From: Eric L. Strobel (fyzycyst_at_comcast.net)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 06:16:59 PDT
on 10/17/03 12:46 AM, Ed Kummel at tech_ed_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> While I agree that it is a nice looking client, I am a
> little dismayed in the fact that the proprietary
> format for the downloads will not play on the
> application I have chosen to interface with my MP3
> catalogger and wireless transmitter. (it's a custom
> designed version of WinAmp) This is a problem with ALL
> the legal music downloader services...Plus the fact
> that these formats will not play on certain MP3
> players.
AAC is *NOT* a proprietary format. IIRC, it is part of the MPEG4 standard.
BTW, iTunes will play it just fine, and keeps track of your playlists. Not
sure what sort of wireless transmitter system you use, but there are any
number of little FM transmitter thingies that plug into your sound-out.
I've got one on my iPod and it works quite well.
As for not playing on other MP3 players, I expect that if you convert the
AAC to MP3 (at least I *think* you can do that w/ iTunes), it might work.
Don't forget, though, that Apple is trying to sell iPods. They certainly
have no incentive to go to any heroic lengths to support competitors'
players and thereby erode their industry-leading position.
> I downloaded it and looked at it. Even bought a song
> (a buck is far too much money for a 128k encoded
> song... Why do I have to pay CD price for 1/10th of a
> CD quality?)
Two quibbles. First, although I've not done a side-by-side comparison, I've
read that AAC is supposed to be far higher quality than MP3. I think others
are also commenting on that. Second, what do you mean by 1/10th CD quality?
Don't forget that most of the information compressed away in these sound
file formats is information that's not generally discernible to the
listener. Personally, I find it almost impossible to tell the difference
between 128k MP3s and CDs, at least on anything I play them on. I suppose
those that blow many hundreds of dollars on sound systems may be able to
tell the difference, but it certainly shouldn't be a factor of 10 difference
(whatever that means).
As for the price, I guess it's a matter of perspective. Since I find
there's generally only 1/2 to 1/4 of the songs on any particular CD worth
having (depending on the performer), I figure I'm paying $2-3/song when I
buy a CD. To pay a buck a piece for just the ones I want is a definite
bargain. Now, if some state Attorney General would show some testicular
fortitude and go after the RIAA/music industry as the price-fixing/gouging
monopoly that it is, perhaps the pricing structure would change. But that's
a potentially long and bloody dispute for another time.
- Eric.
-- Eric Strobel (fyzycyst_at_NOSPAM^mailaps.org) ===================================================================== Political correctness is anti-freedom!!! Speak the truth!!! ===================================================================== -- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 15:00:03 PDT