|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.104.151.182
In Reply to: correct me if i'm wrong here... posted by redneckdent on April 2, 2007 at 10:24:33:
Their plan is simple. Frustrate the consumers with years of DRM-only 128 kbps lossy files at ridiculous price ($1/song), then pretend to be the good guy and savior by offering to get rid of DRM and raise the price to $1.30/song. The masses weep in joy and gratitude..For comparison, an average uncompressed song runs in 1000-1100 kbps range (compared to 256 kbps being offered here.
Follow Ups:
Normal people ( i.e. , 99% of Apple's customer base) who listen to music on normal systems (read: not hyper-revealing audiophile systems) can't tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and lossless. I can't on my decent audiophile quality system and I can clearly hear differences in music reproduction caused by everything from power supplies to cables.
i can certainly, easily hear the difference between aac and lossless, but i still think 256 aac (w/vbr) is good enough to rip most of my music to. I think it's the best compromise between conserving space and preserving quality. For my "reference" type recordings i use lossless, but the most other stuff 256 sounds great.and i don't think it's that most people can't tell the difference. it's that they never bother to compare it to anything better. Also, if you're system is really crappy, that's a factor too. But if you sat someone down in front of a decent system and compared 128k to 256k to lossless, i think anyone could hear the difference. but if you never heard lossless, how could you know what you're missing?
admin - audioreview.com
especially with the compression artifacts that are imbedded in most all 128kbps files I have ever heard.I just disagree that there are meaningful differences between 256kbps AAC (vbr) files and lossless in terms of sound quality. If you can hear it, more power to you...but after giving it more than a little scrutiny, I find that the difference between the two formats is knowing that there is a difference, not one that you can hear. For some people, especially audiophiles, that's enough of a difference to be the difference . And as cheap as drive space is, I can't really say I can find fault in the logic.
I agree with all the above but would only add that this makes for a nice bridge to a price increase all around at some point when they eliminate the "old/obsolete" downloads
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: