[addiecool]

Itunes Music Store Has songs at only 128Kbps and no higher option? Shouldnt we have a higher quality option?

Full detials here

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...sionID=9022440[email protected]%7C169371008

[ratlater]

Originally posted by addiecool:
Itunes Music Store Has songs at only 128Kbps and no higher option? Shouldnt we have a higher quality option?

Full detials here

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...sionID=9022440[email protected]%7C169371008

AAC 128kbps is nearly CD quality. In listening tests people have been unable to distinguish AAC 128 files from CDs. Personally, I'm very impressed with the quality of the Store's music, it sounds much better than my 192kpbs mp3s.

-matt

[Rinpoche]

rat is right, aac is of much higher quality than mp3s even at 192kbps. so aac at 128kbps will sound better than any mp3s (although i can't really tell the difference)

[typoon]

Originally posted by Rinpoche:
rat is right, aac is of much higher quality than mp3s even at 192kbps. so aac at 128kbps will sound better than any mp3s (although i can't really tell the difference)

I could definately tell my 160Kbps encoded AAC songs from there old MP3 Versions. they wouldn't get all distorted when I turned up the volume on my iPod running through my car speakers like they used to. Everything stayed clean and clear.

[Rufo]

The problem is, not all of it sounds that good - there are several albums that don't sound anywhere near that good, instead sounding closer to a 128kbps MP3 file.

Here's a few threads on discussion forums with examples:

MacNN Forums - Music Store sample quality

Apple Discussion thread

Black Sabbath's "The Mob Rules" is a very good example of how bad things can sound.

Also, I sent a message to Apple regarding this, and they wrote me this message back:

The AAC file that you download will generally have the same quality as the preview in the iTunes Music Store. If you feel a particular song or album has poor sound quality, feel free to let the iTunes engineers know by clicking "Requests and Feedback" from the Music Store home page.

I think we need to start sending in some messages to Apple here... I wonder if maybe they mis-encoded them or something...

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Rufo:
TBlack Sabbath's "The Mob Rules" is a very good example of how bad things can sound.

Hahahahaa!

[Rufo]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Hahahahaa!

Hey, I don't listen to it, I just thought it was a good example that someone else pointed out, as you can clearly hear bad tinniness in the song. I don't actually listen to that stuff.

If you want something different, another one would be Hootie and the Blowfish's Cracked Rear View album - I showed my sister the iTunes store's preview of the song "Hold My Hand" and played the same MP3 I had downloaded from a filesharing network earlier (160kbps even!). She doesn't typically care about the quality difference between a DVD and VHS - yet she picked up on this difference right away, and agreed she definitely wouldn't buy the Apple track if it sounded the way it does.

[AssassyN]

I disagree with Apple's logic here. If you purchase an actual disc of music, say, Linkin Park's "Meteora", you're getting every song at an amazing 1411 bitrate, or .WAV. The *LEAST* Apple could do was let you download a higher bitrate AAC file than 128. You're buying a product, you should get at least something close to the .WAV you could have on a CD. Yet another reason I'll never touch this service.

[addiecool]

Yeah Me Too!!! Some of the songs I did not find up to the mark. And Here in India I can get Original Cd's for $5, anyone you name it, then why do I spend & 10 or .99 per song for a low quality version. They must do something about it. Although I cannot buy Music from the Store right now since I am in India, but still I feels not so good about the bitrate

[kristofor]

The 128 AAC sounds terrible on almost ALL of the rap stuff. Super tinny sounding to me, and the lows are horrible. Some of the "Up & Coming" stuff sound really bad too. I'm running this through a home theater system that certainly passes muster sound wise, too, so it's not exactly my tinny little PowerBook speakers.

[cpac]

Originally posted by kristofor:
The 128 AAC sounds terrible on almost ALL of the rap stuff. Super tinny sounding to me, and the lows are horrible. Some of the "Up & Coming" stuff sound really bad too. I'm running this through a home theater system that certainly passes muster sound wise, too, so it's not exactly my tinny little PowerBook speakers.

more controls need to be added to these little experiments:

1: any equalizer settings?
2: high quality cable from PB to stereo?
3: "sound enhancer" turned on?
4: "sound check" tuned on?

All might effect how things sound coming out...

