Ah but I have a solution for that, too. I'm using Audio Hijack to take soundbites from DVDs and make them part of my playlsts. It's not quite banter but I'd rather hear, "This is Kundalini and Kundalini would like his hand back," than banter, anyway.
How is this different than a CD? If you lose your CD, you have to buy another one. The record label or retail store isn't going to give you a new CD to replace the one you lost, right? Why should online stores be held to a higher standard?
Bah, you can do it now. Go to eBay, buy a Bondi Blue iMac for about $250, load up Jaguar (or wait a few days for Panther), connect it to your home network, connect it to your stereo. Bingo! A computer hooked up to your stereo that you can buy music with.
I listen to those bands, too (well, not #3). Hang in there. The indie stuff has just started being added in the past couple of weeks. The indie metal labels (Century, Sanctuary, Roadrunner, Metal Blade, etc.), if they have any brains between them, should be getting their stuff on soon (you can find Metal Blade tunes on emusic so at least Metal Blade gets it).
Jesus Farking Christ, people. SHUT UP ABOUT ITS SIZE! 26MB? You guys are whining about that?!? I have MP3 files bigger than that. What do you care? Too much disk space? Here's a quarter, buy an extra gig. Too much RAM? Yeah, I bet iTunes is eating up all your RAM.
That's why we have these big machines these days, people. Big disks, big RAM, fast CPUs. So we can run big apps. Welcome to the 21st century.
Why do you care about the filenames? As long as the file's info tags are fine and show up correctly in iTunes, why do you care about it's filename? Not a flame, I really am curious.
...and behind this window is the Cave-dwelling Troll, with his distinctive XBox pallor. Note his focus on irrelevant, technical trivia and his obliviousness to things you and I care about, like usability. They're mostly harmless, as long as they're not goaded into a Picard vs. Kirk debate. Day-old pizza usually settles them down, though. Let's move along to our next exhibit...
So now you understand why 128kb iTunes costs less than the CD. They don't sound as good as the CD. Case closed.
Wait a second. So many people here complaining about the reviewer relying on the warm fuzzies for his review instead of cold, hard facts and double-blind tests. Yet you pick out a warm fuzzy description and use it as proof that iTMS songs sound worse than CDs. What's wrong with this picture?
I didn't know the Pilgrims founded the U.S. Silly me! I thought it was colonists who wanted to be free of England. Wow! All this time I hadn't realized that the Boston Tea Party was really about freedom from religious persecution. Thanks for shedding light on those misconceptions, brother!
And what did those pilgrims do after the Revolutionary War broke us free from our English masters? Slavery! Yep, nothing like having God bless the practice of slavery.
Certainly though, you've drunk Apple's cool-aid with respect to AAC having acceptable sound quality, despite strong evidence that it's only *marginally* better than MP3 at low bit rates (which ITMS files are).
Sorry but as far as ripping CDs with iTunes is concerned, 128AAC beats the crap out of 192MP3. I'm sure there is other software where that is not the case but as far as just using iTunes, which the vast majority of Mac users use, that is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
At least you found out before marrying one. I'm not bitter, though.
iTunes can burn MP3 CDs for your car.
Ah but I have a solution for that, too. I'm using Audio Hijack to take soundbites from DVDs and make them part of my playlsts. It's not quite banter but I'd rather hear, "This is Kundalini and Kundalini would like his hand back," than banter, anyway.
Unfortunately, someone like me whose last five songs on the iPod just now were by:
I have nowhere to go but my iPod. ;-)
Unfortunately its playlists can have no more than 40 songs on it at a time and somebody else actually chooses the playlists for you.
How is this different than a CD? If you lose your CD, you have to buy another one. The record label or retail store isn't going to give you a new CD to replace the one you lost, right? Why should online stores be held to a higher standard?
Bah, you can do it now. Go to eBay, buy a Bondi Blue iMac for about $250, load up Jaguar (or wait a few days for Panther), connect it to your home network, connect it to your stereo. Bingo! A computer hooked up to your stereo that you can buy music with.
I listen to those bands, too (well, not #3). Hang in there. The indie stuff has just started being added in the past couple of weeks. The indie metal labels (Century, Sanctuary, Roadrunner, Metal Blade, etc.), if they have any brains between them, should be getting their stuff on soon (you can find Metal Blade tunes on emusic so at least Metal Blade gets it).
The information is stored in the file. Hence, no information is lost.
Jesus Farking Christ, people. SHUT UP ABOUT ITS SIZE! 26MB? You guys are whining about that?!? I have MP3 files bigger than that. What do you care? Too much disk space? Here's a quarter, buy an extra gig. Too much RAM? Yeah, I bet iTunes is eating up all your RAM.
That's why we have these big machines these days, people. Big disks, big RAM, fast CPUs. So we can run big apps. Welcome to the 21st century.
Here at work we have three Windows boxes and two Macs all sharing just fine.
Why do you care about the filenames? As long as the file's info tags are fine and show up correctly in iTunes, why do you care about it's filename? Not a flame, I really am curious.
How did the songs sound? Did the 2MB file sound okay?
...and behind this window is the Cave-dwelling Troll, with his distinctive XBox pallor. Note his focus on irrelevant, technical trivia and his obliviousness to things you and I care about, like usability. They're mostly harmless, as long as they're not goaded into a Picard vs. Kirk debate. Day-old pizza usually settles them down, though. Let's move along to our next exhibit...
I find Pepsi goes well with Chinese food. Might be just me, though.
More like owners of VW Beetles grew up and could afford to get the car they really wanted (insert dream car here: Viper, Lexus, Boxster, etc.).
D'oh! My woops.
Actually, Microsoft's announcement beat Apple's announcement. They were both scheduled to ship about the same time, though.
So now you understand why 128kb iTunes costs less than the CD. They don't sound as good as the CD. Case closed.
Wait a second. So many people here complaining about the reviewer relying on the warm fuzzies for his review instead of cold, hard facts and double-blind tests. Yet you pick out a warm fuzzy description and use it as proof that iTMS songs sound worse than CDs. What's wrong with this picture?
iTunes Music Store songs are not ripped from a CD but are instead encoded from masters.
Sez who?
I didn't know the Pilgrims founded the U.S. Silly me! I thought it was colonists who wanted to be free of England. Wow! All this time I hadn't realized that the Boston Tea Party was really about freedom from religious persecution. Thanks for shedding light on those misconceptions, brother!
And what did those pilgrims do after the Revolutionary War broke us free from our English masters? Slavery! Yep, nothing like having God bless the practice of slavery.
I'll stop frothing now.
Yes. Yes you are.
No, I just go to the library.
Yeah, that's likely, troll.
Certainly though, you've drunk Apple's cool-aid with respect to AAC having acceptable sound quality, despite strong evidence that it's only *marginally* better than MP3 at low bit rates (which ITMS files are).
Sorry but as far as ripping CDs with iTunes is concerned, 128AAC beats the crap out of 192MP3. I'm sure there is other software where that is not the case but as far as just using iTunes, which the vast majority of Mac users use, that is the case.
Ever buy a book?