http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/ Engadget Comments for Jobs signs four major labels to 99c downloads http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/I (greater than)3 you, Steve! :-)]]>May 2nd 2006 10:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/I have not used this service either as it is not available in my country, Bangladesh (I dont have any mehtod to pay even .99$ online). ANyway, what about the quality of the music?]]>May 2nd 2006 10:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/

It's the first time for those comapnies and I'm sure they are already plotting against Apple. So enjoy 99 cents while we have it.]]>May 2nd 2006 10:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 10:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 11:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 11:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/
"CD Quality", by popular notion, is subjective. One person may think 128 is suitable as CD Quality, someone else may demand no less than 320 as CD Quality. (160 AAC is fine for me.)

But in reality, the only thing that truly qualifies as "CD Quality" is an uncompressed or lossless file. Everything else is just varying degrees of lossy compression.

In other words: Learn the facts, and don't be an ass.]]>May 2nd 2006 11:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 11:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 11:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/
I personally CANNOT stand MP3's lower than 192kbs because I have semi-high-end Sennheisers, with which you can cleary hear flaws in digital music at low bit rates.]]>May 2nd 2006 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/
They could charge .99 for 128kbs and more for higher quality.]]>May 2nd 2006 12:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/Why?
Because I don't want to buy an entire busta rhymes CD just to listen to "Dangerous" ONE time for some party I host. $8? or 99 cents?
Not every album is a goddamn work of art worthy of "no less than 320kbs"; a single is what it is, and when truly I want to hear it in full glory and "own" it, I'll by the dumb piece of plastic for one single song out of 10-15. Until then, I'll get one less McChicken next stop at the drive-thru and buy a song.]]>May 2nd 2006 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/
Because most only like ONE song..and won't care about that song in five years.

So

99 cents vs $4-8? They rather spend $8 for eight songs they wanted than $72 for 8 albums that will collect dust when they rip those 8 song off of the albums.

And sound quality? Well we aren't talking Coldtrain here. 128kbps "Stupid Girls" doesn't sound any different then from the MTV video version...
]]>May 2nd 2006 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/
Oh yeah and what's up with that pathetic Beatles lawsuit?]]>May 2nd 2006 1:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 2nd 2006 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/

Ahhahah, idiot, that shows how dumb you are, telling me to get my facts straight, listen here buddy, mp3s are compressed, meaning less quality right off the bat, CDs are not, the highest quality mp3 you can find is 320kbps, therefor that is the closest you will ever get to cd quality, and no some people do not mind the lower quality and can't notice it, but others like myself can note the difference. So please get your facts correct before you go running your mouth and sounding like an idiot. Thanks :-)]]>May 2nd 2006 9:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 3rd 2006 9:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/May 3rd 2006 10:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/02/jobs-signs-four-major-labels-to-99c-downloads/
Mp3 - The most popular form of audio compression on the face of the earth. Mp3 is supported by tons of players, both home and portable, and it's one of the most convenient methods availble. When used with a highest quality encoder (LAME), you should get these results:

128kbps-Recommended for spoken word audio, not recommened for music. The quality is pretty poor.

192kbps-The most common bit rate to compress in. Many label it as high quality, 'near' to that of the audio cd. I would recommend this setting for portable mp3 players and other devises where quality is important, but file size is it's equal. Also recommended if you have a low-quality to medium-quality car audio system.

320kbps - Dubbed 'cd quality', 320 is the highest quality mp3 available. It's a monster when it comes to file size, but it's also 99% percent transparent, which means that 99% percent of the time, you won't be able to tell the difference between the 320kbps mp3 and the original audio cd. I only recommend this setting if you burn your music to a cd-r and play it through a high quality cd player. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

OTHER POPULAR SETTINGS INCLUDE: Alt.Preset.Settings -
(standard - 190kbpsVBR)
(extreme - 240kbpsVBR)
(insane - 320kbpsBEST)

------------------------------------------------------
WMA: The second most popular form of AUDIO compression. Read below;

128kbps - Low quality, WMA claims it's the same as a 160kbps mp3, but it beg to differ.

160kbps - Medium quality, WMA claims it to be of a 192kbps mp3, again, it's a stretch, but I don't think most people will be able to tell the difference.

192kbps - The highest quality form of WMA available. Quality is very good, no doubt, but if file size isn't an issue, go with a 256VBR mp3 instead. Better quality for an additional 64 bits.

I don't recommend WMA for the following reasons; When WMA compresses from the original cd format, it raises the volume to drown out possible artifacts that may arise from using a low quality bit rate (128 is pretty low, no matter what comp method you use). WMA isn't supported as much as mp3, but with pay for download music sites like Napster and Rapsody using WMA (preset 192kbps CBR), it's going to be right up there with mp3 in no time.

-------------------------------------------------------
AAC - Apple's own form of audio compression. GARBAGE! This form of compression is ONLY designed for portable AAC players like IPOD, and you can so tell why.

128Kbps AAC - Sounds like what it is, a low quality audio compression made for an IPOD. Used to be the default setting for the itunes music store. Imagine, you were paying .99 for the lowest quality known to compression! it's crazy!

192kbps AAC - I wasn't the only one upset with apples 128kbps AAC crap, so apple went ahead with 192kbps. Sounds almost indentical to a 192kbps WMA, which means the quality is pretty high, and if you have an ipod, this is the setting I recommend you use. AAC is ONLY supported in IPODS, so use in a car or home stereo is out of the question. Mp3 wins again.

------------------------------------------------------
OGG VORBIS - Yet another form of audio compression bulit off of mp3. It's claim is that at lower bitrates, it is of equal or better quality than mp3 of slighty higher bit rates. This is true. However, if you encode at 320kbps, there is no noticeable difference. OGG VORBIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PORTABLE, CAR OR HOME PLAYER, which makes it strictly for computer use, and use(less) for people like me who like their music in the car.

-------------------------------------------------------
MUSEPACK - MUSEPACK is the audiophiles form of lossy compression. MUSEPACK sounds amazing, simply put, at lower bit rates. HOWEVER, like OGG, it isn't supported by any form of portable audio player, which makes it strictly for desktop computer listening only.

-------------------------------------------------------
The verdict: MP3 is, always has been, and always will be the number one choice. It offers bit rates for all kinds of people, from anti-audiophiles who chose file size over quality, to super audiophiles who are willing to eat hard drive space for a 320kbps mp3. Mp3 has gotten a bad rap in the past because of file sharing networks (ones the usually trade low quality, several times compressed mp3 files). If everyone using 'kazaa' had encoded their music with LAME 192kbps and traded it, other sits like apple and napster couldn't survive. If you forget about file sharing for a miunte though, and just take mp3 as a whole, the quality is good. Here's a tip; Don't use file sharing networks like kazaa. Pay for your mp3's and you'll get good quality, end of story. Next, if you do use free file sharing, watch out for files that have been compressed more than once. This takes away from quality in a major way. Finally, only use the lastest and greatest form of LAME for compressing your own cd collection. There's a reason why LAME is the only mp3 encoder used by the masses anymore. It truly is highest quality.

]]>May 8th 2006 2:21PM