popular for a while.
> >
> > > It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
> > > don't know if they charge tax or what ).
> > >
> > > But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99 (
> > > CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
> > > Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS media
> > > rate so that tacks on $2.50.
> >
> > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
> > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
> > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
>
> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> compressed audio and you listen to the kind of music where only part of
> the entire album is any good and the rest is just filler, maybe your
> scenario works.
WooHoo, you just described the entire online music market George. Not
singling out iTunes here, because selling low quality DRM'd music files
is what they all do. They are the fast food of the music world, selling
low quality with a happy face for a not really so cheap price. On the
other hand, you don't need to install a McDonalds client to poison
yourself :)
However much disdain you and I may view that scenario with, it's
obviously at least "good enough" for a whole LOT of people. Just like
McDonalds.
Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
Lisa
ZnU
wrote:
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
> > On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > (snip)
> > > I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know
> > > what?
> > > I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody
> > > -- they
> > > make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a
> > > reason,
> like
> > > letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
> > > downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve
> > > Job$.
> >
> > It is a package deal. You access the Apple Music store using
> > iTunes. Period. You want one (Apple/iTunes Music Store) you need
> > the other ... iTunes. Deal with it.
>
> Never mind that iTunes is just a re-purposed web browser
> application...
Actually, it's not. The iTMS is not HTML-based.
> So where does that leave the original complaint about having to user
> iTunes?
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
zara
zara
"Lisa Horton" <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:428A87DB...@lisahorton.net...
Did you ever shop at Nordstroms??
robert
> In article <d6dkqi$do...@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>, "Warchild" <b...@bob.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
>> > On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > (snip)
>> > > I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know
>> > > what?
>> > > I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody
>> > > -- they
>> > > make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a
>> > > reason,
>> like
>> > > letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
>> > > downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve
>> > > Job$.
>> >
>> > It is a package deal. You access the Apple Music store using
>> > iTunes. Period. You want one (Apple/iTunes Music Store) you need
>> > the other ... iTunes. Deal with it.
>>
>> Never mind that iTunes is just a re-purposed web browser
>> application...
>
> Actually, it's not. The iTMS is not HTML-based.
>
Encrypted XML via HTTP. Looks like a web browser app to me.
http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/itms4all/
Chad Irby
<gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> compressed audio
You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
reference monitor speakers, on a $2000 high-end CD player.
Since almost nobody does, and since people *do* want to hear a wide
selection of moderately nice tunes while actually having lives, AAC or
MP3 are more than adequate.
Once you put the earbuds in and hit the road on a bicycle, or walk along
next to traffic, or even play music inside most cars, the player is no
longer the limiter on the sound you actually *hear*.
ZnU
robert <ro...@wheel.invalid> wrote:
The XML isn't very XHTML-like. I believe iTunes is using an XML format
very similar to what's used in Carbon NIB files. IOW, you're looking at
something that's effectively native Mac OS GUI code.
Chad Irby
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> WooHoo, you just described the entire online music market George. Not
> singling out iTunes here, because selling low quality DRM'd music files
> is what they all do. They are the fast food of the music world, selling
> low quality with a happy face for a not really so cheap price. On the
> other hand, you don't need to install a McDonalds client to poison
> yourself :)
>
> However much disdain you and I may view that scenario with, it's
> obviously at least "good enough" for a whole LOT of people. Just like
> McDonalds.
>
> Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
I'm sorry, I just had a flashback to the days when the previous
generation of audio snobs used to tell us all that CDs were Satan's
Little Discs, and that nothing could ever possibly replace the "true"
sound of an LP played on a turntable that cost half as much as a car,
and that the "lossy" CD was anathema to their ears.
robert
<quote>
So, we have the key. On April 14, 2004, I started reverse-engineering
the protocol, first by looking at my web proxy logs, and then by running
tenlet (yes, tenlet) to catch the iTunes client's request and telnet
to talk to Apple's server. I wrote a Perl script to decrypt Apple's
responses. After I had that working, I wrote a few regexps to extract the
relevant pieces of data from the XML and format them with HTML. Finally,
I wrapped these operations in a CGI interface so that the script can
run on a web server.
The script is out there, and it works. My 13-year-old cousin has been
searching the iTMS from his Sidekick cell phone (now there's something
you couldn't do last week, eh?).
The first step (working with Apple's encryption scheme) is complete. Now
the possibilities are endless: from "borrowing" the iTunes data for use
in other apps to a full-fledged iTMS client for Linux.
My work here is done, though.
Jason Rohrer April 16, 2004
</quote>
Rick
Really? A person with Suse 9.2 on the desktop and Fedora Core one on the
old laptop, without a desktop Mac is an appiot?
interesting.
--
Rick
chrisv
>Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
Yep. CD's are great. No need for SACD (or whatever) on the "high
end" (no one can hear any improvement over a quality CD), and no need
for compressed music, either.
Lisa Horton
There remain aspects of high quality vinyl, played on a good turntable
with a good cartridge through a good stereo that are better than CD.
Ruggedness and convenience are not among those, however.
However, you need only a pretty good stereo or playback system to hear
the difference between CD and MP3, especially at the relatively low
bitrates that are commonly used. If you can't hear the difference,
that's great for you, you can (potentially) save money and have all that
convenience.
Lisa
Lisa Horton
Did you ever write anything worth reading?
Lisa
Jim
headphones on a bike? You sure do like to live dangerously...
