10,000 Days in iTunes® Plus 256kps???

[Ole]

I downloaded the album from iTunes a few days ago. This was the very first album I purchased and downloaded through iTunes. Right now I am just getting acquainted with the basics of iTunes. I was just now checking my download settings, I discovered that my downloading preset was set at 128kps for AAC files and not at the highest possible 256kps. Now I am wondering if the album is available in AAC 256kps format also? If so, when I paid for the album and downloaded it in 128kps, can I download it again in 256kps without paying for it again? How/where can I check this?!

Insights, anyone?

Thanks...!

Ole

[Ole]

OK, I did some needed research on iTunes and wrote InsideOut for more info. Here is the exchange so far:

Hello Dirk,

Thanks for the reply. Oh, I see. I wonder, why wasnt the iTunes Plus (256kps AAC) version of 10,000 Days made available from the beginning, being a brand new release? Was this a copyright related consideration since there is no DRM on iTunes Plus releases? When do you think it will become available? According to iTunes, songs/albums purchased and downloaded in iTune (128kps AAC format) when available in Itunes Plus will be offered as a free upgrade. This information is found in their player help section, altthough there are some conflicting information found at their current FAQ at http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305567

Thanks,

Ole Alstrup


On 10/29/07, Dirk Jacob wrote:
Hello Ole,

thank you for your request about buying Saga on Itunes.

The Saga album is not available in 256kps from Itunes by now. But this will change soon. The album will be available in some time also at 256kps. If it is possible then to download it for free again for all the buyers of the 128kps version, that I cannot say at the moment.

Greetings

Dirk Jacob

marketing / international licensing / e-business

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ole Alstrup
Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007
An: InsideOut Music GmbH
Betreff: Saga 10,000 Days album on iTunes

Album on iTunes in 256kps???
I am a SAGA fan and downloaded the new album 10,000 Days from iTunes a few days ago. This was the very first album I ever purchased and downloaded through iTunes. Right now I am just getting acquainted with the basics of iTunes. I was just now checking my download settings, and I discovered that my downloading preset was at 128kps for AAC files and not at the highest possible 256kps. Now I am wondering if the album is available in AAC 256kps format also? If so, when I paid for the album and downloaded it in 128kps, can I download it again in 256kps without paying for it again?

Thanks...

Ole

[Ole]

Further information from InsideOut


On 10/29/07, Dirk Jacob wrote:

> Hi Ole,

> we are fixing the contract soon with Itunes for the 256kps. After that the Albums will be uploaded in the better format. I believe that the Sage will be among the first ones. But sorry, I cannot tell you how long it exact will take. I also have no information about the Itunes upgrade service, but in fact that would make sense to me.

> Greetings

> Dirk Jacob
>
> marketing / international licensing
>
> / e-business

[sagalady]

I've got the 128 version from itunes. I'll get the hard copy eventually and will rip it to near loss less format anyway (if I can be bothered). I want the hardcopy and booklet regardless.

I'd like it on vinyl too. I'd like to have the entire collection on vinyl, alas, that is not possible. I have what is available.

Cheers
Sagalady - a closet Saga collector

[Ole]

I agree! For me it was a question of immediate availability to download the iTunes version, couldnt wait before I receive the CD in the mail.
As for vinyl, I would not be interested, as the latest album is recorded in digital format, I believe all the Saga albums since In Transit was digitally recorded, what would be the point of that? The old albums which are recorded and transferred in analog are priceless. I think the CD versions are okay, but imo entirely unable to recreate the organic quality of the analog recordings. I bought the catalog of the SPV CD remasters, but have not been able to make A/B comparisons with the original CD releases. I did have some brief correspondance with Steve Negus last year (thanks Steve!) about the technical aspects of the remasters that he did. I would love to see a hi-res digital format release directly from the analog masters of the old albums. (Do these even exist today, what condition are they in and who has them?) But if I had a quality choice today, I would choose an analog format any day over digital.

[Ax Slinger]

Basically stated, an .MP3 is somewhat like a .ZIP file, but in a playable audio format. So get yourself a copy of something like CDex (I recommend the ZIP Archive version, as there really isn't any need for an installer) or something similar and extract the 128 Bit .MP3 files to .WAV files, then you can remake them in any Bit Rate up to the "Near CD Quality" of 320 Bit. And provided they are recorded in the 44Khz Sample Rate (as opposed to a 22Khz, which makes a HUGE difference in sound quality) they should "in theory" sound better.

