Neat (new?) iTunes Feature

[BarTopDancer]

I was poking around iTunes and noticed they have a new (to me at least) feature called "complete my album". When you click on the link it takes you to the albums of the music you already purchased and tells you how much it would be to finish downloading the album sans the song(s) you already purchased.

I was just thinking that it would be nice to be able to buy the album without buying the song a second time.

Neat!

[mousepod]

It's a good idea. That + the new EMI DRM-less tracks make me a happy boy.

However, there's word that music that you buy from iTunes comes with your name and email address encoded into it (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/10/1420225). Not cool.

[BarTopDancer]

However, there's word that music that you buy from iTunes comes with your name and email address encoded into it (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/10/1420225). Not cool.

Ya. I read that. Apparently they have been doing that since day 1. I agree. Not cool.

[Kevy Baby]

I am sure someone out there has written a code stripper.

ETA: Sho nuff (http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=102763)

Dang, they're all over the place (http://newtech.aurum3.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=18).

[mousepod]

Except that those strip the DRM from iTunes 6, which is no longer supported by the iTunes store. iTunes 7 has been around for a long time, and the only way to strip out the DRM is to do the old burn and rip trick.

[Babette]

Yes, they do encode personal info about you on the music files. It is a catch 22 since it proves you own it if there is an iPod theft, lost data, etc. But , Big Brother knows what music you listen to.

[Not Afraid]

I have purchased no more than 20 songs from iTunes. As far as Big Brother knows, I only listen to music with the words "Sleep" or "Slumber" in them.

[CoasterMatt]

now if only eMusic.com had a better selection...

[Stan4dSteph]

I like downloading the free singles. New ones up today!

[MouseWife]

I like to do that, too, Stan4dSteph, when I remember.

Isn't there also something about how many times you can copy it? I mean, like transfer it to a cd or something like that? That is what I understood.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I like to do that, too, Stan4dSteph, when I remember.

Isn't there also something about how many times you can copy it? I mean, like transfer it to a cd or something like that? That is what I understood.From the file you download through iTunes, you can only burn it a limited number of times (5, I believe). However, there's a way around it. Once you burn it, it's just an audio CD, no different than any other audio CD. If you take the burnt CD, and "rip" the file from there back to your computer, you now have a completely unprotected file with none of the security data that Apple encodes in the file downloaded from iTunes. It's an easy, but very time consuming, way around a lot of the "protections".

[MouseWife]

That is what I thought {hoped}...but what about that encryption?

[Ghoulish Delight]

That is what I thought {hoped}...but what about that encryption?Once you burn it, then re-rip it, there is no encryption. It's just an audio file, no different than if you had purchased the CD and ripped it.

[mousepod]

Well.... except that the version that you buy from iTunes is lossy to start with, as opposed to a lossless CD. Although Apple does have a lossless codec that you can use when ripping from a CD, the quality of music downloaded from iTunes doesn't start out as good. When you burn and then rip to AAC or mp3, you further degrade the sound.
Apple doesn't sell lossless music because none of the lossless codecs so far (Apple, ape, shn, flac) support DRM. Now that EMI is allowing Apple to sell music with no DRM, it would be nice to see if they start offering true CD-quality music for sale.

[MouseWife]

See I wondered about that, too.

The loss after recopies.

Well, I just burned myself a copy of my new 'Era Vulgaris' to play in my car.

I know it won't be prime because A} it is a copy and B} my stereo sucks.

But, no matter what issues arise from all of this, the iPod is still so much better than hand-starting my turntable as a teen.....

[Kevy Baby]

Now that EMI is allowing Apple to sell music with no DRM, it would be nice to see if they start offering true CD-quality music for sale.I thought that one of the advantages to the more expensive EMI music is that the sample rate was also higher. I remember hearing (though don't quote me) that "regular" music from iTunes is sampled at 128k and the new EMI music was at 192.

Unfortunately I do not have time at the moment to verify the numbers, but the basic logic (I think) holds true

(I guess I am having commitment issues at the moment.)

[Kevy Baby]

The loss after recopies.You shouldn't be getting any loss when making digital copies. It all has to do with the original sampling (see my post above).

[Ghoulish Delight]

You shouldn't be getting any loss when making digital copies. It all has to do with the original sampling (see my post above).
Unless you let iTunes re-rip in AAC format (see Jesse's post above).