I use a set of Diamond Loudmouse I 2.1 speakers on my bike... very rich
sounding, oodles of bass from my minidisc player - which is set to
record line output from my laptop at LP4 (the mp3 of minidisc), which
yields over 5 hours per MD80 disc. I /have/ noticed a difference between
SP (full quality) and LP4 (max space, stereo input) when I'm listening
through reference speakers (Audio Research AR7 Studio), not so much
through buds or the Loudmouse in traffic conditions.
One of these days I'm going to have to put up a site showing the
heaviest Y-frame modifications known to Man...
--
Cheers,
Jim
-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of
the opinions of its author. You decide.
Web: http://www.dotware.co.uk
http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk
Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS,
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 32...@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768,
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux
More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
Lisa Horton
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > compressed audio
>
> You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
> reference monitor speakers, on a $2000 high-end CD player.
It doesn't take anywhere near that kind of setup to hear the difference,
at least to some.
>
> Since almost nobody does, and since people *do* want to hear a wide
> selection of moderately nice tunes while actually having lives, AAC or
> MP3 are more than adequate.
Indeed, and McDonalds is more than adequate for many people. But that
doesn't make their hamburgers equal to even a better chain like Red
Robin.
>
> Once you put the earbuds in and hit the road on a bicycle, or walk along
> next to traffic, or even play music inside most cars, the player is no
> longer the limiter on the sound you actually *hear*.
Pretty much true. No matter how good the player is, if it's playing
MP3 files it can't sound as good as a CD player can. The player can't
make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Incidentally, there are time when, for me, convenience does outweigh
sound quality, so I do actually own an MP3 player.
There are people who have really nice cars, but drive a beater econobox
for commuting, doesn't make the two equal.
There are people with really nice cameras who have a lesser camera to
use when convenience is more important than quality, I'm one. Doesn't
make the cameras equal.
Instant mashed potatoes are far more convenient than making mashed
potatoes from scratch, but that doesn't make the two equal.
I don't understand what's so hard about this concept.
Lisa
Chad Irby
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
"Relatively low" meaning, for the most part, lower than the 128 used in
iTunes, and usually with older versions of the compressors now in use
(which have advanced quite a bit from those first-generation codecs that
most folks refer to).
I've plugged my Shuffle into some fairly serious sound systems, and
shocked some of the more snooty audiophiles you're ever going to meet.
Warchild
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vlyie.2954$fE3....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I only wear Nordstrom brand underwear.
Warchild
Knock off the idiotic food analogies, porky.
Warchild
And even services that user a browser, make you sign up and logon to
purchase anything. The benefit of iTunes is integration and ease of use.
> --
> Rick
>
Warchild
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
iTunes was not designed with you in mind. In fact, recorded audio was not
designed with you in mind. Get ye to a concert hall.
Warchild
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-D7481B.2...@individual.net...
Gee, I wonder why there is a version that runs on Windows? HMMMM?
JEDIDIAH
ppppffft. iTunes choked on my mp3 collection.
Running a single application to deal with a single product source is
simply INSANE. It is NOT human computing. Regardless of how spiffy the
application is, it is still a burden on the end user and an interruption of
their own established routine. It is also completely unecessary. It is an
artificial, crass marketing directed dependency.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> In article <vrKdnbaAYI-...@speakeasy.net>,
> John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
>> > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
>> > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
>>
>> satellite lasers.
>
> In other words, the best cheap way to get songs is iTunes.
I don't listen to any artist unless I am willing to listen to their
work continuously for 60 minutes or more.
Nevermind the albums.
If you're not willing to listen to their entire live set, they're
simply not worth bothering with.
JEDIDIAH
If all you're interested in is AOR singles then you can just get
that off of radio for free. There's really no good excuse for paying for
THAT.
...that, and the U2 Complete Collection on iTunes must have just
been a figment of my imagination.
> singling out iTunes here, because selling low quality DRM'd music files
> is what they all do. They are the fast food of the music world, selling
> low quality with a happy face for a not really so cheap price. On the
> other hand, you don't need to install a McDonalds client to poison
> yourself :)
>
> However much disdain you and I may view that scenario with, it's
> obviously at least "good enough" for a whole LOT of people. Just like
> McDonalds.
>
> Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
>
> Lisa
JEDIDIAH
You can only be so "cheap". Sooner or later, you WILL get to a point
where even the bulk of the consumer masses will be able to detect a drop in
quality.
That point was reached with lossy compressed digital audio. That is
why there are a variety of bitrates that audiofiles are presented as (and
traded). If you are attempting to deny this, you are either being blatantly
dishonest or just don't have any real experience in this area.
JEDIDIAH
CD's are probably the suite spot in terms of audio quality.
Just bad enough to annoy a few audiophiles that don't matter to the
target demographic anyways but not bad enough to annoy consumers at large.
However, there is still value in compressing CD's into the immediate
future for convenience. 1 Double Layer DVD+R is a lot nicer to deal with than
7.
JEDIDIAH
><gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
>> compressed audio
>
> You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
Except it doesn't take that.
Music compression artifacts will show up on the cheapest PC stereo
speakers. Your notion that these effects require expensive equipment to be
heard is simple BS.
[deletia]
Lisa Horton
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article <428B63DA...@lisahorton.net>,
> Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>
> > However, you need only a pretty good stereo or playback system to hear
> > the difference between CD and MP3, especially at the relatively low
> > bitrates that are commonly used. If you can't hear the difference,
> > that's great for you, you can (potentially) save money and have all that
> > convenience.