[coolmacdude]

Part of the problem is that contrary to what Apple said, not all of the previews are 128 K. Monitor with a network bandwidth tool to check for yourself. Some of them seem to be only 64K. Even the ones that are 128 appear to have some streaming optimization that might reduce the quality somehow.

[cowerd]

I suspect the low bitrate (even if the Apple propaganda says its almost CD quality) was part of the licensing agreement. A low bit-rate guarantees that the analog hole is closed, i.e. ripped CDs from iTunes Store AACs will sound pretty poor. The RIAA and the big 5 didn't suddenly get religion. I'm sure they're interested to see if Apple can sell low bitrates. Unfortunately, the store is obviously not targeted toward anyone with a decent mid-fi stereo rig, as classical musical ripped at 256-320 kbs can sound compressed and lifeless.

[kristofor]

Originally posted by cpac:
more controls need to be added to these little experiments:

1: any equalizer settings?
2: high quality cable from PB to stereo?
3: "sound enhancer" turned on?
4: "sound check" tuned on?

All might effect how things sound coming out...

1: Yes and no. Tried both.
2: Monster Cable. Pretty stout connections.
3: Again, yes and no.
4: See 1 and 3.

I agree with you on your last point. I'm still not that impressed with some of the songs sound quality. Most of it is good though.

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by cowerd:
I suspect the low bitrate (even if the Apple propaganda says its almost CD quality) was part of the licensing agreement. A low bit-rate guarantees that the analog hole is closed, i.e. ripped CDs from iTunes Store AACs will sound pretty poor. The RIAA and the big 5 didn't suddenly get religion. I'm sure they're interested to see if Apple can sell low bitrates. Unfortunately, the store is obviously not targeted toward anyone with a decent mid-fi stereo rig, as classical musical ripped at 256-320 kbs can sound compressed and lifeless.

What were you expecting then? 700mb disc images?

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by Nebrie:
What were you expecting then? 700mb disc images?

Considering I could buy the same thing from a store and get 1411 bitrate .WAVs...

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
Considering I could buy the same thing from a store and get 1411 bitrate .WAVs...

...and with what HDD space would apple store them and with what bandwidth would they transfer them?

That stuff isn't free y'know, and if offered would probably inflate the cost of every track to about $5 (random guess). Using 128 AAC is a choice made by Apple for themselves as much as it was made for the low-bandwidted consumer.

I tend to agree with those that claim all the previews are not 128 Kbps. But I have yet to hear just one person claim that a song he downloaded was not 128 Kbps, as advertised.

[mitchell_pgh]

Damn I love Apple users...

Obviously applemusic.com has to be EVERYTHING to EVERYONE

I have a little fetish where I don't like to drink sodas out of a vending machine (because I don't think the cans are clean and I really don't know where they have been or how long they have been lying around) I don't go around bitching about the soda machines, I simply pick the soda up at a regular store.

If you have to have your music PERFECT, (512 kbps AAC Files or whatever your audiophile ears NEED) then this service probably isn't for you.

[cowerd]

What were you expecting then? 700mb disc images?

Developmentally disabled? If you read the post, my point is 128kbs was the comprise Apple had to make to be allowed to get the store off the ground. The RIAA still doesn't want CD quality files floating around. There is nothing earth shattering here, except the fact that future digital content will go this route if the user is not to be hobbled by draconian DRM schemes. You get some fair use, but have to live with lesser quality.

It will be interesting to see what happens when AAC+ is standardized.

...and with what HDD space would apple store them and with what bandwidth would they transfer them?

People will blow more bandwidth watching lame movie trailers. As for HD requirements, 200000 songs in the CD equivalent is generously 12-14 terabytes of disk space, or about 1/3 of a rack stuffed with XRAID servers, i.e. peanuts to Apple.

[allap]

People will blow more bandwidth watching lame movie trailers. As for HD requirements, 200000 songs in the CD equivalent is generously 12-14 terabytes of disk space, or about 1/3 of a rack stuffed with XRAID servers, i.e. peanuts to Apple. [/B]

To Apple maybe, but what about those who want to load their iPod with music, will they be willing to sacrifice a large number of songs in order to have music that sounds better to 2% of the users? And for that matter, they wouldn't even get the benifit in quality given the iPods little earbuds, right? It just wouldn't make sense for the average user.

