Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

iPod Users Buy CDs, Shun iTunes 550

twitter writes, "The BBC's summarizes a Jupiter Research study, 'iPod fans shunning iTunes store.' From the article: '83% of iPod owners do not buy digital music regularly... only 5% of the music on an iPod will be bought from online music stores. The rest will be from CDs the owner of an MP3 player already has or tracks they have downloaded from file-sharing sites... [T]he only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music — especially CDs.' This is despite years of iTunes promotion and apparent success. Given the outright failure of other music services, it is clear that users prefer DRM-free music, and are willing to pay for it and take the trouble to rip it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPod Users Buy CDs, Shun iTunes

Comments Filter:
  • by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Saturday September 16, 2006 @10:33PM (#16122693) Homepage Journal
    (drat - hit submit rather then preview - wish there was an edit)

    For those looking to rip CD's, but not learn how the command line LAME encoder works, check out audiograbber [com-us.net]. Makes quick work of turning a collection into MP3 format.
  • Free Music (Score:2, Informative)

    by SniperClops ( 776236 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @10:34PM (#16122696)
    Music will soon be free [spiralfrog.com], you just have to watch ads as it downloads.
  • True, but... (Score:2, Informative)

    by cskrat ( 921721 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @10:42PM (#16122731)
    ... you can definately tell the difference between a 128kpbs song from iTunes and a song that you ripped yourself at 192 or more kbps.
  • by davecarlotub ( 835831 ) * on Saturday September 16, 2006 @10:56PM (#16122792) Journal
    It's not that hard, man:

    Windows: FOR %i IN (*.wav) DO lame -b 192 -h -m s %i
    Bash: for i in *.wav ; do lame -b 192 -h -m s ${i} `echo ${i} | sed s/.wav/.mp3/g` ; done
  • by MJOverkill ( 648024 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:02PM (#16122826)

    FTA:

    However, the report into the habits of iPod users reveals that 83% of iPod owners do not buy digital music regularly. The minority, 17%, buy and download music, usually single tracks, at least once per month...
    Perhaps the only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music - especially CDs.

    It's even covered in the summary

  • Re:DRM is a hassle (Score:5, Informative)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:04PM (#16122836) Homepage Journal
    DRM does not change the sound of music. It does not sound any different.

    No, but I cannot purchase from the iTMS songs that are encoded at higher rates. That was my point.

  • by bcat24 ( 914105 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:05PM (#16122846) Homepage Journal
    No, please *don't* do that. Unless your ripping MP3s at the maxium bitrate (320 kbps), there's no good reason to use CBR. At the very least, use ABR. And unless you need a very predictable file size for some reason, VBR is the way to go. Try "lame -V 2 --vbr-new".
  • Re:DRM is a hassle (Score:5, Informative)

    by monoqlith ( 610041 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:28PM (#16122923)
    Personally I've only purchased one album from iTunes (unfortunatly I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times)


    Just so you know, there is a button in the iTunes Music Store account information page that lets you deauthorize all the computers that you've previously authorized to play your music. It only lets you do this once a year IIRC, but it's useful if you've reached your limit of 5 computers and can't get to an authorized computer to deauthorize it.

  • Re:DRM is a hassle (Score:4, Informative)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:32PM (#16122945) Homepage Journal
    [...] I usually use 240-355 VBR WMA encoding for personal use.

    Personally I've only purchased one album from iTunes (unfortunatly I can no longer play it because I've changed computers too many times) and while their encoding method is fine for listening through earbuds, it shows noticable degredation vs. PCM on my 7.1 home theater setup. But it has nothing to do with watermarking DRM and it definately has nothing to do with quantum theory and schrodinger's cat, it is all about the bitrate and the encoding software. And Apple uses a substandard encoder set to a bitrate that is almost pallatable to AOL dial-up customers.
    Oh great, another Microsoft fan spreading FUD about Apple.

    First of all, WMA has been shown to be the worst (or second worst) CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done.