>
> "Relatively low" meaning, for the most part, lower than the 128 used in
> iTunes, and usually with older versions of the compressors now in use
> (which have advanced quite a bit from those first-generation codecs that
> most folks refer to).
I consider anything under 192 "relatively low". Anything under 128 is
going to sound odd, at least to me.
>
> I've plugged my Shuffle into some fairly serious sound systems, and
> shocked some of the more snooty audiophiles you're ever going to meet.
Snooty doesn't necessarily equal discriminating. An expensive stereo
doesn't necessarily equate to being a true audiophile. I don't claim to
be an audiophile either.
Lisa
JEDIDIAH
>>
>> In article
>> <gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
>> > compressed audio
>>
>> You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
>> music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
>> reference monitor speakers, on a $2000 high-end CD player.
>
> It doesn't take anywhere near that kind of setup to hear the difference,
> at least to some.
>
>>
>> Since almost nobody does, and since people *do* want to hear a wide
>> selection of moderately nice tunes while actually having lives, AAC or
>> MP3 are more than adequate.
>
> Indeed, and McDonalds is more than adequate for many people. But that
> doesn't make their hamburgers equal to even a better chain like Red
> Robin.
Nevermind Red Robin.
They won't even be equal to Wendy's, Carl's Jr, Whattaburger or In&Out.
Lisa Horton
If they are too difficult for you to comprehend, I'm sorry, I have no
simpler analogies for you.
Lisa
JEDIDIAH
> news:gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <cirby-5CDE8F....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <X9-dnVnVV5s...@speakeasy.net>,
>> > John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
>> compressed audio and you listen to the kind of music where only part of
>> the entire album is any good and the rest is just filler, maybe your
>> scenario works. I listen almost exclusively to classical music, jazz,
>> and symphonic film music, for me the audio quality is as important as
>> the performance, and the whole 'album' is important because it generally
>> contains a single work (like the entire score to "Ben Hur" or
>> Beethoven's 9th Symphony) or perhaps several related works (Like "Miles
>> Davis at Carnegie Hall").
>>
>
> iTunes was not designed with you in mind. In fact, recorded audio was not
> designed with you in mind. Get ye to a concert hall.
CD's can be quite adequate for replicating the effect of a "concert
hall". So can compressed audio given a sufficient bitrate.
You are attempting to draw an obviously false dichotomy.
ZnU
wrote:
Because Apple presumably implemented parts of Carbon on top of Windows
in the process of porting iTunes. My understanding is, they'd already
done quite a lot of that to support the Windows version of QuickTime.
JEDIDIAH
>>
>> In article <428B63DA...@lisahorton.net>,
>> Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>> I've plugged my Shuffle into some fairly serious sound systems, and
>> shocked some of the more snooty audiophiles you're ever going to meet.
>
> Snooty doesn't necessarily equal discriminating. An expensive stereo
> doesn't necessarily equate to being a true audiophile. I don't claim to
> be an audiophile either.
A moderately expensive stereo only implies that you have pretty
complete range of sound, decent components, and can fill a decent sized room.
JEDIDIAH
Gee. So iTunes on Win32 is like IE under Solaris.
That's just something that I want to run out and install <not>.
...all of that just so you can replicate the user experience of an
ecommerce website.
Humane Computing indeed...
Chad Irby
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > "Relatively low" meaning, for the most part, lower than the 128 used in
> > iTunes, and usually with older versions of the compressors now in use
> > (which have advanced quite a bit from those first-generation codecs that
> > most folks refer to).
>
> I consider anything under 192 "relatively low". Anything under 128 is
> going to sound odd, at least to me.
For MP3, yes, but 128 AAC and 128 MP3 are two very different critters.
128 AAC is noticeably better than 192 MP3.
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> I don't listen to any artist unless I am willing to listen to their
> work continuously for 60 minutes or more.
>
> Nevermind the albums.
>
> If you're not willing to listen to their entire live set, they're
> simply not worth bothering with.
Obsessive-compulsive, or something else in DSM-IV?
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-05-18, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> ><gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> >> compressed audio
> >
> > You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> > music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
>
> Except it doesn't take that.
>
> Music compression artifacts will show up on the cheapest PC stereo
> speakers. Your notion that these effects require expensive equipment to be
> heard is simple BS.
Music compression *when done badly* or at lower bit rates does.
Music compression when done well is much harder to tell from "mere" CDs,
unless you have something a bit better than a cheap stereo.
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> You can only be so "cheap". Sooner or later, you WILL get to a point
> where even the bulk of the consumer masses will be able to detect a drop in
> quality.
>
> That point was reached with lossy compressed digital audio.
Except, as iTunes sales have shown (400,000,000 songs sold so far),
that's a load of dingo's kidneys.
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> ppppffft. iTunes choked on my mp3 collection.
Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of Windows MP3 compressors insert bogus
information in the headers. That, and virus payloads. Fix that, and
you'll have a much better time.
> Running a single application to deal with a single product source is
> simply INSANE. It is NOT human computing.
You only need it to interface with the iTunes Music Store, and that's
hardly a bad requirement (considering that a lot of MP3 players require
special software just to work at *all*).
The Ghost In The Machine
<no...@nomail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 18 May 2005 10:34:38 GMT
<pan.2005.05.18....@nomail.com>:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:13:42 -0400, zara wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>>I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know
>>>>>>what?
>>>>>> I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody --
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason,
>>>>>>like letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
>>>>>>downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a package deal. You access the Apple Music store using iTunes.