[videian28]

I downloaded 2 songs last night, after the first one, I realized it was at 128, searched around for an option for higher, found none.

Personally I think you should have a choice of a higher rate....but, they did definatly sound good... I will buy again, no doubt.

This is the first really large scale adoption of this kind of service, it is only hours old, there are bound to be some changes..

[memento]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
I disagree with Apple's logic here. If you purchase an actual disc of music, say, Linkin Park's "Meteora", you're getting every song at an amazing 1411 bitrate, or .WAV. The *LEAST* Apple could do was let you download a higher bitrate AAC file than 128. You're buying a product, you should get at least something close to the .WAV you could have on a CD. Yet another reason I'll never touch this service.

ummmm - CDs are AIFF, not WAV.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by allap:
To Apple maybe, but what about those who want to load their iPod with music, will they be willing to sacrifice a large number of songs in order to have music that sounds better to 2% of the users? And for that matter, they wouldn't even get the benifit in quality given the iPods little earbuds, right? It just wouldn't make sense for the average user.

As stated, offering higher bitrate files would mean nothing to Apple. Do you realize how huge of a company we're dealing with here? Bandwidth is nothing to them, millions of terebytes isn't either. The offer up those TV commercials for people to download, so you know they could offer up higher quality music that people are PAYING for.

And no one said Apple should *force* people to d/load higher bitrate music, but it should certainly be an option. Some people will want small, so they can cram their iPod. Some people will want large, because they have terabytes of space available and want the best quality available. And as for the iPod earbuds, I personally own a nice pair of Sony earbuds in which you'll hear things you never knew was in a song...IF it's of good quality. Audiophiles won't use the stock earbuds to begin with, and quality *is* extremely important, even sacrificing space.

And to the can drink comment...that's interesting, you know the same fellow that put those cans in the drink machine drove over to the local store and re-supplied them as well.

[a holck]

Originally posted by memento:
ummmm - CDs are AIFF, not WAV.

Ummmm CDs are redbook PCM, not aiff or wav

[daftpig]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
As stated, offering higher bitrate files would mean nothing to Apple. Do you realize how huge of a company we're dealing with here? Bandwidth is nothing to them, millions of terebytes isn't either. The offer up those TV commercials for people to download, so you know they could offer up higher quality music that people are PAYING for.

Hmm... given the market economy is profit-driven, it's interesting to hear that money (in the form of higher bandwidth and bigger disk space) isn't money.

And no one said Apple should *force* people to d/load higher bitrate music, but it should certainly be an option.
[/B]

I agree with this part. Tho I must say it isn't a logical conclusion from the argument presented above.

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by memento:
ummmm - CDs are AIFF, not WAV.

They appear as WAVs under PCs, mon.

[ASIMO]

I was alll excited...until it was disclosed that the AACs at the Store were of 128 kbps. If they are anything like 128 kbps AACs ripped from CDs using iTunes, then I am disappointed. Personally, I can tell the difference between 128 AAC and 256 MP3, my music collection's current minimal bitrate. While I admit that 128 AAC ripped from my CDs is far superior to 128 MP3 from the same source, I don't think it is as good as 256 kbps MP3.

Maybe the 128 AAC files at the Store are created from a different source? Say, from their analogue masters? Then maybe, just maybe, these 128 AACs are superior to the 128 AACs ripped from store-bought CDs. Does anyone know? This is the biggest reason I have for not purchasing a single track yet.

[adamtki]

I was a little disappointed that you only get 128bit AAC. However the quality is much better than 128bit mp3, so it's ok for now.

I think that since we *are* paying for this stuff, Apple should stick to the high quality side and use 160 bit as the standard. I'm sure it'll take a while for dial up users to download that stuff, but, hey, those OS X updates aren't exactly that small either!

I think this is something that Apple will change. We just need to let them know, so use that feedback page in iTunes.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by cowerd:
People will blow more bandwidth watching lame movie trailers. As for HD requirements, 200000 songs in the CD equivalent is generously 12-14 terabytes of disk space, or about 1/3 of a rack stuffed with XRAID servers, i.e. peanuts to Apple.

