This seems like a big contraversy to me because you can spend $15 on a cd for one song or just get a p2p program find the song and spend a few minutes getting it for free
yes i know getting the cd means your not breaking the law but why waste money for one song you might never listen to again
case in point i had over 30 cds and on average i listend to maybe 4 songs on all the cds so instead of buying the cds any more i got a p2p program and was getting songs i want and even then i wasnt getting very many of them as my download counter after six months was only 23 downloads yes i know that it takes money away from the rich but it helps the undiscovered bands that sometimes have more talent than the signed ones (mainly local teenagers) get found

.flac and .ogm files are the best files for audio and video, respectively. This has been mentioned, I am simply agreeing. If they are available, I prefer them over any other. If not, 320 kbps is the next best. It's about as good as it gets as far as .mp3 files go.

Check out Easy CD-DA Extractor. You can convert anything to anything else, complete with full customization of each file and bitrate. Simply the best out there.

I used to use iTunes, but it started corrupting my playlists. And when you are dealing with over 120 GB of music, that isn't really a good thing. Now I use Winamp. It's not as good in my opinion, but it gets the job done.

I can't think of any Lossless codecs that would be as universal as apple. However, at 320kpbs, or VBR in Mp3, studies have shown there is nearly no detectable difference. Just a little tidbit, it might save you some space.

You might want to check Mp3 sparks. If it opens up, check AllofMp3. They offer lossless, I believe.

When I do rip CDs, I tend to use Apple Lossless, which uses variable bitrate, so it's alway the highest (CD) quality. They can be huge files, though. Smaller than uncompressed WAVs, but less compatible. It also tends to annoy people who want my music, since it only seems to work with iPods, but the main plus is that it doesn't use any DRM schemes. Yet, at least. I'd use FLAC if I didn't have to hack my iPod to play it...

It'd be awesome if music stores sold songs in lossless formats, but they'd be huge files. I'll have to settle for lossy for now.

I think .Mp3 maxes out at 320kpbs, but I could be wroung. I still hate DRM, and I would like to be able to go between .ogg vorbis, and all those things. I guess it all depends on what you use.

Anyway, Clpo, I can understand using iTunes. I use it too on Windows. If you ever check into the Linux side of things, try amaroK. Beautiful program, and I wish they'd make a port for Windows.

i think if i can remember the highest kbps song i have is 356kbps and the lowest is 69kbps

I don't use Winamp at all. I did try out the library feature while I had it installed, though, but I didn't like it as much as the one in iTunes.

And since I use an iPod, music format isn't important to me, either. iPod + iTunes + AAC = music bliss (with a DRM caveat). Ironically, you can't say the same for Microsoft's music setup. They practically invented PlaysForSure, but the Zune isn't compatible with that.

I can completely understand your point of view, though. Audiophiles would definitely appreciate high-quality, versatile music files like uncompressed WAVs, but I'm not an audiophile. A 128 kbps MP3 is fine for me. I have low standards, I know.

For *certain* labels. As I said, that's unprotected AAC at 256Kpbs, at $1.29 per song.

Sound quality matters to me. That's debatable.

But then again, so does the ability to play the content. AAC isn't a standard format. .Mp3 isn't either, but it's widely accepted. I can't get DRM'd AAC into WAV files, or MP3, or anything else. I can guarantee you that my CD-rip will play on any portable device. You can't do that with .aac.

And what features of Winamp do you use? To my knowledge, the "Media Library" part of Winamp does a pretty similar job. Foobar2000 isn't designed to be iTunes. It's more designed to be a Windows version of XMMS.

iTunes does offer higher-quality, DRM-free songs for certain labels. I suspect that will become the standard if Apple gets its way. Steve Jobs has been pushing the music labels to allow the iTunes Store to release their songs without any DRM but most won't budge. Sound quality isn't that important for me. I simply don't notice the difference. Bad ears, bad speakers...I dunno.

I've also found iTunes to be a fairly decent player, but then, I don't listen to music on my computer that often. That's why I bought an iPod and an iHome stereo. My computer speakers suck anyways...

I'd use a different player if any of them had the ease of use iTunes offers. As it is, they're all too...feature-heavy. It's ironic, actually. Features are good, but it makes players like Foobar2000 and Winamp hard for me to use. They require a lot of tinkering out of the box, whereas I can install iTunes and have it good to go in seconds. I installed the latest Winamp and got rid of it a half-hour later. It didn't organize my music as well as iTunes did.

The only player I've seen come close is MediaMonkey. If it worked better with my iPod, I'd use it exclusively.

Like I said, why do you want iTunes.

