Itunes music store - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Itunes music store

Posted by n3lly on Jan-22-2010 12:54:

Itunes music store

So i've been downloading my tracks from beatport for quite some time now but i can't help but feel that i'm getting slightly ripped off. With some tracks anyway.

I've seen plenty of tracks on itunes but I'm not a fan on how they don't show you any details about the quality of the track.

After some reading it says that all tracks are available at 256VBR ACC format. I'm just curious as to whether this is the only format they are available. A lot of the tracks i've seen on beat port that are usually around the 1.35 mark are only 99c on itunes.

I think i remember seeing a website/program that can check all the major online retailers to find you the cheapest available price, anyone know of this?

Thanks,
steve

Posted by skip on Jan-22-2010 13:27:

All tracks on iTunes music store are 256 kbps AAC without any DRM and have been for almost a year already. Much better prices on iTunes than on other places (mostly).

Posted by n3lly on Jan-22-2010 13:40:

quote:
Originally posted by skip
All tracks on iTunes music store are 256 kbps AAC without any DRM and have been for almost a year already. Much better prices on iTunes than on other places (mostly).

I see, so unless I want Wav quality i'm fine downloading my tracks from them? Pity they don't provide the download in .mp3 format although in reality it doesn't really make too much of a difference i suppose.

Thanks for the reply.

Posted by keithos27 on Jan-22-2010 14:12:

steve,

correct... itunes has been "itunes plus" for almost a year which means 256 kbps aac drm-free. i don't know if these files are supported by programs like traktor, ableton, etc, however. i haven't looked into it.

beatport still has a far greater selection of edm however.

Posted by n3lly on Jan-22-2010 14:21:

quote:
Originally posted by keithos27
steve,

correct... itunes has been "itunes plus" for almost a year which means 256 kbps aac drm-free. i don't know if these files are supported by programs like traktor, ableton, etc, however. i haven't looked into it.

beatport still has a far greater selection of edm however.

Hi there,

Cool i read about itunes plus there last night. I just haven't ever used itunes to download my songs (always beatport) and i've been finding a lot of the songs i've been looking for on itunes recently so thought i'd ask.

I'm nearly 100% sure traktor support AAC so i could go down that route.

Cheers for the info lads.

Posted by epdarks on Jan-22-2010 16:15:

i found some decent stuff on amazon for .99c, fyi

Posted by Brandt Slater on Feb-05-2010 06:04:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by keithos27
steve,

correct... itunes has been "itunes plus" for almost a year which means 256 kbps aac drm-free. i don't know if these files are supported by programs like traktor, ableton, etc, however. i haven't looked into it.

itunes tracks seem to work fine on Torq.

Posted by Imagin on Feb-07-2010 08:50:

Serato takes to them fine and 256 aac is just as good as a 320mp3.

Posted by Cedric K. on Feb-18-2010 05:23:

Yea I buy my music from Itunes and really satisfied with the quality and the prices!
I really don't know a lot about those formats but everytime I download a track from their store, its in 258 AAC and after the track it says .m4a

I don't see any reason why to buy from Beatport or any others when I can convert those files to another format, when I buy it in AAC (ok maybe it loses a bit of quality)..

Posted by floyd741 on Feb-18-2010 17:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Imagin
256 aac is just as good as a 320mp3.

Can anyone verify this? I searched for something about this on google but I couldn't really find a definite answer.

Posted by Zak McKracken on Feb-18-2010 22:09:

its obviously not imo.

Posted by floyd741 on Feb-19-2010 14:12:

quote:
Originally posted by palm
its obviously not imo.

That's what I was thinking but from what I've found, aac is supposedly a better format. Unfortunately I can't really find a definite yes or no as to whether 256kbps aac > 320kbps mp3.

Posted by Brandt Slater on Feb-19-2010 20:13:

quote:
Originally posted by floyd741
That's what I was thinking but from what I've found, aac is supposedly a better format. Unfortunately I can't really find a definite yes or no as to whether 256kbps aac > 320kbps mp3.

I try to stay with aac. I've found that some of my stuff which is on mp3 format doesn't always play well with some cd players. Maybe on Serato and other software formats it maybe better.