Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Is Jobs right (about renting music)?

Is Jobs right (about renting music)?
Thread Tools
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 07:53 AM
 
He seems to be speaking for us cnn so what to the folks here at 'nn think of renting music.

MY $.02 is that I don't want it. I mean what happens if I decide not renew my subscription, my music doesn't play? I think the subscription model is the siren song that attracts the music industry because they then can control the content where as buying the music they cannot. Just look at their failed attempts to put copy protection schemes on the cds.
Michael
     
willed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 08:54 AM
 
I would like to have the option, so that I could explore new music.

e.g. I don't know much about jazz, and it's hard to know where to start. If I subscribed to music I could listen to a bunch of albums to find out what I liked, then buy the stuff I was keen on.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 09:19 AM
 
Most of the music I buy these days is on vinyl. I rip a clean copy to the iBook using a phono pre-amp and Audio Hijack Pro. Sometimes, for a quick fix, I grab some stuff off iTunes.

I would never rent my music. There is a really cool record store in San Francisco where you can buy your vinyl, then download the music you've just bought once to your computer. I wish we had something like that up here.
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
Most of the music I buy these days is on vinyl.
Wave of the future.
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 09:54 AM
 
I'm not interested in "renting music" per se, but if you think of it like a satellite radio or cable TV service that's play-on-demand all the time, I could see the utility of it. As willed said, subscribe for a few months to listen to a bunch of new music, find some new artists, then buy what I like.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 11:52 AM
 
This is something I posted over at Ars on this topic ....

One of the things that really needs to stop in the reporting of the "iTunes music subscription" issue is the assumption that the only way to do a subscription is to rent music, "all you can eat", laden with DRM. The approach where if you stop paying your monthly fee then you can no longer listen to the music you've accumulated. This is but one approach, and indeed the market has clearly shown that most people aren't interested.

Having said that, there is an alternative and the #2 online music store eMusic has shown the way. For a set monthly fee you get a set number of downloads per month. No rentals ... you own the files. No DRM. Cancel your subscription anytime you want and keep the music you already have. While I probably wouldn't want to do this personally, I can see the appeal of such an approach to others.

If iTunes were to implement this it wouldn't be too hard to incorporate it into the iTunes store. Just issue download credits for the number of files that your subscription plan covers each month. The user adds songs to his/her cart as usual. If they go over their limit they are charged full price for the song. There's already a very visible mechanism for showing the user how much "credit" they have left that's currently used for iTunes Gift Cards.

Of course, the music labels are pushing for the "rental" option. And I don't see Apple doing either approach if there isn't a large customer demand though. As it stands now, the largest demand for this seems to be coming from the music labels as opposed to music customers. But we shall see what develops.

OAW
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by willed View Post
I would like to have the option, so that I could explore new music.

e.g. I don't know much about jazz, and it's hard to know where to start. If I subscribed to music I could listen to a bunch of albums to find out what I liked, then buy the stuff I was keen on.
That's what's Pandora (and to a lesser extent Last.fm) is for.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 01:10 PM
 
I am not interested in renting music. There are outlets for that, anyway, and I wouldn't want to see Apple try to manage that business. Frankly, Apple found success in iTunes and iPods because they are a great software company, not because they are a great SERVICE company. They should stick with writing superior code and avoid a low margin service industry that can be duplicated easily anywhere in the world.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Nodnarb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 01:18 PM
 
As of right now, subscriptions don't make sense and probably wouldn't work.

But didn't napster used to/still have a service that you pay a monthly fee and you can listen to all of their songs, any time on your computer? You don't download, they just stream. Imagine this on the iPhone.

Once the tech becomes available and cheap enough, the iPhone could literally have every song the iTS has on it at any time, just for a monthly fee. Your music library would become infinite.

But until then, I do not see any sense in downloading songs that will expire once I stop paying money for them. Music is something to own for life, and that means to actually keep your music you have to pay X amount of dollars for literally the rest of your music listening life. That's a no go for me.
     
Atheist
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 01:26 PM
 
I happen to like the subscription model. I used to use it with Rhapsody. It wasn't very expensive and their music library was totally up-to-date. Not sure if that's still the case. I could listen to all the music I wanted to ... load it onto my mp3 player (non-iPod of course) and off I went. Many times on a whim I'd like to listen to some obscure thing from the past but after a listen or two, I'd be sick of it. I would never want to own the music... but was glad I had to opportunity to listen to it a few times. I would also use it to listen to new stuff to see if I liked it. If so, I would then buy it.
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This is something I posted over at Ars on this topic ....