The reason for this is that just like .ZIP files, .MP3 files are basically just compressed archive files. The key difference is that .MP3's can be played while still in the compressed form, where as a .ZIP file has to be unzipped before you can use the files stored in it. And also just like .ZIP files, there are different levels of compression which can make different archives of the same thing be different sizes. A 128 Bit \ 44Khz .MP3 will have a ratio of approximately 1 megabyte per 1 minute of audio, depending on the amount of sound in the recording. A 256 Bit \ 44Khz .MP3 will have a ratio of approximately 2 megabytes per 1 minute of audio. In other words, as the Bit Rate goes up, so does the overall file size.

But personally I can't tell the difference in the different Bit Rates until you go below 96 Bit \ 44Khz. Maybe it's because I've played guitar for over 40 years now and my hearing is about shot, but I don't notice anything outstanding to make me choose a higher Bit Rate, so I always make my .MP3 files in 128 Bit \ 44Khz.

As far as I am concerned, changing the Bit Rate is useful when you are recording Audio Books. Because when you are recording the human voice by itself, with no music or anything like that, you can lower the sound quality and it really isn't all that noticeable. For that purpose, 64 Bit \ 22Khz will sound ok to most people, and you can save a lot of space that way. But for music, I think that sounds awful...

Hope this helps ya...

[Lars Bro]

Hey Ax Slinger, you may be right about the mp3 compression issue, but it isn't quite the way I heard it. Again it's something I've been told, so I am not 100% sure that it's correct, but anyways here goes:

Mp3 is a way of compression that alters/changes the digital information (and thus the music). it CANNOT be reversed to full quality (eg. .mp3 to .vaw) once it's been compressed (at least not by any software I know of). I've tried this kind of thing on my reference gear in my studio - take a song, compress it to 128kb mp3 and then inflate it to .vaw or .aiff again - and I believe I CAN hear a difference in both instances. There is a pronounced lack of detail in the stuff that's been taken down and then up again in sample- and bitrates.

I may be hearing 'ghosts' and it may be that' I've been told something which isn't true, but those were my to cents...


LB

[Ax Slinger]

You may be right. I can't say for sure. But as I said before, I personally can't tell the difference, if there is one. In addition to my partial (electric guitar inflicted) deafness, that could also be due to my lack of an outstanding system to play music on though. Because I primarily listen to music on my computer through a pretty good set of Altec Lansing speakers, but that is not exactly what I would call a good stereo by any means.

As I understand it, digital audio compression is done in a very similar fashion to zip files. For example, when a zip file is created, the compression program takes similar things such as frequently used words or letters, or sequences of numbers, and replaces them with with symbols of some kind. MP3 files are like all computer files. They are just information written in a numerical language that the computer understands. It's a series of ones and zeros to represent on and off states. So it makes sense to me that if you do the same thing as a zip file and replace certain numerical phrases with symbols, which are later recreated when the file is decompressed, you don't actually lose much of anything "digitally".

I'm sure someone with a far more advanced understanding of all this might be able to explain it better, and probably more accurately, but I think I am pretty much right about this. That doesn't mean I am... But to me that makes perfect sense. I have friends who swear they can hear the difference between a 128 \ 44 MP3 and a 256 \ 44 MP3. But I sure can't. I think in the end it all comes down to your personal preference. Since I can't tell the difference myself, and I like to preserve my original CD's whenever possible, I always rip my CD's to 128 \ 44 MP3 files and play them on my computer while I do my daily thing... But your ears might like something else.

[Lars Bro]

Yo Ax!

I know that special feeling to your ears - was a drummer for a few years (waaaay back), and sitting with your left ear glued to the hihat, and the overall rock'n'roll sound-level in general, certainly doesn't improve ones hearing at this stage

As for mp3, I found these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 and http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression.ars to give a lot of insight. Wonder why they call it loss-less format ????


LB

[sagalady]

It's actually AAC or .m4a format on the download and not mp3.

Just so you know

Sagalady

[Ax Slinger]

I know that special feeling to your ears - was a drummer for a few years (waaaay back), and sitting with your left ear glued to the hihat, and the overall rock'n'roll sound-level in general, certainly doesn't improve ones hearing at this stage

Yep. I can relate to that as well. And by the time I heard of ear plugs it was too late to even bother with them. My hearing was already shot.

My wife says that I say "What did you say?" more often than anything else.