>>>>> Period. You want one (Apple/iTunes Music Store) you need the other ...
>>>>> iTunes. Deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Then install iTunes and check you selections.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's called basic customer service.
>>>>
>>>> Appiots don't get it.
>>>
>>> No, you don't get it. And it's .99 a song.
>>>
>>> And wth is an appiot?
>>
>> A person like you.
>
> Really? A person with Suse 9.2 on the desktop and Fedora Core one on the
> old laptop, without a desktop Mac is an appiot?
>
> interesting.
>
That logic makes about as much sense as some of the Wintrolls'... :-)
(FWIW, I don't do iTunes, iPod, etc.)
In my case, I for one would like to see documentation on the Web
for the iTunes service prior to installation. Presumably, that's
easily enough done.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net>
wrote
on Tue, 17 May 2005 17:19:10 -0500
<jpolaski-2F6661...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
> In article <vrKdnbaAYI-...@speakeasy.net>,
> John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
>> > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
>> > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
>> >
>>
>> satellite lasers.
>
>
Actually, I think the orbiting satellites are currently over
sci.logic. :-) Not sure regarding the whereabouts of
the black helicopters, or their pilots. (Are they grays?)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random gray area here
Lisa Horton
To me, any music file that incorporates any DRM is not a usable file.
The opinions of others, obviously, vary.
Lisa
Warchild
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:7-mdnWTq2qD...@comcast.com...
HMMMM. Computers themselves are not 'necessary'. There are many software
applications for computer platforms that require you to use the interface
that is provided, and none other. You don't need iTunes to download music
online. You do have other choices. So the whining about iTunes is really
because they have a superior product that no one else has yet successfully
imitated. Notice I said 'yet'. Something else may come along and compete
with iTunes, as the concept of music downloading is not proprietary with
Apple.
Warchild
Ooooh, Lisa thinks that her food fixation constitutes deep thinking.
>
> Lisa
Warchild
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
No, actually I am wasting humor on a dullard.
Warchild
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
You keep using that phrase without demonstrating that it applies, or even
that you know what it means.
chrisv
>> Yep. CD's are great. No need for SACD (or whatever) on the "high
>> end" (no one can hear any improvement over a quality CD), and no need
>> for compressed music, either.
>
> CD's are probably the suite spot in terms of audio quality.
>
> Just bad enough to annoy a few audiophiles that don't matter to the
>target demographic anyways but not bad enough to annoy consumers at large.
I might be considered an audiophile, and they don't annoy me. 8)
AFAIK, despite the theoretical improvements in the new formats, it's
still unproven that they are audibly superior, for 2-channel music.
>However, there is still value in compressing CD's into the immediate
>future for convenience. 1 Double Layer DVD+R is a lot nicer to deal with than
Compression done right, with a high-enough bit-rate, can be difficult
to differentiate from the original.
chrisv
>There remain aspects of high quality vinyl, played on a good turntable
>with a good cartridge through a good stereo that are better than CD.
In your opinion. However the fact is that, in terms of presenting you
the most accurate rendition of the original performance, CD beats
vinyl in every way.
Chad Irby
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> To me, any music file that incorporates any DRM is not a usable file.
..and you have a right to that opinion.
> The opinions of others, obviously, vary.
People who don't mind other people making money, for example.
Lisa Horton
Lisa thinks that whimperchild would be a better handle for you.
Lisa
Lisa Horton
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article <428B9403...@lisahorton.net>,
> Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>
> > To me, any music file that incorporates any DRM is not a usable file.
>
> ..and you have a right to that opinion.
>
> > The opinions of others, obviously, vary.
>
> People who don't mind other people making money, for example.
>
>
Your logic escapes me. How does an objection to DRM translate to
minding if other people make money? Consider the context, my expressed
preference for purchasing music on CD rather than as DRM impaired files.
Lisa
Lisa Horton
Not just my opinion. While CD may be superior overall, I think it
inaccurate to say that they are superior in "every way".
Lisa
JEDIDIAH
JEDIDIAH
> news:IcidneeMTrO...@comcast.com...
>> On 2005-05-18, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <d6fqmo$eb...@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>, "Warchild" <b...@bob.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> news:znu-D7481B.2...@individual.net...
>> >> > In article <nfSdnfQ-CK-...@ctc.net>,
>> >> > robert <ro...@wheel.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > > > In article <d6dkqi$do...@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>, "Warchild"
><b...@bob.com>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > >> news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
>> >> > > >> > On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>> ...all of that just so you can replicate the user experience of an
>> ecommerce website.
>>
>> Humane Computing indeed...
>
> You keep using that phrase without demonstrating that it applies, or even
> that you know what it means.
Then educate us.
Tell us how forcibly interrupting the end user's established routine
and methods for accessing data is in any way humane.
I doubt if the imposition of Big Brother style conformity was what
Jef had in mind when he coined that term.
JEDIDIAH
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> I don't listen to any artist unless I am willing to listen to their
>> work continuously for 60 minutes or more.
>>
>> Nevermind the albums.
>>
>> If you're not willing to listen to their entire live set, they're
>> simply not worth bothering with.
>
> Obsessive-compulsive, or something else in DSM-IV?
>
Classically trained musician.
JEDIDIAH
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> ppppffft. iTunes choked on my mp3 collection.
>
> Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of Windows MP3 compressors insert bogus
> information in the headers. That, and virus payloads. Fix that, and
> you'll have a much better time.
So I'm supposed to re-encode 100's of albums just to suit iTunes.
