- #Pure and simple itunes plus for free#
- #Pure and simple itunes plus upgrade#
- #Pure and simple itunes plus code#
- #Pure and simple itunes plus plus#
$1.29 songs are less popular is anyone surprised? But I'm not even sure if that's the case.?ĮDIT: Thanks for finding the link.
#Pure and simple itunes plus plus#
The labels might have asked for more money, since iTunes Plus is DRM-free. In fact, the server storage and bandwidth required to sell a 256kbps file today is almost certainly cheaper than the storage and bandwidth required to sell a 128kbps file when the iTMS first launched. )įor all practical purposes, the 128kbps song and the 256kbps song are identical in cost.
#Pure and simple itunes plus code#
It's not like the 256kbps song requires millions of lines of code to be written just for it, or large amounts of technical support.
It's not like it takes any workers more time to compress a song to 256kbps. But it's not like the artists have to spend more money to buy special 256kbps equipment, on top of their regular recording equipment and instruments. There's already some evidence that the tiered pricing has hurt revenues, but I can't find the link right now. Having said that, I too found $1.29 too much for iTunes Plus. It doesn't cost $10 to produce a CD album, and it doesn't cost $399 to produce a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate. No, but material costs never play a big role in licensing. They were bought under a previous contract between Apple and the labels, so I'm sure that the new deals made sure to note that it wouldn't be possible to simply strip the DRM from the existing files. I agree that most people would rather just take the DRM off of their existing files, but I'm sure that the record labels made sure that wouldn't be possible. The idea of paying for the same exact song (granted, not the same file) twice hurts my head )
#Pure and simple itunes plus for free#
If i had the option of stripping the DRM for free from my already-purchased files or paying even 5 cents a song to replace them with iTunes plus versions, I would be perfectly happy with simply removing the DRM for free. We have a fundamental difference with respect to the value of upgrading to 256 kbps AAC. So yes, those people would essentially be paying for the stripping of DRM.
#Pure and simple itunes plus upgrade#
:)īut why would you want to upgrade your songs? For the 256 encoding? Or the fact that it won't have DRM? I think, for most people, it's the latter. I don't have a problem paying 0.30 per song for double the bit rate. Now granted, I haven't invested huge amounts of money in iTMS music, most of mine is ripped from CDs, but. and I think the AAC sounds quite a bit better than the MP3 at the same level of encoding. No-one on the planet can tell 256 kbps Apple AAC from 44.1 kHz 16-bit PCM for classical or similar.Īgreed - the jump from 128 to 256 in MP3 VBR is very noticeable to me, while in AAC it's *barely* noticeable most of the time. I'd bet only a few golden ears could tell the difference between 256 kbps Apple AAC and lossless in a blind ABX test, and even then you'd need "problem samples" such as synthetic electronic stuff.
Whether lossless gains you anything over 256 kbps AAC is less clear (other than the ability to make high-quality low-bitrate versions with other lossy codecs such as MP3). But that's not to say that there aren't songs which clearly benefit from 256 kbps AAC. You could drive yourself nuts encoding with the finest open-source codecs in the world and still end up with something imperceptibly different. In all fairness, Apple-encoded 128 kbps AAC files are state of the art for lossy encodes at this bitrate. I'm guessing Luca isn't in the market for 256 kbps files for the sake of quality. encoding something (probably 128 kbps MP3) from a lossy 128 kbps AAC original. He just admitted burning and ripping to get rid of DRM, i.e.
0 kommentar(er)
