Interesting post on Apple.com today (about iTunes)

[venkat]

Check out www.apple.com

It seems that Apple might start offering streaming music.
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/11/15/will-apple-kill-the-mp3-tomorrow/

 

[User211]

I'd heard about that quite a while ago... anyone know what the streaming bit rate will be? And is it AAC?

Spotify and Napster here have bee great. Napster for years - but low bit rates compromised it for hi-fi listening. Spotify is much better at 320Kbps... but CDs still sound appreciably better IMHO. You should have that soon in the US.

 

[amey01]

I'd heard about that quite a while ago... anyone know what the streaming bit rate will be? And is it AAC?

Spotify and Napster here have bee great. Napster for years - but low bit rates compromised it for hi-fi listening. Spotify is much better at 320Kbps... but CDs still sound appreciably better IMHO. You should have that soon in the US.

I wonder when we might get Spotify? At present I'm using Last.FM and although it is great, I crave more. I wonder what the Apple offering will be like? Considering they call 256k AAC "Premium bitrate" and "CD Quality", I don't see it being more than that.

 

[User211]

No idea Adam but if Apple streaming is as good as Spotify then I recommend that you get it. I really use Spotify a lot. And with the iPhone 4 app you have 320KBps streaming on your phone... which is just brilliant at work. I use it a lot. And I mean a lot.

You basically dump the music on your iPhone via wi-fi if you are worried about consuming too much data via your service provider. And you don't have to keep refreshing the licences like you do with Napster's pain in the butt WMA files. There's nothing worse than being told you can't play any music for that reason - and you can't get to a PC to refresh the licenses.

You can choose to stream at high or low quality over 3G on your phone if you must listen unbuffered. Worth buying an iPhone for - amongst all the other benefits of owning one.

 

[User211]

I just thought I'd add the fact that with a high quality DAC and an iPhone dock, or simply over wi-fi with a wi-fi enabled DAC, or via a laptop USB connection to a DAC, or laptop via a USB to S/PDIF converter to your DAC, the results are very acceptable with 320Kbps Ogg Vorbis that Spotify uses.

Surely there must be a good on-demand US streaming audio service transmitting at decent bit rates??? If so, what is it?

 

[venkat]

turns out it is only that iTunes finally has Beatles.

 

[Feltran]

turns out it is only that iTunes finally has Beatles.

Yeah... talk about a disappointment. I was promised an exciting announcement and a day I'll never forget. Instead, they're selling music that has already been available for decades.

 

[Rich]

Yeah... talk about a disappointment. I was promised an exciting announcement and a day I'll never forget. Instead, they're selling music that has already been available for decades.

Agreed. Big whoop. Yes, it's a great catalog that should have been available on itunes a long time ago. But treating it as if it was the second coming is just ridiculous.

 

[amey01]

HAHA. I just had to go to the Apple site to have a look for myself. They're selling 128k compressed versions of music we all already own in FLAC, CD or vinyl. I wonder if it is even the remastered ones?

Their marketing train never ceases to amaze me. The day they can deliver something I actually want will be a miracle!

 

[Feltran]

HAHA. I just had to go to the Apple site to have a look for myself. They're selling 128k compressed versions of music we all already own in FLAC, CD or vinyl. I wonder if it is even the remastered ones?

Compressed, yes, but all the music on iTunes (in the US at least, I don't know about other countries) has been 256k for a while now.

 

[amey01]

been 256k for a while now.

Meh.....same difference. Compressed is compressed. It's alright for free (or radio stations), but when I'm paying good money for music, I want uncompressed/lossless.

 

[Rich]

What's really funny is that they are selling the albums on iTunes (in compressed format) for $12.99, but you can buy most of the remastered CD's from Amazon for $7.99. So you are paying five dollars more for a lower quality version without a hard-copy backup! I can't imagine why anyone would do that. It only makes economic sense to purchase from iTunes if you just wanted to put one or two Beatles songs on your iPod. If you are buying whole albums, it makes no sense at all.

 

[repman]

What's really funny is that they are selling the albums on iTunes (in compressed format) for $12.99, but you can buy most of the remastered CD's from Amazon for $7.99. So you are paying five dollars more for a lower quality version without a hard-copy backup! I can't imagine why anyone would do that. It only makes economic sense to purchase from iTunes if you just wanted to put one or two Beatles songs on your iPod. If you are buying whole albums, it makes no sense at all.

I think its because we live in gotta have it now society and people won't wait for a few days delivery.

Also I am not so sure Rich the average person cares about fidelity as much as convenience

 

[Feltran]

I think its because we live in gotta have it now society and people won't wait for a few days delivery.

Also I am not so sure Rich the average person cares about fidelity as much as convenience

Yep. Plus, record labels hate to give up control and really don't want to sell their music through iTunes to begin with (it's giving a cut of the control and profits to Apple), so they only agree to do it for good profit margins. Most TV shows on iTunes also cost more than they do on DVD (some cost even more than they do on Blu-Ray).