Must be some more of that "humane computing".
No other mp3 player has had this problem.
>
>> Running a single application to deal with a single product source is
>> simply INSANE. It is NOT human computing.
>
> You only need it to interface with the iTunes Music Store, and that's
Which is a completely artificial constraint.
> hardly a bad requirement (considering that a lot of MP3 players require
> special software just to work at *all*).
That would make a lot of mp3 players as inhumane as the ipod.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:7-mdnWTq2qD...@comcast.com...
>> On 2005-05-18, Warchild <b...@bob.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:39:46 -0700, Warchild wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:pan.2005.05.17....@nomail.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:35:52 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>> > And even services that user a browser, make you sign up and logon to
>> > purchase anything. The benefit of iTunes is integration and ease of
> use.
>>
>> ppppffft. iTunes choked on my mp3 collection.
>>
>> Running a single application to deal with a single product source is
>> simply INSANE. It is NOT human computing. Regardless of how spiffy the
>> application is, it is still a burden on the end user and an interruption
> of
>> their own established routine. It is also completely unecessary. It is an
>> artificial, crass marketing directed dependency.
>
> HMMMM. Computers themselves are not 'necessary'. There are many software
> applications for computer platforms that require you to use the interface
> that is provided, and none other. You don't need iTunes to download music
Any of these are user hostile.
> online. You do have other choices. So the whining about iTunes is really
> because they have a superior product that no one else has yet successfully
> imitated. Notice I said 'yet'. Something else may come along and compete
Nope. It's because Apple is supposed to be the bastion of humane
computing yet it is doing all it can to disturb the established computing
habits of it's end users. It's subjecting them to completely uncessary
bullshit.
The fact that people are willing to put up with it doesn't excuse it.
> with iTunes, as the concept of music downloading is not proprietary with
> Apple.
[deletia]
chrisv
Within the terms I specified, it is.
JEDIDIAH
CDs are still digital. There are bound to be artifacts present
from the digitization process. This is simply a matter of mathematics.
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-05-18, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <7-mdnWTq2qD...@comcast.com>,
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> ppppffft. iTunes choked on my mp3 collection.
> >
> > Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of Windows MP3 compressors insert bogus
> > information in the headers. That, and virus payloads. Fix that, and
> > you'll have a much better time.
>
> So I'm supposed to re-encode 100's of albums just to suit iTunes.
No, you can keep on using the same old broken Windows software you
settled for a couple of years back.
> No other mp3 player has had this problem.
...of the one or two you tried.
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-05-18, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <428B7A90...@lisahorton.net>,
> > Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Chad Irby wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Relatively low" meaning, for the most part, lower than the 128 used in
> >> > iTunes, and usually with older versions of the compressors now in use
> >> > (which have advanced quite a bit from those first-generation codecs that
> >> > most folks refer to).
> >>
> >> I consider anything under 192 "relatively low". Anything under 128 is
> >> going to sound odd, at least to me.
> >
> > For MP3, yes, but 128 AAC and 128 MP3 are two very different critters.
> >
> > 128 AAC is noticeably better than 192 MP3.
>
> ...which does me a fat lot of good in the car.
Exactly. 128 AAC has moderately small file sizes, uses a really easy to
manage DRM scheme (pretty much transparent to the end user), and sounds
much better than larger files from MP3.
Lisa Horton
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On 2005-05-18, Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >> Lisa Horton wrote:
> >>
> >> >There remain aspects of high quality vinyl, played on a good turntable
> >> >with a good cartridge through a good stereo that are better than CD.
> >>
> >> In your opinion. However the fact is that, in terms of presenting you
> >> the most accurate rendition of the original performance, CD beats
> >> vinyl in every way.
> >
> > Not just my opinion. While CD may be superior overall, I think it
> > inaccurate to say that they are superior in "every way".
>
> CDs are still digital. There are bound to be artifacts present
> from the digitization process. This is simply a matter of mathematics.
>
Wouldn't you agree that they're both imperfect, but imperfect in
different ways?
Lisa
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> Any of these are user hostile.
...says a guy posting from a linux box...
Chad Irby
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-05-18, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <7-mdnWfq2qD...@comcast.com>,
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't listen to any artist unless I am willing to listen to their
> >> work continuously for 60 minutes or more.
> >>
> >> Nevermind the albums.
> >>
> >> If you're not willing to listen to their entire live set, they're
> >> simply not worth bothering with.
> >
> > Obsessive-compulsive, or something else in DSM-IV?
>
> Classically trained musician.
Yeah, I know a few folks with that problem. Can't connect with anything
musical unless they get a good long runup, and usually can't deal with
even "new" classical tunes they haven't heard a lot of times.
Kinda sad, really.
Chad Irby
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
You keep saying "DRM impaired," like that's some sort of huge imposition
on your life, when you've spent more time arguing about it in this
thread than I've had to spend dealing with "DRM" in the last *year*...
What sort of "impairment" does DRM force on you? It's not a quality
issue, since DRM itself doesn't usually (except for some old, dead
formats) impact the actual output, and since it's not a time issue, all
that's left is money.
chrisv
> CDs are still digital. There are bound to be artifacts present
>from the digitization process. This is simply a matter of mathematics.
The mathematics say that they nearly perfect up to around 22kHz, and
everything above that is filtered to inaudibility.
George Graves
wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <cirby-5CDE8F....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <X9-dnVnVV5s...@speakeasy.net>,
> > > John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
> > > > music acquisition.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
> > >
> > > Came out last year. A couple of good songs on it. That one song "Lady"
> > > was popular for a while.