Um.. ok, so that's 1 copy. What RAID scheme are you using? How about mutiple accesses to the same file? Data loss? the scheer amount of bandwith it would take to provide 700 MB CD images on demand to anyone who uses iTunes?

It may be feasible - but it's certinally not practical.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
As stated, offering higher bitrate files would mean nothing to Apple. Do you realize how huge of a company we're dealing with here? Bandwidth is nothing to them, millions of terebytes isn't either. The offer up those TV commercials for people to download, so you know they could offer up higher quality music that people are PAYING for.

And no one said Apple should *force* people to d/load higher bitrate music, but it should certainly be an option. Some people will want small, so they can cram their iPod. Some people will want large, because they have terabytes of space available and want the best quality available. And as for the iPod earbuds, I personally own a nice pair of Sony earbuds in which you'll hear things you never knew was in a song...IF it's of good quality. Audiophiles won't use the stock earbuds to begin with, and quality *is* extremely important, even sacrificing space.

And to the can drink comment...that's interesting, you know the same fellow that put those cans in the drink machine drove over to the local store and re-supplied them as well.

Do you know if you can pick up Sony earbuds on their online site? The ones that came with my discman that I got in December are cashed on the one side (that'll teach me to not forget that I have them in my pocket during a rainstorm). But the Sony earbuds are great.... *very* slim and comfortable, and you do hear things in songs you've never heard before.

[KidRed]

Originally posted by kristofor:
The 128 AAC sounds terrible on almost ALL of the rap stuff. Super tinny sounding to me, and the lows are horrible. Some of the "Up & Coming" stuff sound really bad too. I'm running this through a home theater system that certainly passes muster sound wise, too, so it's not exactly my tinny little PowerBook speakers.

Deeply disagree. DMX's Who We Be sounds great, Nappy Root's Awnaw has some great lows and Eninem's stuff sounds like the 192 mp3's I grabbed of kaaza. Cam'ron also has great full sound.

[KidRed]

Just occured to me, did any of you adjust your EQ? If it's too tiny, turn down the treble, play with your EQ. Also, the same EQ setting for rap won't sound as good for say New Wave or Rock.

[SwarmyCurve]

You people will complain about anything...

128kps AAC sounds great to me in all my initial tests. I'm using good quality Sony studio headphones too, so it's rather obvious how good or bad something sounds.

The file sizes also need to be kept low so buying music is as fast/streamlined as it is advertised.

Very, very few recordings would show a noticeable difference in quality between 160 and 128 AAC versions.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
Do you know if you can pick up Sony earbuds on their online site? The ones that came with my discman that I got in December are cashed on the one side (that'll teach me to not forget that I have them in my pocket during a rainstorm). But the Sony earbuds are great.... *very* slim and comfortable, and you do hear things in songs you've never heard before.

The ones I have, you certainly can get straight from Apple.com. Under the "Speakers & Audio" section of the Accessories, their called "Sony Fontopia Earbuds" and cost $49.95, however, B&H Photo/Video (search for "ex70") has them on a huge sale (this is where I got mine) for $34.95 if you click "Email me a better price" and type in your email, you can get 'em for that price. Good luck, their EXTREMELY nice earbuds...SO comfy, kill the outside noise around you, light/compact to carry, and have audiophile sound quality.

[tooki]

Originally posted by ASIMO:
They appear as WAVs under PCs, mon.

They're not files at all. Windows' Explorer and thr Mac Finder just make tracks appear as WAV or AIFF files for convenience. An audio CD contains basically raw PCM audio with minimal error correction. (AIFF and WAV are both "container" file types that can contain many kinds of formats of audio inside them. PCM, which is uncompressed audio, is just one kind.)

tooki

[macintologist]

Originally posted by cowerd:
I suspect the low bitrate (even if the Apple propaganda says its almost CD quality) was part of the licensing agreement. A low bit-rate guarantees that the analog hole is closed, i.e. ripped CDs from iTunes Store AACs will sound pretty poor. The RIAA and the big 5 didn't suddenly get religion. I'm sure they're interested to see if Apple can sell low bitrates. Unfortunately, the store is obviously not targeted toward anyone with a decent mid-fi stereo rig, as classical musical ripped at 256-320 kbs can sound compressed and lifeless.

