[sigma8]

Wow. That's a lot of cash. I just tallied my iTunes purchases up as well. It comes out to $177.98, with my first couple purchases in 2003 right when the store debuted.
$18.95 in tv shows
$9.99 in triumph the insult comic dog
$0 in movies
$1.98 in music videos
$97.06 in music (with a minority of that in spoken word/audiobooks)
$50 in red cross donations
I'm happy to report my second largest category was charitable contributions (small though it is)...

[hillstones]

[quote name='MacPCJustCreate']
>

Chris Breen said:

> I think you may have to make a convincing argument that in a blind listening test you can tell the difference. Some have tried, few have succeeded.

Conducting Blind Listening tests, while interesting and informative DOES NOT MATTER. I AM THE CUSTOMER and I want 16-bit or 24-bit/44.1 kHz minimum audio files for download without DRM losslessly compressed or linear for my digital downloads. That's what I want and I will buy on CD until it is offered!!!

I could not tell the difference between the actual CD, Apple Lossless, and AAC 256, except for the fact that AIFF and Apple Lossless wasted disk space. So why should Apple waste server space and bandwidth when it is unlikely you can tell the difference. Since CD's still exist in stores, Apple doesn't need to provide uncompressed audio formats online. MP3's at 128 can sound pretty harsh, but that format compression is long dead, except for music found on illegal sharing sites and Windows users still using WinAmp to encode their music.

Sounds like you would prefer CD's over any other format. Back in the 80's, people were content recording their CD's to Cassettes for listening in the car for convenience, well aware that the cassette did not provide the quality of the CD. It is no different today. People are content compressing their music to an iPod for convenience. They are willing to sacrifice a little quality to take their collection with them. The difference today is that compressed music (now at a high rate of AAC 256) provides near-CD quality, whereas a cassette was nowhere near the same quality as the original.

[hillstones]

In 5 years, my iTunes Store History:

428 total items

25 Music Videos ($49.75)
6 Free TV Shows
1 Free Movie (Family Guy Blue Harvest, through DVD Purchase)
396 Purchased Music (70 of them updated to iTunes Plus) ($392.04 + $20.30 iTunes Plus = 412.34)

Total $462.09

The majority of my music still comes from CD, and now encoded at AAC 256.

[hillstones]

bdegrande said:

$19.99 total for the iPod Touch software upgrade. I will buy future sofrware and upgrades for the tTouch, but I buy my music from AmazonMP3 - I prefer the more common MP3 format, better bit rates, no DRM, and cheaper (or free if I drink enough Diet Pepsi).

Amazon's MP3 at 256 is lower quality than AAC at 256. MP3 has always been lower quality than AAC, which is really an MPEG-4 format. You might think it is a higher bit rate, but you can't compare an MPEG-3 audio file to an MPEG-4 audio file.

[hillstones]

[quote name='mdawson']
Why do people keep replying to the lead post instead of to the post to which they are actually responding?

>

>
> OK, I'm leaving out cassettes but the less said about them, the better.

Actually, cassettes were not that bad if they were done right. Once I became aware of the differences between cassette types and noise reduction I only purchased high-bias Type IV (metal) cassettes and used Dolby C, later Dolby S, noise reduction for recording music from my vinyl collection for my regular music listening. For copies of mix tapes that went to friends, I used high-quality Type II (chrome) cassettes.

I even had a high-end, single well, 3-motor Sony cassette deck that was purchased specifically for the purpose of producing quality recordings. When that deck was replaced with a newer model that supported Dolby S, my recordings were difficult to distinguish from CDs when played on quality cassette decks such as my dual-deck Sony that was purchased specifically for playback purposes. Even the audiophiles at Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision) found that even the most astute and critical listeners were hard-pressed to discern CD audio from Type IV cassettes using Dolby S NR.

Of course cassettes lack random access capabilities or longevity and my decks have seen little action in the past 10+ years. I have not even unpacked them since I moved two years ago.

The problem with Dolby S noise reduction is that it never went beyond a Home Deck. Even Dolby C rarely went beyond a Home Deck. Most people recorded cassettes for use in the car, and unfortunately, the majority of tape decks in the car only featured Dolby B. So it was pointless to record a Dolby S tape when the playback device (the car deck) only decoded Dolby B. But shortly after, CD's in the car wiped out the tape deck.

[hillstones]

MacPCJustCreate said:

But look at it this way video downloads take up more space than audio, so Apple is already meeting the storage and bandwidth requirements supporting fairly large downloads.