    Second, you can reset the list of computers that are allowed to play your purchased songs. In iTunes, go to the music store and click on your account button. If you have 5 authorized computers in your list, you should have a button next to "computer authorizations" which you can use to reset the list. You can use that feature once or twice a year AFAIK. You then simply re-authorize the current computers that you want to use. You don't need the old computers to de-authorize them.

    Third, AAC was developped by Dolby and was shown to be the best or second best CODEC in all the audio tests that have been done. As for the bitrate, AAC is more efficient with 128kbps than MP3 or WMA.
  • Re:DRM is a hassle (Score:5, Informative)

    by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:34PM (#16122956) Homepage Journal
    Of course the computer will identify them as being the same, its job is to work with discrete components in the form of bits, where the human ear can hear on a lower level than that. I'm no digital maven, so I can't say the EXACT reason why, but I've been selling, repairing and setting up high end audio systems for 17 years. It's my job to know what sounds the same and what sounds different. Perhaps the bits themselves are longer or shorter than before encryption, or perhaps they're a bit (pun intended) higher voltage where a computer will still read it as a "1" when it's in a bass waveform, therefore things like md5sum will claim it's the same file, but if you knew anything about signals over a wire you'd know things like a waveform that can be represented digitally can look (and sound) very different depending on the size of the peaks and troughs.

    As it happens, I know quite a bit about digital signaling. I also know that that "bit" you're reading is going to be converted several times from when you read it fro the hard disk, by a variety of independent subsystems which set their own bit levels as high or low, based on their own signaling specifications.

    You read some bits off your hard drive. The bits sitting on your drive have no voltage -- they're simply a magnetic field. This field get translated into either a 1 or a 0 bit. The drive controller copies this into a voltage that it then transmits across the drive bus to a bus controller. This bus controller then copies the bit to the system bus. The system bus copies it to the CPU, which copies it to RAM, which is then refreshed thousands of times per second. This is then copied back onto the system bus, and send to your audio hardware, which feeds it through a DAC.

    Each of these transmissions is a copy operation on the bit -- not on the strength of the magnetic field, or whatever voltage was being applied to the transmitting component. So signaling in this case makes no difference -- so long as each field or voltage fits within the proper tolerances, it will be treated as a 1 or a 0, and will be raised high or low at the new voltage level as a completely new signal during each conversion. As such, it isn't the case that if the bit is magnetically weak on your hard drive that it will have a lower-than-normal voltage once it finally gets into RAM.

    Thinking of it another way, it isn't like using a tin-can-and-string telephone to transmit data. It's more like the telephone game, where someone says something to someone, who then tells the message to the next person, and so on until the recipient receives the message. It doesn't matter if the first speaker is male or female -- the last person to pass on the message is going to state the same message regardless, in their own voice. The only difference in the case of a computer is that most stages have integrity checking to verify that the message is received properly, and in some cases can either request a retransmission if the integrity checking fails, or can receive the data in a manner that it can be reconstructed with mathematical certainty by using appropriate data encodings.

    Encryption makes no difference. The system is not analogue -- it is digital. And the system only knows two digits. Each individual subsystem has completely different mechanisms for representing those bits, and that representation is completely independent of other subsystems. Reading an encrypted block from your hard drive causes the encrypted data to be copied into RAM, from which a decrypted copy is placed into RAM. This copy is generated electrically in exactly the same fashion if it had been read unencrypted from the hard drive. By the time it gets to the audio DAC, the data is identical from both a data and a signaling standpoint.

    I'm sure you can handily replace the needle on a record player arm, but you know absolutely squat about digital signaling.

    Yaz.

  • by ender- ( 42944 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:39PM (#16122973) Homepage Journal
    If iTunes would take the time to notice that previous authorizations are never heard from again after I authorize a new install, it should just allow me to go along my merry, non-infringing way and let me listen to the music that I paid for.