One of the things that really needs to stop in the reporting of the "iTunes music subscription" issue is the assumption that the only way to do a subscription is to rent music, "all you can eat", laden with DRM. The approach where if you stop paying your monthly fee then you can no longer listen to the music you've accumulated. This is but one approach, and indeed the market has clearly shown that most people aren't interested.

Having said that, there is an alternative and the #2 online music store eMusic has shown the way. For a set monthly fee you get a set number of downloads per month. No rentals ... you own the files. No DRM. Cancel your subscription anytime you want and keep the music you already have. While I probably wouldn't want to do this personally, I can see the appeal of such an approach to others.

If iTunes were to implement this it wouldn't be too hard to incorporate it into the iTunes store. Just issue download credits for the number of files that your subscription plan covers each month. The user adds songs to his/her cart as usual. If they go over their limit they are charged full price for the song. There's already a very visible mechanism for showing the user how much "credit" they have left that's currently used for iTunes Gift Cards.

Of course, the music labels are pushing for the "rental" option. And I don't see Apple doing either approach if there isn't a large customer demand though. As it stands now, the largest demand for this seems to be coming from the music labels as opposed to music customers. But we shall see what develops.

OAW
I agree with you. I think what most people think of when they hear "subscription based music service" isn't the ideal (or at least most effective) scenario for this sort of thing. I think what OAW has stated above is closer to the ideal.

I wouldn't mind this sort of scenario. The biggest thing for me is being able to keep the music I pay for. Work that into the system, and I would give it a try. But if they go the route of "no ownership" then I flatly reject it.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This is something I posted over at Ars on this topic ....

One of the things that really needs to stop in the reporting of the "iTunes music subscription" issue is the assumption that the only way to do a subscription is to rent music, "all you can eat", laden with DRM. The approach where if you stop paying your monthly fee then you can no longer listen to the music you've accumulated. This is but one approach, and indeed the market has clearly shown that most people aren't interested.

Having said that, there is an alternative and the #2 online music store eMusic has shown the way. For a set monthly fee you get a set number of downloads per month. No rentals ... you own the files. No DRM. Cancel your subscription anytime you want and keep the music you already have. While I probably wouldn't want to do this personally, I can see the appeal of such an approach to others.

If iTunes were to implement this it wouldn't be too hard to incorporate it into the iTunes store. Just issue download credits for the number of files that your subscription plan covers each month. The user adds songs to his/her cart as usual. If they go over their limit they are charged full price for the song. There's already a very visible mechanism for showing the user how much "credit" they have left that's currently used for iTunes Gift Cards.

Of course, the music labels are pushing for the "rental" option. And I don't see Apple doing either approach if there isn't a large customer demand though. As it stands now, the largest demand for this seems to be coming from the music labels as opposed to music customers. But we shall see what develops.

OAW
Well what's the difference between your plan and just telling yourself you're going to download 30 tracks per month (minus DRM)?
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
Well what's the difference between your plan and just telling yourself you're going to download 30 tracks per month (minus DRM)?
Price? I would assume that if OAW's notion were to be offered, it would be substantially lower priced than if you were to purchase the same amount of music on your own, per album or track or whatever. Otherwise, I would agree that there really isn't any incentive. The hook would have to be the price.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ::maroma:: View Post
Price? I would assume that if OAW's notion were to be offered, it would be substantially lower priced than if you were to purchase the same amount of music on your own, per album or track or whatever. Otherwise, I would agree that there really isn't any incentive. The hook would have to be the price.
Indeed. This is my follow-up comment over at Ars to someone who asked the same thing ....

The same way signing up for a Netflix subscription is different than renting a la carte from Blockbuster. Say it costs you $4 to rent a la carte. But I can get a Netflix subscription for $10 a month. All I have to do is rent three movies per month from Netflix to start paying a lower unit cost cost per rental. The more I rent, the lower that cost.

Now apply the same thing to iTunes. Tracks cost $.99 a la carte. But let's say $9.99 per month gets you 30 downloads like on eMusic. You'd then be paying $.33 per download provided that you download all 30 tracks. It's simply providing a discount for large volume purchases. And it encourages recurring revenue for the ITS and the music labels.