Don't compare the video with the audio. The video quality offered by Apple is pure garbage. In the world of HD, most are not satisfied with the VHS-Quality video content from the iTunes Store. None of the TV shows are offered in HD, and most are still in 4:3 aspect. They might claim DVD quality, but they are not. I would much rather watch TV shows in true HD quality, then to buy VHS quality from iTunes. Apple won't provide full HD quality video because the file size and bandwidth requirement would be through the roof. Currently, the AppleTV device doesn't support full HD video, it is limited to 720p.

So Apple is not meeting the storage and bandwidth needed for quality HD video.

[jonahu]

Strictly regarding music, I've been a subscriber of Rhapsody for the last 5 years. I have spent approximately $780 dollars during that period of time for the membership fee ($13/month). From the start I have had full access to millions of tracks which allowed me to discover many new artists and styles that I have since enjoyed and otherwise would never have purchased. I have always wondered what the "cost" of music amounted to over the long haul related to the average person's buying pattern. Do you expect that you will continue to buy music at the rate you have been over the past 5 years? I am first and foremost a fan of music - which is what attracted me so much to the subscription model. The "all you can eat" approach at a cost effective price point was too good to pass up. I wonder if there has been a study done already on the average amount a person spends annually on itunes and other ala cart purchases for music. Great article!

[jonahu]

Strictly regarding music, I've been a subscriber of Rhapsody for the last 5 years. I have spent approximately $780 dollars during that period of time for the membership fee ($13/month). From the start I have had full access to millions of tracks which allowed me to discover many new artists and styles that I have since enjoyed and otherwise would never have purchased. I have always wondered what the "cost" of music amounted to over the long haul related to the average person's buying pattern. Do you expect that you will continue to buy music at the rate you have been over the past 5 years? I am first and foremost a fan of music - which is what attracted me so much to the subscription model. The "all you can eat" approach at a cost effective price point was too good to pass up. I wonder if there has been a study done already on the average amount a person spends annually on itunes and other ala cart purchases for music. Great article!

[smax013]

jonahu said:

Strictly regarding music, I've been a subscriber of Rhapsody for the last 5 years. I have spent approximately $780 dollars during that period of time for the membership fee ($13/month). From the start I have had full access to millions of tracks which allowed me to discover many new artists and styles that I have since enjoyed and otherwise would never have purchased.

The problem is the moment that you DON'T pay that $13 a month, you have nothing, other than fond memories of songs that you once listened to, to show for that $780 (and growing). I agree the greater access to more songs is nice, but it is an on/off switch. You either get access to all those songs (as long as you keep paying) or you get access to NONE of those songs (the moment you stop paying). For the $780, you could have bought 787 songs from iTunes that you would still have to listen to even if you never spent another dime. Might not be as broad a selection as the full access to Rhapsody, but if your circumstances changes and you could no longer afford the $13 a month for music, then you would still have some music to show for it.



In the end, different people like it different ways. Personally, while there is some appeal to the access to lots a variety that a subscription service like Rhapsody might offer, I find more appeal in knowing that I don't have to keep paying to keep listening. You might think differently.

[jonahu]

smax013 said:

The problem is the moment that you DON'T pay that $13 a month, you have nothing, other than fond memories of songs that you once listened to, to show for that $780 (and growing). I agree the greater access to more songs is nice, but it is an on/off switch. You either get access to all those songs (as long as you keep paying) or you get access to NONE of those songs (the moment you stop paying). For the $780, you could have bought 787 songs from iTunes that you would still have to listen to even if you never spent another dime. Might not be as broad a selection as the full access to Rhapsody, but if your circumstances changes and you could no longer afford the $13 a month for music, then you would still have some music to show for it.





In the end, different people like it different ways. Personally, while there is some appeal to the access to lots a variety that a subscription service like Rhapsody might offer, I find more appeal in knowing that I don't have to keep paying to keep listening. You might think differently.

I agree it comes down to people's listening patterns. Some people can listen to the same set of music over and over again while others prefer variety and enjoy discovering new music. If you are the former then you could go months even years without wanting to buy new music. If you are the latter you will probably find yourself spending a good amount of money regularly buying music ala carte or paying for a music subscription - in which case for me the subscription option is more cost effective considering how much new music I throw at my portable player on a monthly basis - easily over 20 new tracks a month. The on / off switch can also be a plus depending on how you look at it - if I cancel my subscription for what ever reason I can re-activate it and instantly have access to the entire catalog again. No need for backing up my collection - it's all there! :)
I was curious to find out what the average person spent regularly on ala carte music i.e. iTunes, Amazon, Walmart etc... One of the few questions I was able to stump Google with! :)