    Apple is more than happy to do this. You can go into your account settings in iTunes, and tell it to deauthorize ALL of your prior computers. You then can authorize your current system and listen to all those songs again.

    As for old systems, maybe you should consider deauthorizing them before you get rid of them or overwrite the OS. Then this wouldn't be an issue at all.
  • Re:True, but... (Score:2, Informative)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:51PM (#16123015) Homepage
    Why? AAC files are higher quality sonically than anything LAME ever produced for me. I can get away with a 160 bit AAC that sounds as good, and is smaller, than a 192 LAME encoded MP3.

    I can play Ogg files on.......nothing that I own. So....moving on.....

    There is support for AAC VBRing. Perhaps iTunes Store should offer 160 AACs with VBR?
  • by TheRealStyro ( 233246 ) on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:54PM (#16123024) Homepage
    While I don't doubt that a lot of PMP (personal media player) owners get music on the players via the old tried-and-high-quality methods of ripping CDs, I still like downloading from the iTunes store. Yes, sometimes the sample of the music is too short or was taken from a poor section of the recording (solution would be to allow three 30 second samples per track as long as song is over 2.5 minutes long), and the quality is somewhat low for complex pieces (for example, always rip Pink Floyd and The Crystal Method - PF deserves it and TCM requires it), but the price is right for legally purchased tracks.

    I look forward to new music Tuesday to listen for new tracks by my favorite artists and for trying to find artists that deserve my attention. With radio being as commercial as possible, iTunes is about my only source for new and fresh music.
  • Re:DRM is a hassle (Score:3, Informative)

    by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <deliverance@l[ ]l4.org ['eve' in gap]> on Saturday September 16, 2006 @11:57PM (#16123036) Journal
    You are missing the Super Tasty Stolen Candy Factor.

    DRMed files are larger or require decryption, that is bandwidth or processing power better used for more quality.
  • Cost vs Time (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 ) on Sunday September 17, 2006 @01:50AM (#16123396)
    Playing around with my new 80GB iPod, I've learned quite a bit about everything involved in producing efficient rips of data stored on protected media like DVDs. Depending on the intended use of the content in question, you may actually find it more efficient in terms of time vs cost to simply buy iTunes video content than to attempt a rip yourself.

    I've been sampling different methods of DVD ripping since yesterday and have discovered the most efficient way to rip a DVD while retaining overall data quality is to go through a series of three different applications... at least on the Macintosh side of things.

      - Mac The Ripper [mactheripper.org]

    It seems there is a huge issue with trying to rip directly from the optical drive that often results in several hours of time used to obtain potentially buggy and incomplete data from a DVD. By using this utility to copy the raw DVD data directly to your hard drive, you'll find your DVD ripper will function much faster and much more reliably in a single pass, than it would with ripping straight from the DVD media itself. A 90 minute movie can be copied in about 10 minutes, and then ripped in realtime... rather than taking upward of three hours to obtain the same results.

    - Handbrake [m0k.org]

    This utility converts raw DVD data to a Quicktime-compatible format of your choosing. To ensure easy compatibity with the iPod, try out the new Instant Handbrake software. Despite being a bit buggy and in the beta stages, the results it produces are impressive. When used with raw dvd content stored on a fast hard drive, you can achieve a complete conversion in realtime or faster.

    - iSquint [isquint.org]

    This utility simplifies the process of ensuring your ripped files are in a format that conforms to iPod-playable standards. Depending on the intended use (portable viewing or viewing on a TV screen) you can store a full 90 minute movie using H.264 encoding within 250-500MB of space with very little loss in visual quality. This may add about 2 hours to the ripping process, but is easily worth it for the assurance you've performed the process correctly on your first attempt.

    All three of the above utilities are freeware/open source and readily downloadable at any time.

    As for CDs though, the ripping process is so trivial, there's no point in not buying a CD of a band you like, when you might well end up spending just as much on the individual DRM-infected tracks.

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...