If you want it for the actual player itself, you're out of luck. I would suggest foobar2000, wxMusik, or Winamp.

If you want the iPod features, you can use plugins for Winamp.

If you want the store itself, you're probably going to have to look to others. I would recommend eMusic, off hand.

quote:

Originally posted by ChaosSplintered:
What OS do you have and why do you want iTunes?

win 98 which sucks i had an xp comp but my bro broke it and has yet to pay for it to be fixed he broke the little port for the adaptor off the mother board on my latitude d600 and its gunna run about $500 to fix

You can actually sort of find a pattern.

Like buying a Lamb of God's Ashes Of the Wake disc, which in the metal world is a somewhat popular band, cost me around $15 for 11 songs. They're on the Sony label.

Buying the Napalm Death's Smear Campaign cost me roughly the same at $15 for 16 songs. They're not *that well* of known band, because they're off in a more obscure genre. They're on the Century Media label.

However, getting DevilDriver's The Last Kind Word disc, which had 11 songs, cost me $20. They're on the Roadrunner Records label.

You pay in part for the label, in part for the band, in part for the number of songs. Y

ou won't always pay .99 cents per song, because the quality is uncompressed. iTunes sells at .99 cents because it is either a 128kpbs DRM encrypted (Which is relatively low quality, considering CD's max out at 320kpbs), with SOME 256 AAC non-DRM songs.

Meanwhile, at CD sits at a non-compressed version, with the *possibility of DRM*, but on a lot of labels, you won't find that. You can then transfer it to any type you like, from 320Kpbs .MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc, without having to break the DRM.

That's a dangerous assumption. Just because certain things aren't always enforced doesn't mean they never are. The RIAA, for example, has a history of taking people to court (that's the Recording Industry Association of America, the corporate bigwigs who practically control the music industry).

True, the odds of getting caught are low, but there is still a chance. Just ask Jammie Thomas.

downloading illegal? on your larry

even if it was illegal is it actually going to stop anyone? come of it does it stop anyome thesedays ummm no

there are plenty of illegal things people get away wth all the time and its like its irrelevant these laws are just here for no reason beacause there not enforced

quote:

i dont have a computer at home that can handle itunes (dad wont get a XP computer) and cant get itunes at the school

Then use Napster, Amazon, eMusic...there are more music stores than iTunes.

quote:

Regardless, Cd's can come in anywhere from 5 to 20 (Quick example, Napalm Death's Smear Campaign has 16, so by that logic you actually pay *less* than 99 cents.

The price doesn't seem to have anything to do with the number of songs, though, so you might pay less than 99 cents a song, or you might pay more. I've seen $20 CDs with 10 songs on them, but I've also seen $10 CDs with 20 songs on them. There doesn't seem to be any pattern to it...

What OS do you have and why do you want iTunes?

Anyway. From what I've been told, most artists go by contract, so they get paid a lump sum, not per-CD. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been told.

Regardless, Cd's can come in anywhere from 5 to 20 (Quick example, Napalm Death's Smear Campaign has 16, so by that logic you actually pay *less* than 99 cents.

You wouldn't expect a painter to create a masterpiece for you, sure. Except that the painter doesn't create a masterpiece for you, and neither does an artist. A lot of classical artwork was created for lords. You wouldn't expected them to try and hold copyright over the digitalization and reproduction of the Mona Lisa, would you?

You have to think, they are already compensated for their work. Not only can they tour live, which can bring in massive profits, but they can make money off of merchandise (Band T-shirts are a great example), and off of selling hard copy CDs and DVDs.

Get a job and buy Windows XP, maybe?

i dont have a computer at home that can handle itunes (dad wont get a XP computer) and cant get itunes at the school

I hate to sound like the very people I hate with a passion, but yes, stealing is stealing. Music artists may not get that much from sales of CDs or on iTunes, but if no one buys it, they're clearly not going to make any money.

I don't buy to support the artist. I buy because I feel it's only fair that they get compensated for their work. This is why I refuse to buy CDs. Instead, I buy individual songs from music stores (usually iTunes, but others when songs aren't available on iTunes). 99 cents is a fair price to pay for a single song. $15 is not a fair price to pay for 10 songs.

I wouldn't expect a painter to create a masterpiece for me free of charge, so why should I get away with taking music without paying? The "sharing" argument just doesn't cut it for me.

Simple.

A lot of artists (Not saying all of them), do one of two things.

1. They make their own profit from live performances. In this case they'd make more money off selling limited editions, bonus discs, t-shirts, etc.

2. They work off of a contract. In this case they would get paid whatever sum they would be paid regardless.

So they *might* get something from each song sold. Chances are that most of it would go to the record company instead.