> > >
> > > > It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
> > > > don't know if they charge tax or what ).
> > > >
> > > > But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99
> (
> > > > CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
> > > > Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS
> media
> > > > rate so that tacks on $2.50.
> > >
> > > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
> > > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
> > > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
> >
> > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > compressed audio and you listen to the kind of music where only part of
> > the entire album is any good and the rest is just filler, maybe your
> > scenario works. I listen almost exclusively to classical music, jazz,
> > and symphonic film music, for me the audio quality is as important as
> > the performance, and the whole 'album' is important because it generally
> > contains a single work (like the entire score to "Ben Hur" or
> > Beethoven's 9th Symphony) or perhaps several related works (Like "Miles
> > Davis at Carnegie Hall").
> >
>
> iTunes was not designed with you in mind. In fact, recorded audio was not
> designed with you in mind. Get ye to a concert hall.
I do that to. I use the concert hall to "calibrate my ears" to the sound
of real music played in a real space. But I strongly disagree that
recorded audio was not designed with people like me in mind.. I can come
damn close to "the real thing" in my living room with my current system.
Mostly from LP and SACD, but some CDs actually give glimpses
occasionally. Striving for the concert hall experience at home is a
hobby I've had since grade school, and while realizing that the gap
between reproduced and real will never be closed, I enjoy seeing how
close I can get.
--
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-05-18, Warchild <b...@bob.com> wrote:
> >
> > "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >> In article <cirby-5CDE8F....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <X9-dnVnVV5s...@speakeasy.net>,
> >> > John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> >> compressed audio and you listen to the kind of music where only part of
> >> the entire album is any good and the rest is just filler, maybe your
> >> scenario works. I listen almost exclusively to classical music, jazz,
> >> and symphonic film music, for me the audio quality is as important as
> >> the performance, and the whole 'album' is important because it generally
> >> contains a single work (like the entire score to "Ben Hur" or
> >> Beethoven's 9th Symphony) or perhaps several related works (Like "Miles
> >> Davis at Carnegie Hall").
> >>
> >
> > iTunes was not designed with you in mind. In fact, recorded audio was not
> > designed with you in mind. Get ye to a concert hall.
>
> CD's can be quite adequate for replicating the effect of a "concert
> hall". So can compressed audio given a sufficient bitrate.
I've heard compressed audio in about every scheme there is, and I've yet
to find any where the reproduced sound is adequate to my expectations.
> You are attempting to draw an obviously false dichotomy.
--
George Graves
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> In article
> <gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > compressed audio
>
> You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
> reference monitor speakers, on a $2000 high-end CD player.
I do.
> Since almost nobody does, and since people *do* want to hear a wide
> selection of moderately nice tunes while actually having lives, AAC or
> MP3 are more than adequate.
Obviously. It's just that I think its a step in the wrong direction.
Technology should allow sound reproduction to move forward toward the
ultimate goal of being indistinguishable from real, live music (Not
possible, but a "goal", nonetheless), not to be reduced to the level of
AM radio (or worse) just for the sake of convenience. OTOH, I suppose
when the recorded performance is modern popular music, the sound quality
doesn't matter. Of course that doesn't say much for modern popular
music, now, does it?
> Once you put the earbuds in and hit the road on a bicycle, or walk along
> next to traffic, or even play music inside most cars, the player is no
> longer the limiter on the sound you actually *hear*.
I agree and can actually listen to MiniDisc on airplanes and in other
high noise environments.
Peter Köhlmann
No. It is useabilty.
I can't recode DRMed music to any other format I might want.
I can't use copy-protected CDs in my car-stereo, and also not in my
sail-boat stereo.
Nor can I easily transfer DRMed content to a CD to use it there. DRM always
sits smack in the way to hinder me doing perfectly legal things, for
example listen to music I already paid for at a location/device I see fit
In short: *Every* kind of DRM is reason *not* to pay any amount of money and
to simply shop elsewhere
And just don't come with the "non-intrusive" idiocy of the apple-DRM
It *is* intrusive, and therefor they can eat their shit, I will not
participate
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-05-18, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> ><gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> >> compressed audio
> >
> > You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> > music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
>
> Except it doesn't take that.
>
> Music compression artifacts will show up on the cheapest PC stereo
> speakers. Your notion that these effects require expensive equipment to be
> heard is simple BS.
That's what I've found as well. I have a set of Moonsoons for my
computer audio. High-end they definitely ARE NOT! Yet if I play MP3,
even at high bit-rates, I can hear the noise modulation and other
compression artifacts and I find them so annoying that I can't listen
for long. My guess is that since modern popular music has little in the
way of dynamic range, that the artifacts are masked by the sound. In
music such as classical or jazz, the dynamic range is so great, varying
as it can from a whisper to a huge triple forte crescendo, that the
artifacts are easy to hear. Listen sometimes, in a quite room, to a solo
acoustic guitar ripped and played back at 1:4 (384bps, the highest
quality possible for MP3) on even a cheap system. If you can stand the
artifacts and distortion, then you're no music lover!
>
> [deletia]
George Graves
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <7-mdnWPq2qD...@comcast.com>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> > On 2005-05-18, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > ><gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > >> compressed audio
> > >
> > > You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> > > music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
> >
> > Except it doesn't take that.
> >
> > Music compression artifacts will show up on the cheapest PC stereo
> > speakers. Your notion that these effects require expensive equipment to be
> > heard is simple BS.