OAW
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 06:05 PM
 
What's the incentive for Apple to offer the subscription tracks as non-DRM over regularly purchased songs?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 06:29 PM
 
I think subscription would be okay if you could choose to subscribe or buy.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 06:35 PM
 
Steve has very valid criticisms of DRM. Subscription models hinge on DRM. Thus, I don't think it will happen.

Personally, I'm not interested. If the music is worth paying for, I want to own it. 99¢ is peanuts anyway.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Steve has very valid criticisms of DRM. Subscription models hinge on DRM. Thus, I don't think it will happen.

Personally, I'm not interested. If the music is worth paying for, I want to own it. 99¢ is peanuts anyway.
OMG, we agree wholeheartedly on this!

I don't see the point of renting music. I own somewhere around 800 Cds, and a few hundred vinyl albums (anyone here old enough to remember those, except me?) from the 60s, and I can honestly say there's very little in there I don't like, from many different genres. With iTunes, I can preview a song, and, if I like it, it's worth $.99 to me. As someone else pointed out, there's also Pandora, if you want to learn something about different genres before you buy. IIRC, Apple is near the top of the heap in music distribution, and there's a reason for that; how they deliver it is how people want it.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2007, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
OMG, we agree wholeheartedly on this!

I don't see the point of renting music. I own somewhere around 800 Cds, and a few hundred vinyl albums (anyone here old enough to remember those, except me?) from the 60s, and I can honestly say there's very little in there I don't like, from many different genres. With iTunes, I can preview a song, and, if I like it, it's worth $.99 to me. As someone else pointed out, there's also Pandora, if you want to learn something about different genres before you buy. IIRC, Apple is near the top of the heap in music distribution, and there's a reason for that; how they deliver it is how people want it.
Precisely. The record labels bitch about their flagging sales, then turn around and try to tell a successful business how things should be done? I think Apple's probably the name to trust here.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
What's the incentive for Apple to offer the subscription tracks as non-DRM over regularly purchased songs?
Well Apple is already going to offer some tracks for purchase without DRM (i.e. the EMI deal). So why not do the same for subscription? The incentive to do this is the recurring revenue that a subscription will afford. A lot of people buy music a la carte every so often. When something they like comes out. But a subscription will likely hit you up for $9.99+ every single month. And again, it doesn't have to be a rental thing. Just a fixed number of downloads for a set monthly fee. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. An ITS customer could easily participate in one, the other, or both programs.

OAW
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well Apple is already going to offer some tracks for purchase without DRM (i.e. the EMI deal). So why not do the same for subscription? The incentive to do this is the recurring revenue that a subscription will afford. A lot of people buy music a la carte every so often. When something they like comes out. But a subscription will likely hit you up for $9.99+ every single month. And again, it doesn't have to be a rental thing. Just a fixed number of downloads for a set monthly fee. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. An ITS customer could easily participate in one, the other, or both programs.

OAW
Oh, I understand the incentive for a subscription plan period, I just don't understand why they'd offer non-DRM tracks exclusively for subscription customers.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 12:56 PM
 
If people didn't want to rent music, they wouldn't be doing it.

I'd be happy to rent (access to unlimited plays of all songs in the catalog) decent quality (256kbps AAC) music for $5-10/mo.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
If people didn't want to rent music, they wouldn't be doing it.

I'd be happy to rent (access to unlimited plays of all songs in the catalog) decent quality (256kbps AAC) music for $5-10/mo.
And then I'd just Audio Hijack the tracks I wanted, problem solved.
     
shinji
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 01:29 PM
 
I would never buy/rent music that isn't lossless- when you buy a CD, you can rip it to Apple Lossless (or flac, monkey's audio, etc.) and preserve the entire song- that is, the specific sound the drummer made when they hit the drum, the full/complete sound of the vocals, etc. If the music you listen to isn't overproduced teenybopper crap made in ProTools, then this is a big deal.

People who can't tell the difference between mp3 and CD quality (or Apple Lossless made from the CD) have never used good speakers

So if Apple would offer this, I would gladly pay a premium for it per song or rent it, doesn't matter to me. Until then, the only music I pay for will be new/used CD's.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 01:31 PM
 
Everybody talking about "renting" or "subscribing" in any way that doesn't involve DRMed files that expire: I see no indication that's even on the table. The recording industry wants to eliminate the idea of music ownership — your proposition is not in line with their goal.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by shinji View Post
People who can't tell the difference between mp3 and CD quality (or Apple Lossless made from the CD) have never used good speakers
Not to be an ass, but pretty much every single double blind test ever held has found that people cannot hear the difference between the original and a 192 kbps mp3 file.