For the life of me I have never understood this craziness behind the need for high bitrates. I have, for 3 years now, been ripping cds into mp3's in itunes and soundjam at 128kbps. The results sound just FINE. Yes if the song has a high frequency sound in rap and punk rock maybe I can carefully hear a difference but since I listen to the music and not the bitrates, I really never hear a difference. If the music doesn't have those high sounds that might trigger the "wish-wash" effect, then I can hardly notice any difference. I rip alternative rock, postbop jazz and a lot of classical music.

I don't understand how someone could think a 320 kbps mp3 sounded dead. This is ridiculous. Right now I'm listening to the album "By The Way" by Red Hot Chilli Peppers encoded at 128kbps aac and it sounds perfect!!

The best part is that, well, since I'm not a bitrate freak like you all, I can encode all my stuff at 128kbps aac (maybe 112 or 96) and save a ton of space on my ipod for more music, rather than being paranoid about the slightest bitrate artifacts in the sound and encode everything at 256.

And for your information I'm not a mainstream sheep who doesn't know anything about music. I play the oboe and have perfect pitch. I'm not saying it makes me better but I'm not a "stupid consumer who needs to get their ears checked".

Well, it's your ipod. See ya!

[AssassyN]

You're totally right, with some speakers and headphones (low-end) you'll NEVER hear a difference. However, for us audiophiles with high-end earphones and a sound system made for a symphony house, you *WILL* hear a difference. Go into a Bose store with a CD full of 128kpbs mp3s converted to CD tracks, and then a CD with those same songs at 320kbps (assuming it was ripped directly from an original CD). If you don't hear a difference from a Bose system, your ears are impaired, seriously.

[::maroma::]

I think once again, as with many things Apple releases, some people are expecting too much from it. Most of the things Apple has released as of late have been extremely "consumer oriented". This basically means "the average Joe/Jane". Not the expert uber user who demands the highest quality/fastest/most powerful stuff. Apple offers products for these users, but the money makers are the consumer products. That being said, the average Joe/Jane really can't hear, or doesn't care about the minute difference in sound quality in these 128kbs AAC files. To them (and me), it sounds great and is better in many ways to buying CDs. It's a win/win situation for them (me) and Apple.

For those who demand higher quality sound from the music they purchase, there are plenty of other options for you. They have been around for years. Apple didn't kill CDs, they're still available. They are offering a service to those who choose to take advantage. If it doesn't suit you, there's an option to disable it in your iTunes Preferences.

[CheesePuff]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
You're totally right, with some speakers and headphones (low-end) you'll NEVER hear a difference. However, for us audiophiles with high-end earphones and a sound system made for a symphony house, you *WILL* hear a difference. Go into a Bose store with a CD full of 128kpbs mp3s converted to CD tracks, and then a CD with those same songs at 320kbps (assuming it was ripped directly from an original CD). If you don't hear a difference from a Bose system, your ears are impaired, seriously.

BO$E?!? HAHAHA, do *not* get me started, dude. Why the hell would you go to a bose store? Hah... good one.

Anyway, my Klipsch Quintet system does not pick out anything at 192 kbps MP3 or more. (320 kbps MP3 is utterly useless... 192 normal stereo is just the same).

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
BO$E?!? HAHAHA, do *not* get me started, dude. Why the hell would you go to a bose store? Hah... good one.

Anyway, my Klipsch Quintet system does not pick out anything at 192 kbps MP3 or more. (320 kbps MP3 is utterly useless... 192 normal stereo is just the same).

I was simply suggesting a place in which he could get his ears to some higher quality speakers. Granted, I'd take my Klipschies over Bose anyday as well, but Bose has a good amount of retail stores he might could visit.

And I too agree, none of my mp3s are ripped over 192kpbs, as I can't tell the difference, even on my speakers. However, I *do* hear a difference between 128 and 192.

[bleuvixen]

I think everyone should just do some tests and see what they think is acceptable, i listen to my ipod 90% of the time in the car with a mid range system so 96kbps AAC files sound great

I can not tell any difference between AAC 96 and the normal mp3 192 I used to rip at.

I now have double the songs on my ipod, it is sweet

Wouldn't the 128kbps AAC be almost equal to a 320kbps mp3?

Rock on!