>
> Music compression *when done badly* or at lower bit rates does.
>
> Music compression when done well is much harder to tell from "mere" CDs,
> unless you have something a bit better than a cheap stereo.
I do not find this to be true.
Lisa Horton
You didn't answer the question.
Peter K explained the impairments as well as I could if not better. The
limits that accompany DRM are unacceptable to me. If they're acceptable
to you, that's fine with me.
And you didn't answer my question :)
Lisa
George Graves
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > > compressed audio
> >
> > You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> > music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
> > reference monitor speakers, on a $2000 high-end CD player.
>
> It doesn't take anywhere near that kind of setup to hear the difference,
> at least to some.
>
> >
> > Since almost nobody does, and since people *do* want to hear a wide
> > selection of moderately nice tunes while actually having lives, AAC or
> > MP3 are more than adequate.
>
> Indeed, and McDonalds is more than adequate for many people. But that
> doesn't make their hamburgers equal to even a better chain like Red
> Robin.
>
> >
> > Once you put the earbuds in and hit the road on a bicycle, or walk along
> > next to traffic, or even play music inside most cars, the player is no
> > longer the limiter on the sound you actually *hear*.
>
> Pretty much true. No matter how good the player is, if it's playing
> MP3 files it can't sound as good as a CD player can. The player can't
> make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
>
> Incidentally, there are time when, for me, convenience does outweigh
> sound quality, so I do actually own an MP3 player.
>
> There are people who have really nice cars, but drive a beater econobox
> for commuting, doesn't make the two equal.
>
> There are people with really nice cameras who have a lesser camera to
> use when convenience is more important than quality, I'm one. Doesn't
> make the cameras equal.
>
> Instant mashed potatoes are far more convenient than making mashed
> potatoes from scratch, but that doesn't make the two equal.
>
> I don't understand what's so hard about this concept.
>
> Lisa
I agree for the most part, Lisa. BUT I must say, there is a lower limit
cutoff point for everything and for everyone. It just might be different
for different people. For instance, I have a Nikon D70 digital camera
and Its VERY good. I also have a more convenient Canon SD110 digital
Elph. It has about half the pixels of the Nikon, but it does have a
decent lens for most purposes it's more than just adequate. I also
bought a Philips USB "lipstick" camera with 2.1 megapixels. I figured I
could just keep it in the car for those times when I "wished I'd brought
my camera with me." My first digital camera was a 2.1 megapixel Nikon
CoolPix, and I found that it too was adequate in many ways, so I figured
the Philips would be similar. Unfortunately this Philips camera has an
AWFUL lens and the picture quality is below my cutoff point for
acceptability (as is MacDonalds for fast food). I gave the philips away
to someone who finds it adequate where I do not. His cutoff point for
acceptibility is obviously lower than mine.
George Graves
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> >
> > In article <cirby-5CDE8F....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <X9-dnVnVV5s...@speakeasy.net>,
> > > John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
> > > > music acquisition.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
> > >
> > > Came out last year. A couple of good songs on it. That one song "Lady"
> > > was popular for a while.
> > >
> > > > It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
> > > > don't know if they charge tax or what ).
> > > >
> > > > But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99 (
> > > > CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
> > > > Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS media
> > > > rate so that tacks on $2.50.
> > >
> > > ...or you can buy the one or two actual tunes you're going to listen to
> > > for a couple of bucks, not have to wait for it to be shipped to you, and
> > > listen to it now, instead of three to five days.
> >
> > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > compressed audio and you listen to the kind of music where only part of
> > the entire album is any good and the rest is just filler, maybe your
> > scenario works.
>
> WooHoo, you just described the entire online music market George. Not
> singling out iTunes here, because selling low quality DRM'd music files
> is what they all do. They are the fast food of the music world, selling
> low quality with a happy face for a not really so cheap price. On the
> other hand, you don't need to install a McDonalds client to poison
> yourself :)
>
> However much disdain you and I may view that scenario with, it's
> obviously at least "good enough" for a whole LOT of people. Just like
> McDonalds.
>
> Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
>
> Lisa
Me too, but I prefer SACD or LP to CD.
George Graves
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> >Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
>
> Yep. CD's are great. No need for SACD (or whatever) on the "high
> end" (no one can hear any improvement over a quality CD), and no need
> for compressed music, either.
EHHHH. Thanks for playing. SACD is so much better than CD that anybody
can easily hear the improvement. The question then becomes: does one
CARE enough that this difference is important. For an audiophile like
me, the answer is ABSOLUTELY!
Many SACDs are dual-layer, that is, they have the regular CD performance
on one layer and the high-resolution SACD performance on another. I have
an SACD player that will play either layer. I can switch from the SDACD
to the CD performance at will, and ANYBODY can hear the astounding
difference between the quality of the CD performance and the SACD
performance.
George Graves
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
>
> I'm sorry, I just had a flashback to the days when the previous
> generation of audio snobs used to tell us all that CDs were Satan's
> Little Discs, and that nothing could ever possibly replace the "true"
> sound of an LP played on a turntable that cost half as much as a car,
> and that the "lossy" CD was anathema to their ears.
Its still true. LPs sound better than CDs. They just DO. I can prove it.
I Have LP editions of many performance that I also have on CD (and then
some that I have on SACD as well). Switching from one to the other shows
immediately how much more like REAL, LIVE music an LP sounds than does
the same performance on CD and some SACDs sound more real than even the
LP.