[mousepod]

128 is lossy. 192 is lossy. Better quality, perhaps, but still not lossless by a long shot.

[Kevy Baby]

128 is lossy. 192 is lossy. Better quality, perhaps, but still not lossless by a long shot.Wouldn't, technically speaking, ANY digital format be "lossy"?

And it varies at what sampling rate one finds the loss unacceptable. I have my standard (for ripping of any CD) set at 256. The iTunes default (unless it has changed) is 128. If I am making a copy of a CD for use in my car, I use Jam to copy.

I am curious what others have their iTunes ripping sampling rate set at.

ETA: To clarify my earlier post about how MG shouldn't be getting any loss on copies: I was thinking of making copies a la Jam.

[mousepod]

Wouldn't, technically speaking, ANY digital format be "lossy"?

And it varies at what sampling rate one finds the loss unacceptable. I have my standard (for ripping of any CD) set at 256. The iTunes default (unless it has changed) is 128. If I am making a copy of a CD for use in my car, I use Jam to copy.

I am curious what others have their iTunes ripping sampling rate set at.

ETA: To clarify my earlier post about how MG shouldn't be getting any loss on copies: I was thinking of making copies a la Jam.

Stickler.

If the source is analog, then I guess that one could argue that any digital copy is "lossy" - what I'm talking about is the way that companies talk about compressed audio as "cd quality". If it's not lossless, it's lossy. Simple as that.

My setting for ripping to my iPod is 192. I can hear the difference, but it's acceptable. For saving to my computer, I use FLAC (lossless).

[Gemini Cricket]

I had to look up "lossy". I didn't understand for a second.

[MouseWife]

Hee hee, GC.

But, now I see you can set your iPod to different levels for uploading???? :eek:

Aw f'in crap. I have almost uploaded all of my music....

I have a headache. But,I had one before now I am bummed with a headache.

Off to check settings....

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Non-music geek question - How large is a FLAC song in comparison to a more standard size, like 192?

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Non-music geek question - How large is a FLAC song in comparison to a more standard size, like 192?

Here's what one reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC) says:

"FLAC is for efficient packing of audio data, unlike general lossless algorithms such as ZIP and gzip. While ZIP may compress a CD-quality audio file by 10–20%, FLAC achieves compression rates of 30–50% for most music, with significantly greater compression for voice recordings. This leads to bitrates of roughly 800 - 950 kbit/s.

Lossy codecs can achieve ratios of 80% or more by discarding data from the original stream. FLAC uses linear prediction to convert the audio samples to a series of small, uncorrelated numbers (known as the residual), which are stored efficiently using Golomb-Rice coding. It also uses run-length encoding for blocks of identical samples, such as silent passages. The technical strengths of FLAC compared to other lossless codecs lie in its ability to be streamed and in a fast decode time, which is independent of compression level."

[lashbear]

I had to look up "lossy". I didn't understand for a second.

I hired "Lossy, Come Home" on DVD. Not a collie in sight !

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Here's what one reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC) says:Heh, I love it when others do the work ;)

[mousepod]

And if you want to play your FLAC files in iTunes, just download this (http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/download.html).

Otherwise, there are several standalone FLAC players out there. Just check out this page (http://flac.sourceforge.net/download.html).

[blueerica]

The iTunes download from today is tasty.

Also, I'm reverting back to the CD buying days, for some reason. I've also had a major craving to go vinyl, but that's a whole 'nother issue, which will probably cost me a lot of money somewhere.

[Not Afraid]

I'm still a fan of buying CDs. I probably will never stop.

[€uroMeinke]

The iTunes download from today is tasty.

Mmmm Justice - they finally released a CD yesterday - but I gladly downloaded the free single while I wait to go shopping...

[Not Afraid]

Me loves Justice.

[Stan4dSteph]

I don't know that I would even notice the difference between the loss and no-loss versions. I don't have a lot of high-end stereo equipment. I do love my iPod though. And I love my Nike+ Sport Kit too.

[BarTopDancer]

I do love my iPod though. And I love my Nike+ Sport Kit too.

You're the first person I know to use it. Is it worth the money? Any significant cons?

[Kevy Baby]

Stickler.I am nothing if not anal retentive. Definite type A personality.