[Dubloseven]

this has been a fun topic to read. on every other forum in here, everyone is so nice! as soon as it comes to bitrate for music, the "audiophiles" freak out! its like because they can supposedly hear a difference, it makes them better! sorry if that offends anyone, but thats what it seems like.

i just bought an album from the itunes music store, and i am pleasently surprised with it. it sounds great (the bass and treble are quite good), and i was able to buy it at 10:45 at night! where else can you do that? nowhere! i still plan on actually purchasing almost all of my music at a record store, but if i somehow get a hankering for an obscure band at 3 in the morning i am glad to know that i can fulfill that wish!

ps
i do however agree that you should be able to pick what bitrate you download that aac's at. since you are buying it, you should be able to get what you want.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
The ones I have, you certainly can get straight from Apple.com. Under the "Speakers & Audio" section of the Accessories, their called "Sony Fontopia Earbuds" and cost $49.95, however, B&H Photo/Video (search for "ex70") has them on a huge sale (this is where I got mine) for $34.95 if you click "Email me a better price" and type in your email, you can get 'em for that price. Good luck, their EXTREMELY nice earbuds...SO comfy, kill the outside noise around you, light/compact to carry, and have audiophile sound quality.

That's a bit of a piss-off... I can't find them at the Apple Canada online store. grrrr..... And there they are taunting me at the American store. *sighs*

Nonetheless, thank you for the info. I'll find a way to purchase these bad boys. I'll try the site that you supplied the link to.

(*edit*) I found these on Sony's site. Do they seem similar?

[Nathan Adams]

thankgod those were the ear buds being referred too, not replacements for sony's stock buds... **phew

i have a pair of the ex70s myself (white SL version), and wouldn't settle for anything less.

However, i wouldn't recommend them now
The ex71's have been released in Japan now, and are much more balanced in their sound, and generally sound better. www.audiocubes.com should be stocking them. There's also the cheaper ex51s, which are comparable to the ex70s soundwise.

if you're using anything less than ex70 quality though, all arguments about sound quality should be thrown out the window.

[Rufo]

Hey hey, folks - chill out. I'm not an audiophile by any means - I prefer my MP3s 192kbps, but will put up with 128kbps. How many audiophiles do you know who can tolerate that?

Seriously though, I was somewhat worried for a while, since some of the previews do sound really bad, and Apple is claiming that the previews are the same quality as the songs (both Steve Jobs and Apple Support have said this). I've taken the risk and bought one or two songs that I was concerned about, and the songs themselves do seem higher quality. So now the question becomes, why is Apple saying that the previews are the same quality when they quite clearly aren't?

I don't have a problem with poor quality previews, as long as I know that the final song will sound pristine. Time to write more letters to Apple, I suppose.

[xMetal]

it always cracks me up when "audiophiles" start talking about listening to compressed files of any kind.

If you are truly an audiophile, you'd stay about 8 million miles away from a compressed POS of any kind.

People spend $15,000 on record players for crying out loud.

Listening to stuff over an iPod, or in the car, or while jogging/working or anything else, you won't miss a few random bits. My car is so damn loud I can barely hear the person next to me sometimes. And while I'm working I'm putting only about 10% of my concentration on what I'm listening to.

Get over it folks. Apple chose a good compromise for the majority of users in terms of quality versus file size/downloadability. If you don't like that, that's simply your choice. For all the rest of us, we'll enjoy a very satisfying audio experience.

[ReefHobbyist]

Originally posted by Rufo:


I don't have a problem with poor quality previews, as long as I know that the final song will sound pristine. Time to write more letters to Apple, I suppose.

I agree with this. In fact I wish the previews were even lower bandwidth. I have a dial up connection and it takes 2-3 minutes just to hear the 30sec preview. I don't believe the previews should be to chech the quality, but to see if you like the song.

I have connected to internet radio stations that stream mp3 realtime at dialup speeds. I would like to hear the previews this same way. Trying to find that one song off an album I like takes forever. I don't mind waiting a long time to download the entire song if I buy it. I just start the download and do something else for a while.

The previews should be streamed according to your network settings just like quicktime streams.

Scott

[Todd Madson]

I prefer the MDR-70SL from Japan (see www.minidisco.com). Best
earbuds I've ever heard or used, by far.

128 KBPS AAC is fine for 90% of the population. It's far better
than 128 KBPS MP3.