So I know that Apple and some record companies changed their policy on DRM a few weeks back, but for Apple to finally release music in 256 - 320 Kbps sample rate is just plain smart.  I've purchased a few songs in the past and just got burned when my Windows machine died and I had to re-install the OS and found that I had lost all of the songs that I had purchased.  On top of this, these songs were only recorded in crappy 128Kbps sample rate.  I vowed to never buy songs again.  Well, FINALLY Apple and some record companies have finally "GOT IT".  I have to admit that I rarely buy songs and the reason were the things I mentioned, but with the removal of DRM AND the higher quality sample rate has convinced me to start purchasing music.  I figured that if you're going to spend money on music, it better damn well be the best quality possible.  When you buy a CD in the store, you don't get crappy sounding songs.  So why should you when you buy it in a digital format? Also, if you're going to play some good music, why play it on some crummy computer speakers when you can play it on some nice Aperion speakers?  Am I right?

 So what do you guys think?  Has this changed your thinking about purchasing online music?

 

I can't really offer too much of an opinion...I'm in the business, so I don't regularly pay for anything music-related. 

 

That said, it's really nice to see the changes.  While there were similar high-sample rate, DRM-free options, they were from other sites that were considerably less productive.  Apple, as the largest online music retailer, makes this a much bigger deal.  With the mass amount of people that purchase from Apple, it will definitely benefit those who love good SQ.

 

And yes, it would tempt me to purchase music more regularly...assuming it hasn't already shown up to my office weeks before it's released.  LOL

Well, that's pretty cool that you get this music before the rest of us.

Well, there is another beef I kinda have and maybe you can answer this.  I'm seeing more lately that there are less "hits" than before.  I mean songs that really sound great.  I remember growing up in the 80s, there were so many nice sounding songs that I was really picky.  I know you might say, well you're getting old and music is passing you by.  LOL.  Well, I still enjoy all types of music i.e. rap, hip hop, etc.  But I really think music such as rap, hip hop, crunk, whatever is sooo watered down with bad talent now that it makes me sick listening to some of these songs.  I want to scream at them telling them "YA I GET IT, YOU ARE RICH AND HAVE A TON OF BEAUTIFUL WOMEN AT YOUR MANSION WITH YOUR FERRARIS IN THE DRIVEWAY!!!".  It's getting old.  And I really hope that "Hip Hop IS dead". 

And another thing, are there less releases of songs nowadays?  It seemed like in the 80s and 90s, there was at least a few songs released a week that we would hear on the radio.  Now it seems that it's more spread out.

ANYWAYS, end of my rant.  LOL.  Just wondering if you have any insight into this?

Lots, actually.  But, I like to keep work at work.    And, what you're asking for is insight into what is essentially your opinion, and how that has changed.  Tough for me to say anything other than, "yes...things have changed."

But remember, it's our PERCEPTIONS that change as we get older.  For every person that shares your opinions on the state of music, currently, there are at least the same number who have opposite and widely varied differences of opinion.  And for every genre of music we think is ridiculous, so can be said for various types of music when we were growing up. 

 

 

 

As somebody who worked for record stores in a previous life I can tell you that there is more music than ever being released now and quite a bit of it is really good.  Although 2008 seemed to be a bit of an off year, but 2007 had a bunch of amazing releases.   What I think is different is the way music is distributed, these days with home studios consisting of only a couple of Macs and billions of tiny record labels, things are just more decentralized in the way music is released.  However in terms of radio, things have grown much more homogeneous with a couple of huge corporations like Clear Channel owning virtually all of the stations, so they all play the same stuff.  So we've got this situation where there's more music than ever but it's really difficult to find out about it or hear it through the traditional outlets like radio or the mainstream media.  Fortunately there are some great websites like http://www.pandora.com and http://www.last.fm where you can find out about all kinds of music based on your preferences for free. 

Of course if those sites don't do it for you, you can always get the definitive word on the best new music from me, here:

http://aperionaudio.typepad.com/the_sound_room/music_reviews/

---

Jason Hicks
Aperion Audio Guru

FM radio blows indeed. In addition to the ones mentioned by Jason, I like www.slacker.com.

