Big Apple announcement on Monday (well, maybe it won't be big.) Probably new iPods, and most likely the introduction of an Apple music download service. Those rumors about Apple buying Universal Music Group seem to have died down.
I'm worried about this download service. I'm scared they will price it too high (and put in too much DRM) for it to work. Apple can't take too big a failure at the point in time.
What would you people pay to download music? I mean legally. How much per song? How much per album?
25 to 50 cents a song or 3 to 5 bucks an album. prices should drop rapidly over time. whats the quality like. arent mp3s of lesser quality than cd? or subscription model. $20 a month for unlimited, or at least 10-15 albums per month.
its cd quality or mp3 quality ?
Well, mp3 is a "lossy" format (like jpeg.) Tis means it's up to the encoder to select an encoding rate. The higher the rate the better quality, and the bigger the resulting file. 384 kb/s sounds better than 128 kb/s but makes a much bigger file.
So at a big enough encoding rate an mp3 can soun indistinguishable from a cd. But people use mp3 in order to get smaller file sizes. So any mp3s in the wild will sound worse than a cd.
Apple is going to use AAC which is the successor to mp3. Same deal, except with similar file sizes (mp3 - aac) the aac will soun better.
How apples aac stand up against mp3s depends on what bit rate they encode them at. No doubt they will not be full cd quality (to save bandwidth) but we don't know how close they'll get.
(imho) if its not cd (audiophile) quality it should cost a lot less than a cd (free even). cd's seem pretty overpriced while we're at it. the band width issue has created a lowering of listening standards i dont (personally) find acceptable. i regard smaller than original sound files as advertising for the original. similar to being able to read the first chapter of a book online for free, a sales tool. this is why i never understood the napster bruhaha.
Well, some audiophiles argue that CD isn't good enough. I guess that's why were getting this new DVD-audio format. Either that or they are just looking for another excuse to make us buy our whole libraries over again. How many times do we have to buy a recording? Surely there are people who have bought the same favorite album on LP, 8 track, Cassette, and CD. I'm pretty sure I bought Dark Side on 3 out of 4 (never bought an 8 track.) And now they want us to pay for the mp3? Yeah, I'm skeptical too.
[If the reason we pay over again each time a new format is introduced is to cover the manufacturing cost of the new format, then the mp3 really should be almost free. Maybe 1 or 2 cents. There simply is no manufacturing cost. I'm not talking about recording or promoting costs, but I already covered those when I bought the album. Or the CD. I don't need to keep covering the same fixed cost.]
I think 25 cents a song / 2 dollars an album is the tipping point. There's got to be room in there for a nice profit. Until then I'll be (hypothetically) getting my music elsewhere.
sounds fair. i had to replace my original record collection w/ cd's because i had ruined the vinyl. since then ive collected quite a few albums as well and run both cd and record players. a lot of expensive collector records are availible at the regular price now on cd and a lot of records are really cheep at garage/stoop sales etc. the dj set always stayed with records. im not in love w/ cds (esp the jewel box) but would prob keep them through the next transition.
however with the expense of urban living per sq foot, reducing the bulk of all these data holders (records cassetts, cd's) will be a welcome move someday.
|
I'm worried about this download service. I'm scared they will price it too high (and put in too much DRM) for it to work. Apple can't take too big a failure at the point in time.
What would you people pay to download music? I mean legally. How much per song? How much per album?
- jim 4-26-2003 9:02 pm
25 to 50 cents a song or 3 to 5 bucks an album. prices should drop rapidly over time. whats the quality like. arent mp3s of lesser quality than cd? or subscription model. $20 a month for unlimited, or at least 10-15 albums per month.
- dave 4-26-2003 9:29 pm
its cd quality or mp3 quality ?
- bill 4-26-2003 10:52 pm
Well, mp3 is a "lossy" format (like jpeg.) Tis means it's up to the encoder to select an encoding rate. The higher the rate the better quality, and the bigger the resulting file. 384 kb/s sounds better than 128 kb/s but makes a much bigger file.
So at a big enough encoding rate an mp3 can soun indistinguishable from a cd. But people use mp3 in order to get smaller file sizes. So any mp3s in the wild will sound worse than a cd.
Apple is going to use AAC which is the successor to mp3. Same deal, except with similar file sizes (mp3 - aac) the aac will soun better.
How apples aac stand up against mp3s depends on what bit rate they encode them at. No doubt they will not be full cd quality (to save bandwidth) but we don't know how close they'll get.
- jim 4-26-2003 11:01 pm
(imho) if its not cd (audiophile) quality it should cost a lot less than a cd (free even). cd's seem pretty overpriced while we're at it. the band width issue has created a lowering of listening standards i dont (personally) find acceptable. i regard smaller than original sound files as advertising for the original. similar to being able to read the first chapter of a book online for free, a sales tool. this is why i never understood the napster bruhaha.
- bill 4-27-2003 12:35 am
Well, some audiophiles argue that CD isn't good enough. I guess that's why were getting this new DVD-audio format. Either that or they are just looking for another excuse to make us buy our whole libraries over again. How many times do we have to buy a recording? Surely there are people who have bought the same favorite album on LP, 8 track, Cassette, and CD. I'm pretty sure I bought Dark Side on 3 out of 4 (never bought an 8 track.) And now they want us to pay for the mp3? Yeah, I'm skeptical too.
[If the reason we pay over again each time a new format is introduced is to cover the manufacturing cost of the new format, then the mp3 really should be almost free. Maybe 1 or 2 cents. There simply is no manufacturing cost. I'm not talking about recording or promoting costs, but I already covered those when I bought the album. Or the CD. I don't need to keep covering the same fixed cost.]
I think 25 cents a song / 2 dollars an album is the tipping point. There's got to be room in there for a nice profit. Until then I'll be (hypothetically) getting my music elsewhere.
- jim 4-27-2003 12:41 am
sounds fair. i had to replace my original record collection w/ cd's because i had ruined the vinyl. since then ive collected quite a few albums as well and run both cd and record players. a lot of expensive collector records are availible at the regular price now on cd and a lot of records are really cheep at garage/stoop sales etc. the dj set always stayed with records. im not in love w/ cds (esp the jewel box) but would prob keep them through the next transition. however with the expense of urban living per sq foot, reducing the bulk of all these data holders (records cassetts, cd's) will be a welcome move someday.
- bill 4-27-2003 1:00 am