Anyway, I'm meeting a vinyl collector this afternoon who's selling off parts of his funk and jazz collection. What do I care about DRM
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mithras View Post
Wave of the future.
There's this new technology called 8-Track that is going to kick vinyle's ass. Vinyle is the new VHS.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
Not to be an ass, but pretty much every single double blind test ever held has found that on average, most people cannot hear the difference between the original and a 192 kbps mp3 file.
Fixed.

But it only depends on the source and the speakers.

I cannot tell the difference between 192 and 260 kbps files, but I can tell the difference betwenn 260/192 and 128 kbps files on almost all music. Even with Apple's earbuds. Though, I certainly can't tell the difference between 260 kbps and CDs.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by shinji View Post
People who can't tell the difference between mp3 and CD quality (or Apple Lossless made from the CD) have never used good speakers
That's making an assumption that everyone's hearing is at the same level, which is far from true. People in my generation (baby boomers) are losing their hearing because of that good old time rock and roll , and due to the natural loss of hearing as one ages.

People of younger generations are going to experience the same loss, and possibly worse, because we live in a noisier world, and because they like their music not only loud, but often loud enough to the point of annoying others around them, and because of the popularity of devices like the iPod. They're inundated with more sounds at higher levels than we were growing up.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Fixed.
Not according to the tests I've read. But I am aware that there are different research documents.
     
shinji
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap
Not to be an ass, but pretty much every single double blind test ever held has found that people cannot hear the difference between the original and a 192 kbps mp3 file.
If you're interested in this, you should check out the hydrogenaudio.org wiki and forum or google around for lossless abx. We all have different hearing, some people (not me) even have perfect pitch Absolute pitch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and you can do your own ABX to see what you can and can't hear.

On top of that, we all place different priority on the quality of speakers we buy- for the majority of people, 192 kbps mp3 and cheap speakers are enough. As Railroader said above, it also depends on the quality of the source and the encode.
     
shinji
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
That's making an assumption that everyone's hearing is at the same level, which is far from true. People in my generation (baby boomers) are losing their hearing because of that good old time rock and roll , and due to the natural loss of hearing as one ages.

People of younger generations are going to experience the same loss, and possibly worse, because we live in a noisier world, and because they like their music not only loud, but often loud enough to the point of annoying others around them, and because of the popularity of devices like the iPod. They're inundated with more sounds at higher levels than we were growing up.
Yeah, I was half-kidding...I really think though the average person would hear a difference between cheap and great speakers with mp3 vs. CD/lossless...though maybe not enough to get them to buy.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 03:11 PM
 
I think the major problem with the music industry is that they are trying to sell us cheaper and cheaper crap with each passing year. And I mean this on two levels:

1) In terms of pop, the industry keeps pushing worse musicians as time goes by. We have nothing today to compare to the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Blondie, Madonna, etc. We have no original or interesting pop stars anymore. Instead we get skanks (for lack of a better word) whose acts are designed to generate the most profit (Spears, Hilton, Lavigne, etc)

2) The actual formats that they are using to sell us music gets cheaper and cheaper. Vinyl, as any musician will tell you, gives the highest quality reproduction of sound of any format ever. It also comes in a large, attractive cover which is pleasing to look at. But everything after vinyl is downhill, both in terms of cost of production and sound quality. An AAC file with an attached JPG, wrapped in DRM, costs nothing to make, sounds mediocre at best, and yet they still get away with charging upwards of $10 for the album.

They are using low quality artists and formats to try and squeeze the most profits out of nothing.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 03:44 PM
 
Honestly, I don't think 256 kbps AAC sounds significantly worse than vinyl. If you have an extremely expensive sound setup and incredibly good hearing, yeah, maybe vinyl will sound better — I wouldn't know, and neither would most people who listen to music, so I don't think that's the industry's problem.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
2) The actual formats that they are using to sell us music gets cheaper and cheaper. Vinyl, as any nostalgic musician will tell you, gives a specific quality of sound that nostalgic musicians are used to hearing and thus sounds "better" than any format ever. It also comes in a large, attractive cover which is pleasing to look at.
Fixed.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I think I know more than everyone else so I write Fixed.
Fixed.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 04:22 PM
 
The anti-renting music argument shouldn't hinge on sound quality. Anyone who says they can tell the difference between a high quality AAC or MP3 file and the original source material is either experiencing the placebo effect or is part of the .0000001% of the population that might actually be able to tell the difference. Many listening tests over at Hydrogenaudio have demonstrated this, even with 128 kbps AAC and MP3 files.