I also enjoy my satellite radio to hear intersting stuff as well. I did prefer Sirius, but now since the merge, they are pretty much the same.

EDIT: How many posts does it take to get that final green tick under your name anyway?

---

Scottiemon

Jason Hicks:

Of course if those sites don't do it for you, you can always get the definitive word on the best new music from Davey Gravey!

http://aperionaudio.typepad.com/the_sound_room/2009/01/definitely-awesome-musicdefinitively.html

---

David Bolt
Aperion Audio Guru
www.aperionaudio.com

I was definitely glad to see that Apple is ditching DRM.  High quality is very important to me, but so is convenience.  I ripped all of my CDs in iTunes using the Apple Lossless format, and I use my 160 GB Classic as the primary music player in my system.  I do not own a single 128kbps song, and I would be willing to pay more in the iTunes store for a higher bit-rate recording.  If Apple offered the Lossless format in the iTunes store, I'd probably never set foot in a "real" record store again.

nbuchen:

I was definitely glad to see that Apple is ditching DRM.  High quality is very important to me, but so is convenience.  I ripped all of my CDs in iTunes using the Apple Lossless format, and I use my 160 GB Classic as the primary music player in my system.  I do not own a single 128kbps song, and I would be willing to pay more in the iTunes store for a higher bit-rate recording.  If Apple offered the Lossless format in the iTunes store, I'd probably never set foot in a "real" record store again.

While I totally agree about having lossless music, but I really don't think we should be paying for it.  A regular CD is now like $12 or something like that and there are about 15 songs on a CD.  That's less than $1 a song.  So I figure we're already paying a premium for it.

 

JonL:

While I totally agree about having lossless music, but I really don't think we should be paying for it.  A regular CD is now like $12 or something like that and there are about 15 songs on a CD.  That's less than $1 a song.  So I figure we're already paying a premium for it.

 

 

One could consider the convenience a premium, as well, if you think about it.  I can't count the amount of money I've spent on convenience (e.g. taking a cab home when it's bitter cold versus walking all the way to the train to save a couple bucks).

 

 

I agree with both of your points.  Yes, a full-priced CD will generally work out to less than a buck a track, but many CDs nowadays have intros and outros and demos and other crap that I don't consider real songs.  And that feeds into the paying for convenience argument- if I only like one or two songs on a whole CD, I'm willing to pay more on a per-song basis to get only those two songs in a high quality format.  On the other hand, if there's an album that I like all but one or two songs on, I'll just buy the CD and rip it to iTunes in lossless.  Paying more for the full CD is worth it to me rather than $9.99 on iTunes, just so I can have the whole thing in lossless (and, as a bonus, I can still play it on such old skool devices as a CD player).

nbuchen:

Paying more for the full CD is worth it to me rather than $9.99 on iTunes, just so I can have the whole thing in lossless (and, as a bonus, I can still play it on such old skool devices as a CD player).

What's a C.D. player?  

LOL... I agree with paying a premium for higher quality.  Isn't that what we did when we bought Aperion speakers?

Hey, has anybody heard of this?

http://www.wadia.com/products/transports/170i/

It's supposed to bypass the digital-to-analog converter in the iPod and send the digital signals directly to your receiver (which, presumably, has better DACs).  This is good to see, if only from the standpoint that not all manufacturers are viewing portable music players and sound quality as mutually exclusive.

nbuchen:

Hey, has anybody heard of this?

http://www.wadia.com/products/transports/170i/

It's supposed to bypass the digital-to-analog converter in the iPod and send the digital signals directly to your receiver (which, presumably, has better DACs).  This is good to see, if only from the standpoint that not all manufacturers are viewing portable music players and sound quality as mutually exclusive.

Never heard it in action, but I have heard of it and I'm sure it would improve the fidelity of ipod playback quite a bit as the ipod's internal DACs are not their strongest suit. 

---

Jason Hicks
Aperion Audio Guru

I would agree.  I would much rather trust the DACs on a high quality AVR than on a $100-200 music player.