George Graves
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article <428A87DB...@lisahorton.net>,
> > Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> >
> > > WooHoo, you just described the entire online music market George. Not
> > > singling out iTunes here, because selling low quality DRM'd music files
> > > is what they all do. They are the fast food of the music world, selling
> > > low quality with a happy face for a not really so cheap price. On the
> > > other hand, you don't need to install a McDonalds client to poison
> > > yourself :)
> > >
> > > However much disdain you and I may view that scenario with, it's
> > > obviously at least "good enough" for a whole LOT of people. Just like
> > > McDonalds.
> > >
> > > Me, I'll take CD's and real food :)
> >
> > I'm sorry, I just had a flashback to the days when the previous
> > generation of audio snobs used to tell us all that CDs were Satan's
> > Little Discs, and that nothing could ever possibly replace the "true"
> > sound of an LP played on a turntable that cost half as much as a car,
> > and that the "lossy" CD was anathema to their ears.
> >
>
> There remain aspects of high quality vinyl, played on a good turntable
> with a good cartridge through a good stereo that are better than CD.
> Ruggedness and convenience are not among those, however.
Exactly!
George Graves
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> >There remain aspects of high quality vinyl, played on a good turntable
> >with a good cartridge through a good stereo that are better than CD.
>
> In your opinion. However the fact is that, in terms of presenting you
> the most accurate rendition of the original performance, CD beats
> vinyl in every way.
Not so. Vinyl sounds much more like real music played in a live space
than does the 16-bit/44.1 KHz Redbook CD of the same performance. This
has been proven time and time again.
George Graves
John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <X9-dnVnVV5s...@speakeasy.net>,
> > John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>iTunes and Rhapsody are touted as the 'wave of the future' in DRM'd
> >>music acquisition.
> >>
> >>Yet, I recently went to price Lenny Kravitz /Baptism/ CD.
> >>
> >>It's $11.99 on Rhapsody ( I've never bought anything from them, so I
> >>don't know if they charge tax or what ).
> >>
> >>But, I can by the cd used ("like new") on Amazon Marketplace for $5.99 (
> >>CDs are digital remember...so 'used' doesn't carry much meaning ).
> >>Yes, there's shipping, but Marketplace sellers use a special USPS media
> >>rate so that tacks on $2.50.
> >>
> >>That means I can have the real CD, with cover art, for $7.50 from Amazon
> >>Marketplace, or a bunch of DRM'd files from Rhapsody for almost twice as
> >>much!
> >>
> >>I imagine iTunes, at .99 a song, is just as pricey - but you know what?
> >> I can't search iTunes from the *Web* like I can with Rhapsody -- they
> >>make me want to install their client! Huh? First give me a reason,
> >>like letting me search the catalog and *then* I'll *think* about
> >>downloading your client. Nice marketing from /genius/ $teve Job$.
> >
> >
> > I can't imagine why anybody would want lousy, compressed, lossy music
> > from a service like iTunes or Rhapsody when the CD sounds better (as
> > sonically compromised as standard Redbook CD format generally is, it's
> > still far better than any lossy compression scheme), often costs less
> > and in the case of some 'albums' is more complete.
> >
>
> And you have to buy a $500 'cd player' ( oh, sorry, personal audio
> device ) to play these things.
Nope. I can hear the difference on my Mac's Monsoons with the CD playing
from the built-in superdrive.
Chad Irby
Lisa Horton <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
Well, if you actually *said* what you find so abhorrent, you might be a
little more clear. As it is, it seems you just don't like the letters
"D," "R," and "M" in that particular configuration.
Chad Irby
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> I can't recode DRMed music to any other format I might want.
Why "any other format?" What formats do you want to recode to, for
example?
> I can't use copy-protected CDs in my car-stereo, and also not in my
> sail-boat stereo.
We're talking about buying music online, not the very small number of
badly-DRMed not-really-a-CD formats that the record labels keep trying.
So you're not against DRM, you're against *badly done* DRM.
> Nor can I easily transfer DRMed content to a CD to use it there.
Actually, yes, you can, as long as you're not using the broken DRM types
you get with Windows or from the above mentioned "bad CD" formats.
Once again, you're not making any useful claims against the iTunes DRM.
You're complaining about broken software, not the "light" DRM as
practiced by Apple.
Chad Irby
<gmgravesnos-4300...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <cirby-D68A9D....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-9495...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > If you're deaf enough to be able to overlook the crappy quality of
> > > compressed audio
> >
> > You know, that would hold a tiny bit of water if most people listened to
> > music in quiet, sound-controlled listening rooms with $5000 studio
> > reference monitor speakers, on a $2000 high-end CD player.
>
> I do.
>
> > Since almost nobody does, and since people *do* want to hear a wide
> > selection of moderately nice tunes while actually having lives, AAC or
> > MP3 are more than adequate.
>
> Obviously. It's just that I think its a step in the wrong direction.
Don't worry. In a couple of years, the infrastructure and demand will
catch up, and you'll be able to get Apple Lossless Format music files
online, which are about twice the size of the current AAC files.
Lisa Horton
I thought I was clear. I dislike the idea of (to me) arbitrary limits
being placed on what I can and cannot do with music that I've
purchased. I prefer to be able to do whatever I want with it, within
what's legal.
For example, being able to burn a work to CD a limited number of times.
Unacceptable.
I don't see what is so obtuse about this for you. It's not like I'm
arguing against DRM at all, at least not here. As I've said, if you're
okay with it, that's absolutely fine with me.
Lisa