If you want to bring sound quality into it, then the real downside of renting music is that it limits your ability to convert the files into different formats and bitrates depending on how you want to use them. You can't, for example, keep a higher bitrate file on your computer and a lower bitrate file on your iPod without sacrificing some sound quality, in the way that you can rip losslessly from CD and generate AAC or MP3 files for different situations.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
Fixinated.
Fixed.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
If you want to bring sound quality into it, then the real downside of renting music is that it limits your ability to convert the files into different formats and bitrates depending on how you want to use them. You can't, for example, keep a higher bitrate file on your computer and a lower bitrate file on your iPod without sacrificing some sound quality, in the way that you can rip losslessly from CD and generate AAC or MP3 files for different situations.
Well, that's a downside of any DRM, not just renting. I can't re-encode my iTMS purchases without burning them to CD and reimporting first.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Fixed.
Um, not only "nostalgic" musicians (whoever they are) but also major recording artists, indie musicians, audiophiles, and so on. Heck, even dogs perk up and start barking when they hear a vinyl album playing. You can't say the same for compressed digital music.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Anyone who says they can tell the difference between a high quality AAC or MP3 file and the original source material is either experiencing the placebo effect or is part of the .0000001% of the population that might actually be able to tell the difference.
AAC and MP3 are both compressed and therefore, as you noted, are basically the same to most listeners. But listen to them beside a CD and you can tell the difference; put a CD beside a vinyl record and again you can tell the difference... especially at higher volumes.

I'm no audiophile- this stuff is just common sense.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
AAC and MP3 are both compressed and therefore, as you noted, are basically the same to most listeners. But listen to them beside a CD and you can tell the difference; put a CD beside a vinyl record and again you can tell the difference.
Please do some blind listening tests between AAC or MP3 files at varying quality levels and the original CD. You might surprise yourself.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Um, not only "nostalgic" musicians (whoever they are) but also major recording artists, indie musicians, audiophiles, and so on. Heck, even dogs perk up and start barking when they hear a vinyl album playing. You can't say the same for compressed digital music.
Yes, you are right that many non-nostalgic musicians also enjoy vinyl. I will refine my statement to say, "people who like the particular characteristics of the vinyl 'sound' think that it sounds better than a CD." But it has nothing to do with the quality or accuracy of the sound reproduction, which is my point.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
Well, that's a downside of any DRM, not just renting. I can't re-encode my iTMS purchases without burning them to CD and reimporting first.
True. I guess I had in the back of my mind that we are more likely to see lossless DRM-free files in the future from a iTMS-style service than we are from a subscription service, but, now that I think about it, I'm not sure that's true.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:32 PM
 
Well, what format(s) do you prefer?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Everybody talking about "renting" or "subscribing" in any way that doesn't involve DRMed files that expire: I see no indication that's even on the table. The recording industry wants to eliminate the idea of music ownership — your proposition is not in line with their goal.
eMusic-style subscription (# downloads a month for $ a month) is compatible with the already released EMI DRM-free muzak.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
AAC and MP3 are both compressed and therefore, as you noted, are basically the same to most listeners. But listen to them beside a CD and you can tell the difference; put a CD beside a vinyl record and again you can tell the difference... especially at higher volumes.

I'm no audiophile- this stuff is just common sense.
As I've stated above, every single double blind test I have read disagrees with you.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
eMusic-style subscription (# downloads a month for $ a month) is compatible with the already released EMI DRM-free muzak.
Yes, and I see no evidence that such a thing is on the table here. Steve's own comments suggest that's not what is being discussed.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2007, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Yes, and I see no evidence that such a thing is on the table here. Steve's own comments suggest that's not what is being discussed.
True. The music labels want a rental model laden with DRM. So perhaps Apple can throw them a bone and convince them to go with an eMusic style subscription plan without the DRM as a compromise.

OAW
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2007, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
True. The music labels want a rental model laden with DRM. So perhaps Apple can throw them a bone and convince them to go with an eMusic style subscription plan without the DRM as a compromise.
That's not throwing them a bone. That's suggesting something completely different and unrelated using similar terminology. "Oh, you want a Jaguar? How about I give you a kitten instead?"
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,