Are iTMS's 128kbps Songs Worth Collecting?

pinchhazard writes "Randall Stross of the New York Times offers his opinion on iTunes Music Store's decision to offer downloads at only 128 kbps, and that decision's potential to affect collectibility of the songs. The article says that Apple makes the claim on its web site that "you'll get the full quality of uncompressed CD audio using about half the storage space." Rhapsody, which offers encoding at 192 kbps, is compared."

Comments

Quick...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick someone post linkage to a non registered version of the article so I can give you karma.

Re:AAC encodes better than MP3

[Lars T.]

First off, most people can hear sound up to 20khz.

YEAH, WHEN IT'S LOUD ENOUGH. Most people are actually unable to hear higher frequencies at normal loudness because they listened to music far too loud for far too long. And when they are lucky, they don't "hear" a high frequency sound constantly that others can't.

Re:Bad article!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, good point.

I bet there were lots of Victrola users who got pissed off when they discovered they'd paid full price for tracks which were recorded at low quality, when they expected it to be as good as having Rudy Vallee performing right there in the drawing room.

Re:oh no

[linzeal]

Heh, I saw one of these guys down at a pawnshop once because they wanted to hawk their stuff to pay their rent during the dot com bust. I was down there looking for accesories for my KitchenAid mixer as I lost them moving.

He wanted the pawnshop to give him 1000 dollars for a box of cables. I've never heard a shopkeep actually laugh at someone before.

Re:AAC 128Kbps Now Around Third Quality Wise

[Anonymous Coward]

But every time I've tried Ogg, what comes out is some old woman singing that "the hedgehog can never be buggered at all".

Which kinda makes it useless.